27 June 2005
10:35 p.m., Monday (PDT):
Well, I'm here a little earlier than I have been customarily on this blog. I won't bore anyone with the details of what kind of struggles I have had, especially today, but trust me, I have been very disappointed, both personally, for my country and my profession. Not that I am surprised, mind you. The last 20+ years of my life, ever since Gail and I have been together, have seen this kind of thing. Not a problem of Gail, but when I married her I inherited something that just seems to follow her, something she never asked for nor caused by her actions. I guess that it just reminds me of the biblical character of Job. He was the ultimate person who had an endless string of trouble, none of which was caused by any problem or moral flaw in his character. Yet everybody else just assumed that it was his fault, and proceeded to tell him so, in the cruelest way. I am reminded of the line in the book of Proverbs, "Each heart knows its own bitterness, and no one can share its joy." Gail, my love is always with you, you are not going to be alone---never, as surely as the Lord lives.
I hated what I saw today from the U.S. Supreme Court. It isn't just because of the decisions they made today, but why. More and more I see the cynical nature of what people will do to retain their power. Today they made four major decisions, three of them bad, and the one good decision came from bad reasoning, which made that decision as flaky as they come. The first decision was holding that large cable companies can basically corner the broadband market, and cut out any Internet providers (like Earthlink) who may provide less expensive broadband coverage from using their physical networks, upon which all other providers would depend. That decision will allow the telephone networks to persuade the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to change their rules to do the same with phone lines, which may very well kill a lot of the companies seeking to make wireless communications more available to more people and create more choices. (Two cases together titled: National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 04-277 and FCC v. Brand X Internet Services, 04-281). Another reason to conclude that the legal profession is in love with the large corporations that support the politicians that appoint these judges.
The second decision is that of MGM v. Grokster, which, reversing the decision of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, declares that the file sharing networks Morpheus and Grokster can be held responsible for the free downloading practices of their users, regardless of whether they are directly aware of the individual actions of these users, whether legal or illegal. The effect of it enables the motion picture and music industries to control how people get access to information over the Internet, especially in the area of peer-to-peer file sharing. It is one thing to steal simply you want to get something for nothing. It is another to get it because a few extremely rich and very greedy individuals want to price their products grossly out of proportion of what their cost of production and what healthy profitmaking would allow, and control who gets to be a creative artist. The Supreme Court today basically sided with those who want to use their ownership interests through copyright to swindle people out of their money or block them from artistic works they should be able to afford. But the movie makers and music producers haven't counted on one thing: when people, especially young people, are convinced that they are being ripped off, they will find a way to get around it, one way or the other. They will insist that the entertainment industry find a new means to make music and movies available for a price that truly reflects demand. Dolphins can kill a great white shark, if they sufficiently outnumber it. They better be careful, theft is wrong, and so is greed.
The third and fourth cases had to do with posted monuments and displays of the Ten Commandments on public property or courthouses. One case out of Texas, another out of Kentucky. The Court had 4 justices who believed that the separation of church and state means that government should act as if faith doesn't even exist, and that faith and morality have nothing to do with law, or the rules by which human beings relate to each other---in complete ignorance of 400 years of American history (see Justice Stevens' dissent in the Texas case and Justice Souter in the Kentucky case). Four other justices, who obviously understood history and common sense, held that the separation of church and state meant only that government could not establish an official religious organization, and that only---and that law and liberty is not possible without some sense of shared values--impossible without faith in a Supreme Being as a people in general. (And that includes the allowance of people to choose no religion at all) (See Justice Scalia's opinion in the Kentucky case) . Meaning that posted monuments and displays of the Ten Commandments, alongside other plaques or tableau of other lawgivers and historical memorials, are appropriate to remind young and old that there is no freedom without the law, and that law is not subject to the whims of the moment, but related to the collective wisdom and traditions of man's progress through the years...under God. That God is not merely irrelevant, but as an earlier Supreme Court justice once said, "America is a religious nation whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." (see Scalia's opinion, page 5, quoting the 1952 case of Zorach v. Clausen).
One justice--Stephen Breyer, decided that he would play God. And he decided that a monument in Texas, at the state capitol grounds in Austin, could stay. And the plaques outside courtrooms in two Kentucky county courthouses had to go. His reason? Under the facts, one was around a long time, erected 44 years ago, and was old, and only one guy objected, and there were other monuments around. The others in Kentucky were set up only six years ago, and was alone when they were first displayed, even though other historical plaques showing the Ten Commandments' secular benefit as the foundation of Western law were put up afterward to comply with existing legal interpretation in their area. One was old and the other new, that was the difference. And because he was the deciding vote, his interpretation is what the state of law on religious monuments currently is in the United States of America.
What makes the ruling more cynical is that Breyer and the more liberal members of the Court deliberately said that they were not making a pronouncement of a single legal principle that could settle the issue, and make it easier for legislatures and federal, state, and local governments to decide what to do. Oh, no, couldn't do that. They announced that they would decide all such religious speech cases on a case-by-case basis, with no consistent principle at all (Especially see both the footnote on page 11 of Souter's Kentucky opinion and Breyer's Texas concurring opinion, page 4. In other words, they wanted to keep the power in their own hands, a complete violation of the democratic principle that laws are to be made by democratically-elected legislatures, ratified by executives, not by courts and judges (as pointed out by both Scalia and Thomas). The two cases are titled: McCreary County v. ACLU (545 U.S. ___ (2005), No. 03-1693) (Kentucky), and Van Orden v. Perry (545 U.S ___ (2005), No. 03-1500 (Texas).
That's what really pisses me off about the whole legal profession, of whom I am a member. It is all about power. So of course they don't want to honor God, it would make them get off the throne of their own lives, and that of an entire nation. Once the law meant something special to me, and to most people. Something majestic, the upholding of what is good, defending the weak, ensuring that men can do business with each other and know what defines integrity, fairness, makes the building of one's life and dreams possible. That is gone now, except in the hearts of those who refuse to cave into despair and cynicism.
So, in the spirit of this day, I'll repeat the words that make people free, if they would only open the eyes of their souls and see:
I am the LORD your GOD. You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall make for yourself no idol to worship.
You shall not degrade the Name of the Lord your God.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not give false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor's house, or your neighbor's wife, or anything else that belongs to your neighbor.
Yes, I know. A big rant. I respect you if you disagree with this, in whole or part. But it is me, and I would sooner cut off my arms and legs than turn away from this truth. I can never keep them, but I love His law, because I love Him--God. He--Jesus, died for my sins, came to life again to ensure life for every man, lives in my heart, forgives all my sins, helps me to face and deal with them as a responsible man should, and one day I will be with Him in His home--forever.
Well, on to less controversial subjects tomorrow. Adios, and God bless.
Well, I'm here a little earlier than I have been customarily on this blog. I won't bore anyone with the details of what kind of struggles I have had, especially today, but trust me, I have been very disappointed, both personally, for my country and my profession. Not that I am surprised, mind you. The last 20+ years of my life, ever since Gail and I have been together, have seen this kind of thing. Not a problem of Gail, but when I married her I inherited something that just seems to follow her, something she never asked for nor caused by her actions. I guess that it just reminds me of the biblical character of Job. He was the ultimate person who had an endless string of trouble, none of which was caused by any problem or moral flaw in his character. Yet everybody else just assumed that it was his fault, and proceeded to tell him so, in the cruelest way. I am reminded of the line in the book of Proverbs, "Each heart knows its own bitterness, and no one can share its joy." Gail, my love is always with you, you are not going to be alone---never, as surely as the Lord lives.
I hated what I saw today from the U.S. Supreme Court. It isn't just because of the decisions they made today, but why. More and more I see the cynical nature of what people will do to retain their power. Today they made four major decisions, three of them bad, and the one good decision came from bad reasoning, which made that decision as flaky as they come. The first decision was holding that large cable companies can basically corner the broadband market, and cut out any Internet providers (like Earthlink) who may provide less expensive broadband coverage from using their physical networks, upon which all other providers would depend. That decision will allow the telephone networks to persuade the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to change their rules to do the same with phone lines, which may very well kill a lot of the companies seeking to make wireless communications more available to more people and create more choices. (Two cases together titled: National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 04-277 and FCC v. Brand X Internet Services, 04-281). Another reason to conclude that the legal profession is in love with the large corporations that support the politicians that appoint these judges.
The second decision is that of MGM v. Grokster, which, reversing the decision of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, declares that the file sharing networks Morpheus and Grokster can be held responsible for the free downloading practices of their users, regardless of whether they are directly aware of the individual actions of these users, whether legal or illegal. The effect of it enables the motion picture and music industries to control how people get access to information over the Internet, especially in the area of peer-to-peer file sharing. It is one thing to steal simply you want to get something for nothing. It is another to get it because a few extremely rich and very greedy individuals want to price their products grossly out of proportion of what their cost of production and what healthy profitmaking would allow, and control who gets to be a creative artist. The Supreme Court today basically sided with those who want to use their ownership interests through copyright to swindle people out of their money or block them from artistic works they should be able to afford. But the movie makers and music producers haven't counted on one thing: when people, especially young people, are convinced that they are being ripped off, they will find a way to get around it, one way or the other. They will insist that the entertainment industry find a new means to make music and movies available for a price that truly reflects demand. Dolphins can kill a great white shark, if they sufficiently outnumber it. They better be careful, theft is wrong, and so is greed.
The third and fourth cases had to do with posted monuments and displays of the Ten Commandments on public property or courthouses. One case out of Texas, another out of Kentucky. The Court had 4 justices who believed that the separation of church and state means that government should act as if faith doesn't even exist, and that faith and morality have nothing to do with law, or the rules by which human beings relate to each other---in complete ignorance of 400 years of American history (see Justice Stevens' dissent in the Texas case and Justice Souter in the Kentucky case). Four other justices, who obviously understood history and common sense, held that the separation of church and state meant only that government could not establish an official religious organization, and that only---and that law and liberty is not possible without some sense of shared values--impossible without faith in a Supreme Being as a people in general. (And that includes the allowance of people to choose no religion at all) (See Justice Scalia's opinion in the Kentucky case) . Meaning that posted monuments and displays of the Ten Commandments, alongside other plaques or tableau of other lawgivers and historical memorials, are appropriate to remind young and old that there is no freedom without the law, and that law is not subject to the whims of the moment, but related to the collective wisdom and traditions of man's progress through the years...under God. That God is not merely irrelevant, but as an earlier Supreme Court justice once said, "America is a religious nation whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." (see Scalia's opinion, page 5, quoting the 1952 case of Zorach v. Clausen).
One justice--Stephen Breyer, decided that he would play God. And he decided that a monument in Texas, at the state capitol grounds in Austin, could stay. And the plaques outside courtrooms in two Kentucky county courthouses had to go. His reason? Under the facts, one was around a long time, erected 44 years ago, and was old, and only one guy objected, and there were other monuments around. The others in Kentucky were set up only six years ago, and was alone when they were first displayed, even though other historical plaques showing the Ten Commandments' secular benefit as the foundation of Western law were put up afterward to comply with existing legal interpretation in their area. One was old and the other new, that was the difference. And because he was the deciding vote, his interpretation is what the state of law on religious monuments currently is in the United States of America.
What makes the ruling more cynical is that Breyer and the more liberal members of the Court deliberately said that they were not making a pronouncement of a single legal principle that could settle the issue, and make it easier for legislatures and federal, state, and local governments to decide what to do. Oh, no, couldn't do that. They announced that they would decide all such religious speech cases on a case-by-case basis, with no consistent principle at all (Especially see both the footnote on page 11 of Souter's Kentucky opinion and Breyer's Texas concurring opinion, page 4. In other words, they wanted to keep the power in their own hands, a complete violation of the democratic principle that laws are to be made by democratically-elected legislatures, ratified by executives, not by courts and judges (as pointed out by both Scalia and Thomas). The two cases are titled: McCreary County v. ACLU (545 U.S. ___ (2005), No. 03-1693) (Kentucky), and Van Orden v. Perry (545 U.S ___ (2005), No. 03-1500 (Texas).
That's what really pisses me off about the whole legal profession, of whom I am a member. It is all about power. So of course they don't want to honor God, it would make them get off the throne of their own lives, and that of an entire nation. Once the law meant something special to me, and to most people. Something majestic, the upholding of what is good, defending the weak, ensuring that men can do business with each other and know what defines integrity, fairness, makes the building of one's life and dreams possible. That is gone now, except in the hearts of those who refuse to cave into despair and cynicism.
So, in the spirit of this day, I'll repeat the words that make people free, if they would only open the eyes of their souls and see:
I am the LORD your GOD. You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall make for yourself no idol to worship.
You shall not degrade the Name of the Lord your God.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not give false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor's house, or your neighbor's wife, or anything else that belongs to your neighbor.
Yes, I know. A big rant. I respect you if you disagree with this, in whole or part. But it is me, and I would sooner cut off my arms and legs than turn away from this truth. I can never keep them, but I love His law, because I love Him--God. He--Jesus, died for my sins, came to life again to ensure life for every man, lives in my heart, forgives all my sins, helps me to face and deal with them as a responsible man should, and one day I will be with Him in His home--forever.
Well, on to less controversial subjects tomorrow. Adios, and God bless.
