And Justice For All

So how would this have worked when I was in high school?

*******************************************************

I arrive at my desk, 30 seconds before the bell rings.

Class starts. Teacher instructs the class to clear off the desks and take out a sheet of paper and a pencil. Time for a quiz.

The quiz includes 10 short answer questions.

Time's up. Students exchange papers for grading.

Teacher enumerates the answers, instructs students to record total right answers at the top of the page and hand it back to the owner.

Each student glances at his or her score.

The teacher asks, "how many white students got at least 7 right? How many black students got at least 7 right, how many Asian students got at least seven right?"

"Wait! Wait! Wait!!!!" the teacher exclaims. "Not enough Asians passed the test. This test doesn't count. We'll take another quiz tomorrow..."

*******************************************************

Sounds crazy doesn't it. Luckily, by only a 5 to 4 margin, the Supreme Court today said that it was insane as well when it decided that "white" firefighters were the target of discrimination after their city disregarded test results because too few "minorities" did well on the test, a test which could have resulted in a promotion (see "Connecticut Firefighters 'Vindicated' by Supreme Court Ruling" - Fox News).

The troubling part is that four Justices dissented implying that a test is only valid if "minorities" do well.

"Lady Justice" often appears with a blindfold to symbolize the equal and unbiased distribution of fairness and equality. To reference skin color of test participants recklessly abandons any reasonable perception of fairness.

Ironically, it is in the name of fairness that such discrimination is often perpetrated. In the end, the very people for whom these decisions are intended to help are truly insulted. Today, the four dissenting Justices suggested that the "minorities" are not "good enough" to pass the test on their own, that they need a little extra help.

********

As many in the press are reporting, this case is a "political football" for the most recent Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, who supported the lower court's decision to rule in favor of the city of New Haven, CT. She has a judicial history of incorporating the "two-wrongs-make-a-right" philosophy in her court decisions. Race has all too frequently been an ingredient in her rulings.

The Founding Fathers assigned the Supreme Court the responsibility of interpreting the law, especially the Constitution. They are not to make the law, not to implement policy, only to interpret the law. Sotomayor has a political chip on her shoulder. A little research reveals that the glasses through which she views the world are not color blind (see "Videos Shed New Light on Sotomayor’s Positions" - The New York Times).

What's my point? It is a plea, and that plea is this: please make informed votes. Those who make the decisions on Sotomayor are already in place (i.e., the President and the Senate). For all those "Einsteins" out there that said that the president has little effect on court decisions (i.e., Roe v Wade), please start turning off MTV for a few minutes and tune into the daily news.

An Announcement: Part I

“Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.”
- Edmund Burke

I'm going to make a bold and risky prediction. I'll be labeled a conspiracy theorist, a paranoid schizophrenic. I hope I'm wrong. It is with great sadness that I have to make such an assessment. However, as Joe H. says, "never be afraid to speak the truth."

Drum roll please....

...um, wait...I must write some background.

Recently, I made the wife start reading the book Nineteen Eighty Four by George Orwell. I actually didn't make her, but I wanted to imagine the convulsions now happening in some readers.

The truth is, is that I strongly recommended the book in response to many of our conversations recently. Having intentionally married a "life-partner" (a PC bone for those liberal readers) who not only has a brain but chooses to use it to engage the world around her, we have discussions about politics and the world in general. Over and over, recently, she keeps asking things like, "Are people stupid? Are they blind? Do they not see what is happening?", etc., etc. I used to ask the same questions, that is until I recently read Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four.

I had the same types of revelations when reading C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters. It explained the inexplicable. I asked questions like, "why do people do such bad things? Why have I done such bad things?" The Screwtape Letters (in conjunction with Perretti's This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness) answered my questions. These books explained why and how illogical things happen.

Okay, now the drum roll...

...RIM SHOT!!!!

**********************************************
Barack H. Obama is the 44th President of the United States. There will not be a 45th President of the United States for a long time.
**********************************************

...now we'll pause for that to be fully absorbed.

Let me put it another way, he's not going anywhere.

We, the current citizens, take for granted that we have had peaceable transitions of power every four, eight, and (in one case) twelve years. Most do not know what a modern marvel this has been. George Washington, whom many historians have suggested was so popular at the end of his second term that he could have snatched absolute power from the very beginning, set the precedence of limited power when he retired to his home in Mount Vernon. Since then, this seamless transfer of leadership from one President to the next has become a background miracle for over 230 years.

This will change. President Obama shows all the historical signs of a leader who intends to assume life-long power. Americans show all the signs of a people who are ready for a king (see "A Bible Story").

I have now "pinged" the nation in this humble blog. This is for what I now listen: the first politician, media personality, etc. to say something like, "You know, extreme problems require extreme measures. President Obama inherited some of the most prolific issues in this country's history. It will take more than eight years to fix them. We need to readdress the concept of term limits."

I liken this to another realization that many of us, who do have our ears to the ground, have made. Obama has a religious, cult-like following in this country. People almost seem to worship him. I couldn't believe that it was actually a possibility in the U.S. (history shows numerous examples of people regarding their leader as god-like), but I wondered how long it would be until someone actually dropped the "g-word".

It happened on Friday, June 5, 2009 when Evan Thomas of Newsweek (a mainstream media outlet) said "...in a way, Obama's standing above the country, above - above the world, he's sort of God."1. Kablow!!! There it was. Just came right out and said it. Note to self: make pilgrimage to Washington, DC.

Now, I may have to wait at least another five years to be proven wrong. The Republican Party has neutered itself. Obama and the Democrats have been giving the GOP a perpetual bitch-slap since McCain claimed the party's nomination in 2008. President Obama, the master manipulator, will see no need to take unprecedented action until his second term, when other democrats want his seat of power.

In "Part II" of this entry, I will explain specifically why I am predicting that Obama is not planning on leaving the White House.


Notes
1 "Newsweek's Evan Thomas: Obama Is 'Sort of God'" - NewsBusters 06/05/2009

1st Amendment

Freedom of speech. It's a simple concept, yet as a democratic republic (at least for now), we have so much difficulty with it. To many today, especially the generations who are so far removed from any tyrannical experiences, freedom of speech means, "the right to say whatever one wants until I don't like it."

On the most recent docket is David Letterman. His recent very offensive, distasteful, and classless remarks about Sara Palin, and especially her daughter, has outraged individuals from New York to Los Angeles. I just read an article where a New York politician is calling for CBS to fire Letterman for his comments ("New York Lawmaker Calls on CBS to Fire Letterman For Palin Comments" - Fox News). Basically, this congressman thinks that these hurtful and reckless words should not go unpunished and warrant censorship.

Here is my reaction to Letterman's humor, "Let's see here...channel four, yes there it is. Oh, there's Letterman. Hmmmm still ranting about George Bush. Still telling Chaney jokes when Joe Biden is a walking gaff machine...oh!!! What a horrible thing to say about a young mother...Where's the Wii controller? Here we go." Button pressed. Game selected. Time to save Princess Zelda.

I turn it off. I stop listening. While I think he has become less funny and more politically motivated over the past few years, he still has the right to say what he wants. He is paid for what he says. If society is offended, it will stop watching, and he will go away. If not, so be it. I choose not to listen.

Also recent in the news is the coverage of an 88-year-old psychopath who unleashed an episode of anti-Semetic violence at the US Holocost Museum in Washington, DC ("Guard dies after Holocost museum shooting" - MSNBC). In the same manner that gun-control proponents exploint tragic school shootings to demonize responsible legal gun owners; the press and politicians have been foaming at the mouth pointing fingers at "right-wing hate speech" ("On Hardball: Journalist Links Rush Limbaugh to Holocaust Museum Shooting" - Media Research Center).

Someone asked me recently what I thought about this horrible event and what the perp had said. I said that I didn't, that I don't give thought to the ramblings of the insane.

How people are painting this guy as religious right-wing is beyond me. The biggest problem with such an assessment is that the religious right is always being accused of supporting Israel and the Jews at the expense of the Palestinians. One of the most prolific anti-Semitic entities was the Nazi party, a left-wing socialist party.

Regardless, whether this nut was right-wing or left wing, his unstable and detached mind has nothing to do with the speech of others. It is a dangerous path to tread to target speech as the culprit behind sensless, unpredictable acts by the mentally ill. Hitler's words did not kill 6 million Jews. It was those who chose to follow Hitler's words that killed 6 million Jews.

Example #3: Carrie Prejean. When asked a direct question about California's Proposition 8 (gay marriage) she replied with a direct and honest answer. She replied, "...I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised" ("Timeline of the Carrie Prejean Controversy" - Fox News)

The gall!!! The nerve!!! What a barbarous opinion!!! Marriage between a MAN AND WOMAN??!!!

This is what is messed up. The cries went out from Los Angeles to New York to strip her of her Miss California crown. For what? For what she said. Free speech until I don't like it...

In 1919 the Supreme Court (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr) introduced the concept of clear and present danger, that when speech can directly put the safety of others at risk (i.e., shouting "fire" at a movie theater), legal action could be taken ("Schenk v. United States" - Wikipedia). Unfortunately, what was originally meant to be a common sense interpretation of the Constitution has been bent to regulate the thoughts and ideas of the opposition.

In 1989, the Supreme Court hit a bulls eye protecting the concept of free speech. I must provide a caveat before proceeding: I think that flag-burning is detestable and an inexcusable form of disrespect for a great country. That said, Justice William Brennan, writing the majority opinion, made the following statement: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. . . " ("Texas v. Johnson" - Landmark Supreme Court Cases). In other words, freedom of speech means the right to say whatever, even when I don't like it.

Some Christians have sought to regulate pornographic internet content. Some politicians have sought to regulate talk radio. Some activists have attempted to restrict the political speech of powerful lobbyist. Some Muslims have threatened the lives of newspaper political cartoonists whose message offends their faith.

When Christians sense persecution, they claim violation of the 1st Amendment. The politicians constantly accuse the other side of suppressing the voice of the minority. Muslims cry out "intolerance" when a DOT says that a woman must remove her vale to have her driver's license picture taken. Everyone wants to express themselves freely; however, they are not willing to endure the expression of others when that message contends with their own beliefs and ideals.

The question is often asked, "why does God let bad things happen?" The answer is simple. If God intervened every time someone choose to do something "bad", we would no longer have free will. In order for His creation to have the ability to choose freely, logic says that "bad" things will happen.

In order to have free speech, logic says that horrible and hateful things will be said. To prevent them from being said is to prevent free speech. The co-existence of both is impossible: all good words and the 1st Amendment.

I have mentioned this before in this blog. I had a professor in college that said, "the problem with free speech is knowing who to listen to." Let them speak. The good, the bad, and the ugly. If you don't like it, don't listen.