In this Series Finale of Dobbs for Dummies, we talk about "RESPECT FOR THE COURT," and the impact that this decision has had and will have on American governmental institutions, law, and civil discourse. Not to mention millions of lives in utero.
As an officer of the court, I am essentially ogligated to be honest, transparent, and fair to everyone involved in this legal debate. It is settled for now, and I say that presuming we maintain a constitutional republic and not surrender to barbarism.
Perhaps we should just end it here, and going forward each of us can just figure shit out on our own.
I pretty much stopped writing since January. When your precious, charming, lovely, smart, witty daughter gets married and buys a house, you had better be there to help them make transition, or you have no purpose in life. I also got a part-time job at my true habitat, a local municipal golf course, so 2023 has been a bad year for my blogging.
Still, in the past year, I have managed to cross off a couple of items on my musical bucket list, and learned the guitar solos to Hotel California and Kid Charlemagne. Maybe it's time to start posting videos?
Our legal journey can be summarized, so far, as follows: the Dobbs decision is a resultant of two primary vectors. These vectors are moral force and social experience.
Applied
through Reason during the course of Time, our common law system arrived in 2022 at a place where logic could lead, where apolitical
imperatives could survive, a place where --
after 50 years in the jurisprudential wilderness -- our nation highest
court signalled the merit of reading and following the U.S. Government User's Manual that begins "We the People."
Conscience (Part 1) and Culture (Part 2), refracted through Lessons of History (Part 3), brought the Supreme Court of the United States to this milestone opinion on June 24, 2022.
***
In Part 4, we discuss the legal doctrine upon which I think the Dobbs case truly turns. That doctine is neither Privacy, nor Federalism, nor is it States's Rights, as some would have you believe, Nikki Haley.
Rather,
it is a pet doctrine of Chief Justice John Roberts, whose legal
instinct is to seek to preserve the institutional integrity of the
court with strong deference to a principle called "Stare Decisis" (STAH-ray Deh-CY-sis), or, as I like to call it -- "Poking the Bear."
The 50+ year legal debate over the existence or non-existence of abortion "rights" has culminated with the recognition in Dobbs that, as with the numerous instances listed in footnote 48, SCOTUS is a HUMAN institution.
Not being perfect, we seek the more perfect.
Because we acknowledge imperfection as an intrinsic human quality, legal writer Eric Segall asserts that the Court's past errors, albeit corrected through footnote 48
types of subsequent rulings, nevertheless render SCOTUS opinions as "non-legal."
Segall further asserts that SCOTUS is not a Court and its Justices are
not Judges.
In other words, though we are imperfect, Seagall
takes the position that making wrong legal decisions, invalidates all
future and other decisions, legally speaking. Hmm.
Sorry, Eric, you missed the point. Several
logical fallacies arise from dismissing the Court's legitimacy, discounting their opinions because they historically, though rarely, reverse an opinion. Ad hominem, False Cause, Genetic Fallacy, Straw Man, Non Sequitur, and Hypothesis Contrary to Fact are the most obvious fallacies of Mr. Segall's opinion. That's just for starters.
If
anything, lawyers (the good ones) should take solace in the fact
that, SCOTUS can and occationaly does, reverse itself.
“Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”
-- MLK
OK. King might not be the best person you would want to quote, but the principle is one that I believe, which is that reversing a Supreme Court decision, like it or not, indeed, bends the arc of the moral universe.
Alarmists could call it bad karma. Others, divine retribution. Petty political operatives, revenge.
How about calling it a course correction?
As
"A Nation of Laws, and Not of Men," seeking Justice, however idealistic, is the preferrable
and most sane way to fix things, to right wrongs, and to teach us
how best to coexists as human beings. The members of the Supreme Court
aren't called "judges." And to whatever extent my tin foil hat, conspiracy theory espousing, anti-colonial, libertarian tendencies are suppressed, all we have is our fellow citizens doing the best they can to survive, and perhaps, thrive.
They are called "Justices." There is Reason for that.
***
Stare decisis
is the legal doctrine that preserves the status quo, or rather, the proper status
quo. It is a heavy legal presumption that rests on respect, to promote integrity in an institutional setting. Yes, it also rests on an element of faith, a reliance on the correctness of past decisions and their social impact. It is a colloquial acceptance of the
general idea that "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Real life tells us, of course, that our past is chock full of bad, or at least flawed, decisions.
Dobbs
is a remarkable legal opinion precisely because it overcomes the
institutional inertia, as well as the mass effect of the political barriers imposed by stare decisis. At the same tiime, the opinion provides future guidelines for jurists, showing us how to proceed when faced with demonstrably erroneous
and poorly reasoned legal opinions such as Roe v. Wade.
HERE IS WHAT THE COURT ACTUALLY SAID, verbatim [jargon and citations edited]:
"We
next consider whether the doctrine of stare decisis counsels continued
acceptance of Roe and Casey. Stare decisis plays an important role in
our case law, and we have explained that it serves many valuable ends.
It protects the interests of those who have taken action in reliance on a
past decision. [Citations omitted]. It “reduces incentives
for challenging settled precedents, saving parties and courts the
expense of endless relitigation.”[Kimble] It fosters
“evenhanded” decision making by requiring that like cases be decided in a
like manner. [Payne] It “contributes to the actual
and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” [Ibid.] And it restrains
judicial hubris and reminds us to respect the judgment of those who have
grappled with important questions in the past. “Precedent is a way of
accumulating and passing down the learning of past generations, a font
of established wisdom richer than what can be found in any single judge
or panel of judges.” [emphasis added, citing Gorsuch article].
We
have long recognized, however, that stare decisis is “not an inexorable
command,” [Pearson] and it “is at its weakest when we interpret
the Constitution,” [Agostini]. It has
been said that it is sometimes more important that an issue“ ‘be
settled than that it be settled right.’ ” [quoting Brandeis 1932 dissent]. But when it comes to the interpretation of
the Constitution — the “great charter of our liberties,” which was meant
“to endure through a long lapse of ages,” [Hunter’s Lessee] — we place a
high value on having the matter “settled right.”In addition, when one
of our constitutional decisions goes astray, the country is usually
stuck with the bad decision unless we correct our own mistake. An
erroneous constitutional decision can be fixed by amending the
Constitution, but our Constitution is notoriously hard to amend. [Article V]. Therefore, in appropriate
circumstances we must be willing to reconsider and, if necessary,
overrule constitutional decisions.
Some
of our most important constitutional decisions have overruled prior
precedents. We mention three. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Court repudiated the “separate but equal” doctrine,
which had allowed States to maintain racially segregated schools and
other facilities. In so
doing, the Court overruled the infamous decision in Plessy v.
Ferguson, along with six other Supreme Court
precedents that had applied the separate-but-equal rule. In [1937],
the Court overruled Adkins v. Children’s Hospital of D. C., which had held that a law setting minimum wages for women
violated the “liberty” protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause. West Coast Hotel [v. Parrish] signaled the demise of an entire
line of important precedents that had protected an individual liberty
right against state and federal health and welfare legislation. [citing Lochner (holding invalid a law setting
maximum working hours); Coppage (holding
invalid a law banning contracts forbidding employees to join a
union); and Burns Baking (holding
invalid laws fixing the weight of loaves of bread)].
Finally,
in West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, after
the lapse of only three years, the Court overruled Minersville School
Dist. v. Gobitis, and held that public school
students could not be compelled to salute the flag in violation of their
sincere beliefs. Barnette stands out because nothing had changed
during the intervening period other than the Court’s belated recognition
that its earlier decision had been seriously wrong.
On
many other occasions, this Court has overruled important constitutional
decisions. (We include a partial list in the footnote that follows.48)
Without these decisions, American constitutional law as we know it would
be unrecognizable, and this would be a different country. No Justice of
this Court has ever argued that the Court should never overrule a
constitutional decision, but overruling a precedent is a serious matter.
It is not a step that should be taken lightly. Our cases have attempted
to pro- vide a framework for deciding when a precedent should be
overruled, and they have identified factors that should be considered in
making such a decision.
In
this case, five factors weigh strongly in favor of overruling Roe and
Casey: the nature of their error, the qualityof their reasoning, the
“workability” of the rules they imposed on the country, their disruptive
effect on other areas of the law, and the absence of concrete
reliance."
***
I have nothing to add. We can either put on our thinking caps and figure it all out, or . . . OK, just pout.
Agree with it or not, our highest legal authority had to decide whether to poke the bear and disturb a well-established line of cases because multi-generational Justice demanded so. They risked the wrath of those wishing to preserve, protect, and defend mistakes of the past.
Why, after 50 years, did the Supreme Court reverse itself?
Because the ruling in Roe was, in legal terms of art, "clearly erroneous."
Clearly - without logically valid counter-argument.
Erroneous - wrongly decided.
In other words, the Roe decision was so fucked up that -- despite the weight of stare decisis, despite majoritarian mass media pro-choice proscriptions, and despite physical threats of violence -- Conscience, Culture, Reason, Logic, and above all, the Constitution itself compelled the Court to restore balance and to repair the damage done to untold generations of American lives.
Analytically, the Dobbs opinion uses a five-factor test to help determine whether a Supreme Court case is "clearly erroneous", and therefore subject to being overruled:
The Nature of the Courts Error
The Quality of the Reaoning
The Workability of the Decision
The Effect on Other Areas of the Law
The Reliance on the Court's Decision
I will not further elucidate.
The majority opinion is thorough and complete, insofar as it details each of these factors, demonstrating (6-3) how false historical narratives were invented by the Roe opinion, how those narratives disregarded fundamental differences between an abortion "right" and a privacy "right."
The only rational conclusion is that the nature of the error in Roe was so morally and culturally significant (as in Plessy, West Coast Hotels, and Barrett) that we had to reverse course.
The concurring opinions suggest there is more work to be done.
Dobbs decimates the untethered reasoning in Roe -- its arbitrary tests, and its concocted rules regarding "viability" and "trimesters." The inconsistent line-drawing of Roe worsened in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, which wrongly applied stare decisis to affirm Roe, further diluting the "viability" question and jettisoning the "trimester" test for another unworkable standard -- the cost/benefit analysis of "undue burdens."
In the future, my hope is that constitutional jurisprudence which drifts away, unmoored from cultural values, historical roots, and written foundations, will be met with greater resistance, resistance to the deceptions and injustices foisted by unprincipled or unethical lawyers who devalue themselves and cheapen their profession by acting as mere political operatives, with bad intent, harming families, and destroying psyches.
Yes. A long and winding road lies ahead.
It has been a painful course correction, America.
The way things are looking, we had better hold on to our hats.
Jiminy Cricket represented that part of an incomplete persona, the part that relentlessly tweaks our moral compass. He irritates our inchoate spirits, urging us, never stopping until that moment you take a chance, opening your heart to being "real."
Conscience is self-knowledge. With it, you objectify yourself, and you recognize the possibility that, "Hey, maybe I can expend some energy thinking a thought, maybe two, maybe more - discerning whether certain propositions, certain thoughts, words, and actions are inherently right - or wrong."
Part 2. Culture, on the other hand, is one of the primary exogenous forces that shapes the thoughts, feelings, and to be sure, significant opinions affecting humanity. It lends credence to the rules under which we choose to live.
To minimize the impact of art, music, literature, architecture, animation, language, sports, etc., on human experience, will lead inevitably to crass forms of mechanistic materialism. Without the reflectiveness and introspection that culture imposes on human relations, society gets stranded in a brutish, ugly, milieu, where Truth and Beauty are nullified. Without the synergy of human culture, your existence is limited to self-defense and the cinders that remain after your life is consumed. Culture transmits human essence, thereby counteracting loneliness -- and insanity.
"Complaints of violins become my only friends."
--- Anberlin, "Paperthin Hymn"
***
DOBBS FOR DUMMIES: PART 3
The period of time between 1973 and 2022, during which Roe v. Wade was "deemed" valid constitutional law, is a classic "Lesson of the Past." Yet, saying so in 2023 seems so mundane. Routinely, we read that famous George Santayana meme/quote extolling the "lessons" which must be learned so as to avoid recurrence, so as to avoid repeating those many epic human failures,
These historical failures always come after a period of hubris. That once profound and conscientious quote ("We must learn the lessons of History!") is, in the Internet Age, reduced to a bland platitude on Reddit message boards, shit posts by Twitter trolls or LinkedIn comments.
And obscure lawyers' blogs.
That once thoughtful admonition, a great philosophical precept, has fallen victim to the Mandela Effect, and either we have forgotten what it means, or we no longer have the courage to explore what it really, truly means. We may express the platitude, but hell no, I ain't listening to some stupid "Boomer."
Don't you agree?
Santayana's famous maxim is often quoted on the internet, but rarely applied in educational discourse, less so in political commentary, whose primary aims are mobilization and provocation, not persuasion from thoughtful historical perspectives. Which leads to my point:
What "lessons of the past" are part of the abortion rights debate?
I have some bad news for you.
The literal Latin for "religion" (re: "back" -- ligere: "to link") is about . . . .
THE LESSONS OF THE PAST!
Thus, to "link back" is to revisit those precious lessons.
"Whatever means possible."
-- Malcom X
Living in the U.S.A., it is easy to take "Rights" for granted.
Because I do not want to wander in the weeds of highly technical jurisprudence, let me try to put this thought in the most reductionist terms to start this discussion of abortion "rights."
In Part One, I emphasized THE NAME OF THE GAME IS TO EXPLAIN. So this is the simplest way I can explain the Dobbs case, which tackles the legal question of whether a "right to abortion" exists under the Constitution of the United States of America.
In American law, as I have grown to understand it, almost every legal relationship between parties, and the eventual formal resolution of their rights as to each other, can be analyzed in two-fundamental steps. Call it the "Legal Rights 2-Step." It is a dance as old as the first human dispute over dinosaur bone leftovers.
First, ask yourself who are the parties, and what are the facts regarding their actual interaction? Formal written agreement? Informal understanding? Customary past practices? For example: Spouses. Mothers and Fathers. Siiters and Brothers. Aunts and Uncles. Landlords and Tenants? Employers and Employees? Citizens and States? Masters and Slaves? OK, some relationships are harder to define and account for than others. You get it. The nature of the relationship will define (and limit) the nature of the so-called "right."
Second, you must identify with as much specificity as possible, each parties "rights" AND DUTIES. This is the catch. To be validly enforceable, every legal right whether created, or inherent, requires a corresponding duty, or else that right is vitiated.
The bilateral requirement between rights and duties is what propels the Law toward Justice. Rights and duties, together, are the elements supporting moral authority and encouraging societal acceptance of particular judicial decisions.
Claimants always assert that a certain "right" exists, and has been violated, however, there is often little or no acknowledgement that the legitimacy of said right rests upon a corresponding duty. That failure to recognize, identify, and accept the "duty," or the "responsibility," which validates a claim of right is the reason those claims so often fail. Ultimately, I suspect the discussion of those required "duties" explains why the Court ruled that no "right" to abortion can be found in the Constitution.
Proper Balance
An elementary legal principle becomes controversial and disputable in the context of abortion because the single most distinguishing fact is that another human life hangs in the balance.
That is the life of the child.
It's probably best that I just shut up for now. A good nutshell version should leave you wanting to explore more, anyway.
Know this -- the single most irrational response in abortion rights conversation is to say that if you concur with the Dobbs holding, you are somehow "anti-woman." I happen to LOVE women. Ask anyone who has successfully fulfilled the role of husband and/or father over multiple decades whether conjugal "rights" with his/her spouse requires any corresponding "duties."
Simply put, any discussion of "rights" means -- it works both ways.
That is what we call "right."
***
Finally, we should examine, in a nutshell, the methodology employed by the Court to reach this
conclusion, i.e., that there is no constitutional "right" to abort a child. I'm among those lawyers somewhat terrified at the
prospect of having to defend my home from left-wing loonies storming my neighborhood, simply because I happen to study law, and hold deep respect
our written Constitution.
So it's like this, like it or not, quick and dirty. Here is why there is NO Federal "right" to abortion:
1. THE ISSUE PRESENTED:
Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are constitutional or not?
Holding: Pre-viability prohibition of abortion is constitutional.
2. CASE LAW - SOURCES:
Any ruling for or against the existence of an abortion right in the constitution must be based on an examination of the reasoning and analysis used in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992).
3. ABORTION RIGHT - SOURCES
All constitutional rights must necessarily derive from:
A. The actual language of the Constitution - abortion clearly does not.
B. The fundamental interest in Liberty, substantiated by due process rights inferred from the 14th Amendment and the 1st through 8th Amendments - determined by the Glucksberg and Palko tests.
C. Glucksberg: is the right "deeply rooted" in the history and traditions of the law?
D. Palko: is the right implicit in the concept of "ordered Liberty?"
4. THE LESSONS OF HISTORY- Application of the Glucksberg and Palko tests
I read these tests to be intertwined, not severable components, but each is useful to define the other. In other words, the lessons of history, clearly examined, help answer the question of whether abortion is a "fundamental" constitutional right.
The presumption is that "ordered Liberty" is a desirable aim.
If you are an anarchist, then, obviously, the history and traditions of the law implicit in the concept of ordered Liberty, are irrelevant to YOUR believe in the existence or non-existence of legal rights. To ignore the lessons of history, pretty much renders social experience and the pursuit of Reason in human discourse as intrusions into your little hermeneutic shell. Duty be damned.
As far as their appication, Justice Alito gives a truly intellectually fascinating examination of the law of "quickening," which was the historical legal occurence before the term "viability" came into common parlance. In general, and overwhelmingly so, it was always a crime to kill a baby, whose life and "personhood" was all the more recognized with its "quickening" in the womb. All you Moms and Dads who have ever felt a baby's kick know the "quickening."
Regartding the history and traditions of the law, the Court's opinion is that the Roe and Casey rulings, upon which the abortion right has rested, made no serious effort to apply the lessons of history.
The fundamental flaw of Roe is that it completely disregards hundreds of years of legal history, and conjures up a legal right that had previously been seen a crime. This error would have been made even outside the bounds of American jurisprudence, as historically, nearly all legal regimes found abortion to be a crime.
Casey made even less effort to examine the roots of abortion law, and even undermined the attempts made in Roe to judicially legislate the boundaries of permissible abortion. It was admittedly a missed opportunity to overrule Roe in 1992, and in the Court's view, is now recitfied with Dobbs.
Thus, after a serious, tedious, application of the lessons of history, through the tests established in prior cases (Glucksberg and Palko), the only conclusion the court could reasonably find was this:
CONCLUSION: THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ABORTION IS NOT DEEPLY ROOTED IN THE HISTORY AND TRADITIONS OF THE LAW, AND IT IS NOT IMPLICIT IN THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY.
To review Part 1 (link), you may recall it ended with a bit of time travel. You were led to an obscure Commentary written 38 years ago in a law school newspaper. The writer spoke from the past about how Roe v. Wade had weak, and more likely non-existent, constitutional underpinnings. He asserted that Conscience is the true final arbiter of moral questions that society attempts to answer through legal sophistry. That writer has been doing honest homework on those issues, sustained by a steady diet of locusts and honey, so plentiful in the wilderness of legal unemployment.
Such is the price for honest legal opinion.
Such is the price for sticking to your guns.
But today, it is, finally, water under the bridge.
The river has run its course.
As Thomas Paine put it, "Time Make More Converts Than Reason." Fortunately, you have not been triggered by my past comments enough to have me assassinated, just because I take our Constitution seriously, thank you. I sincerely appreciate your academic integrity, as well as your critical thinking skills.
Now: Roy's Theory can be summarized: E > C > P.
As we journey the river of life, Economics is upstream from Culture is upstream from Politics.
Riding the Legal Beast
Laws are enacted to give us rules, rules through which we navigate the river -- trying to do the least damage and the most good for the "school of fish" that is Human Society. (Who makes those rules and how they are made is a another valid question for another time.)
Understanding the Dobbs case begins with understanding that cultural shifts occur mostly without our conscious attention. There is no way to "respond" or "reply" or "comment" or "like" something as glacial as cultural shifts. I think the reason is because culture is a sum of parts, and the parts are our individual souls.
Culture is a pot of stew, contained by the operation of Economic principles, e.g., supply and demand, inflation, unemployment, etc. Legal opinions are like broth, including any meat, and lentils. And the Chef is the person applying Legal Principles for the Political consumer. You can't make good law from bad cases. And if you have a shitty chef, you get shitty stew. The culture suffers.
Sometime you have to throw out a bad batch. Get new ingredients. Fire the chef.
Sometimes a punt is the best football play. Sometimes a frozen computer needs a re-boot.
So here we are in 2023. Dobbs vs. Jackson is the law. American Culture, that is, We, the People, a body of citizens of a Nation (a Nation of Laws, not of Men), simply could not swallow the shitty politics, the Constitutional stew forced upon us by Justice Blackmun in 1973.
Culture will evolve irrespective, but limited by, enduring natural principles.
The water. The mountains. The forest. The ocean.
None care and none are affected by our puny political grandstanding. Culture evolved, while the so-called "left" paid no heed, insisting upon the un-moored "right to abortion" in contravention of
1) Language,
2) Basic Legal Analysis,
3) the History of Common Law, and
4) Traditions regarding the "quickening" of human life.
And now ... it is finished. My task is simply to present the skinny version of the Court's opinion:
Part II of Justice Alito's opinion addresses those 4 factors in a workmanlike, dispassionate, lawyerly matter, pointing out for all to see that:
The actual language of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments contains no express provision creating the "right" to an abortion. To argue otherwise casts away the essential human utility of letters, words, sentences, and paragraphs to communicate.
As for any "implied" right to Liberty in the 14th Amendment which might serve as the basis for abortion rights, that right still must, necessarily, be derived from express provisions contained in the first 8 Amendments in the Bill of Rights, because the last 2 are rights implicitly reserved to the States.
The History of abortion "rights" has extremely shallow, if any roots, in our jurisprudence.
Common Law cases regarding "quickening" shreds notions of viability and trimesters as guidelines for measuring proper and improper abortion. Roe was an excercise of legal folly.
To be sure, and to be clear. -- a person with a uterus (can't say "woman) CAN STILL LEGALLY KILL THE BABY in a Post-Dobbs world. The difference now is that the voice of your community, the impact of your culture, and the values engrained in your sub-culture have a voice.
There is a belief that the Dobbs case is about a "right to privacy," and by corollary, abortion. The self-centered mistake about that belief is that no decision has a more publicly significant and revolutionary impact on the world and society at large than whether to destroy or nourish another person. Families, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends . . . all the "other" voices are now being heard, now greater and heavier factors to consider when uterus-endowed people experience post-coital remorse.
Once again, Mother Nature disrupts human avarice. Dobbs is a result of the combined forces of Conscience and Culture, diverting American narcissism away from self-destructive values, to more precicely pin point the locus of responsibility regarding moral questions of Life and Death.
In the case of abortions, that locus is far, far away from a Washington D.C. It is not determined in a courthouse, or even in a doctor's office. It is in the hearts and minds of two people whose Love (or lack, thereof) will determine their future. And the consequences will be felt regardless of that "choice."
In my "personal" view, under Dobbs, the Federal government no longer sanctions murder because American culture, taken as a whole, does not approve of pernicious irresponsibilty.
Whether "the choice" was or was not -- the Right one -- is still up to the individual.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
Jeremiah 1:5
Put simply, the room has gotten louder. The chorus of voices that formed your existence are also there for you, to help you to decide whether new life should (or should not) be realized.
The voices of Culture and Conscience are much greater than one measly legal opinion, at some random point in history, even if that opinion is rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
I'll admit it. Three months is really too long of a break between blog posts.
Or has it been only two?
It feels like a lot more than a trimester has passed since we last ventured into these post-Muskian Twitter Senior Citizen Cyber-rants.
And another thing, why "a trimester?" It just seems so random.
Nothing is random.
Hello Boomers and friends of boomers. (Technically, I am NOT a boomer, but that is another issue for another time.)
It's A Mestery
Do you remember when trimesters were only a quarter? (Shutup, Dad). On this day in 1973, legal use of the term "trimester" began costing us innocent lives, silenced hearts, and tiny ripped limbs. Until last summer's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Center for Reproductive Health 597 U.S. ___(2022), the number of human embryos aborted surpassed 63 million.
63,000,000 is a lot of dead babies. : ( sad face
They coined that word -- trimester -- to serve as the skeleton upon which to dress from whole cloth, a legal decision that said Federal courts may usurp the power of -- actual written words -- contained in our Constitution.
It was NOT WOMEN who were empowered, though we long labored under that falsehood. It was Federal judges who were empowered by Roe v. Wade -- to say what they thought the law should be, apparently with little regard for what the Constitutionactully said.
"Trimesters" were but a stage. A platform upon which activists could strut and fret, full of sound and fury, signifying their virtue, employing deception on demand to reason from non-constitutional penumbras -- penumbras leading to nothingness. Millions of brief candles have been put out since 1973, until a leaky court clerk, a sneaky Politico reporter, and a little footnote (48), helped cut loose the gossamer threads of Roe v. Wade. One small step.
Perhaps the massive ship of state is turning. Truth may be marching on.
So sue me for lack of creativity. Writer's block happens. The better part of valor whispered in my ear over the Christmas holidays, and told me in a clear cool, feminine voice: "Hey Dummy, don't talk about restorative Supreme Court cases in mixed company."
I listened to H.E.R..
She wore blindfolds. And it was a great decision -- to dare to listen.
***
Welcome to the Year of the Rabbit. 2023. Or in Rome, MMXXIII. Or 6773 (Assyrian), 2567 (Buddhist), 7531-32 (Byzantine), 4719 (Chinese), Reiwa 5 (Japanese), or 4356 (Korean).
Jesus, time waits for no one.
If you are of Vietnamese persuasion, or a fan of Al Stewart, it is the Year of the Cat. In my way of thinking, there is no equivalence between cats and rabbits. For one thing, cleaning up their shit requires totally different protocols. Plus, rabbits are dumbasses. No, seriously, rabbits are the worst. I'm glad the Vietnamese shook off the shackles of the Chinese Jade Emperor and choose their own astrological animal. I prefer the theory which asserts that Vietnam changed their zodiac for precisely this reason. Cats are cool. Rabbits are buttholes.
Don't bother asking for explanations
She'll just tell you that she came in the Year of the Cat
(credit: Al Stewart)
***
So about that Dobbs ruling. You really don't need to hear my commentary. I've been on the case for over 50 years. Ever since I was chastised by law school peers (especially some of the women) for publicly advocating as a Pro-life constitutionalist in our school newspaper.
Today, as far as I'm concerned, it is : CASE CLOSED.
***
Before you click away, I want you to know this -- I've done my homework.
Homework Sample - Dobbs case
As my freshman English professor kept drilling at his students (he really was English, like Harry Potter English, not Larry the Cable Guy English), he kept telling us THE NAME OF THE GAME IS EXPLAIN. He said the writer's job is TO EXPLAIN.
So, I'm not doing this to convert, persuade, convince, prod, entice, allure, and especially to win a legal arguments. No. Are you not entertained?
The point of this here series of essays is toexplain what happened in our legal system.
What really happened?
However you "feel" is irrelevant to what really happened. Your "activist" card doesn't matter anymore. Case Closed.
In short, Dobbs is to Roe as Brown is to Plessy.
Frankly, my dears, and I believe I write for some of us who cannot speak, we do not blame you. You are innocent souls, fighting the good fight. But we all need to refrain from the blame game. I am here to explain. It's not anyone's fault that they/we were born when they/we were born. And again, technically, I am not a boomer, but you know what I mean, despite "the latest thing" that makes obstacles of pronouns.
Every generation blames the one before.
And all of their frustrations come beating on your door.
You say you just don't see it. You just can't get agreement in this present tense.
We all talk a different language. Talking in defense.
So we open up a quarrel between the Present and the Past.
Don't yield to the fortunes you sometimes see as fate.
It may have a new perspective on a different day.
And if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be okay.
(Credit: Mike Rutherford + Mechanics)
***
You will hear from pundits and politicians who say that achieving a Supreme Court victory is simply a matter of counting to five, i.e., getting the majority of votes. A pithy sentiment, but nonetheless valid. The Dobbs ruling was supported by a 6-3 vote, the majority opinion, 5-3.
What that means, I'll leave to more highly paid experts in taller buildings. What is clear is the simple math which suggests that at the apex of today's American legal system, from a jurisprudential standpoint, Dobbs was really not a close call. It was the politics that was a close call, because as it turns out, for readers familiar with my textualist philosophy: Economics - is upstream from Culture - is upstream from Politics.
Our Constitution was underwritten, I think, with a recognition of that transitive property, one that subsumes human societies, and informs the foundation of free states. Economics and Culture are superior considerations that help define limits we have chosen to place on the power of national government where, too often, the passions of rough and tumble politics tend to become unhinged.
In other words, when it comes to Natural Law of the Land, screw Politics. Higher values, among those Economics and Culture, play the prevalent unseen role in the proper application of Constitutional Law.
Justice, divine or otherwise, has a greater chance of SURVIVAL when our personal goals are higher than those of greedy politicians winning (rigged) elections, or of silly TickTok and You Tubers getting more clicks or subs. The most compelling idea behind the Dobbs majority is that once we stop sacrificing children, society has a chance to get back onto a better, more harmonic path. From a place above politics, people may catch a glimpse of Hope, not merely by the flickering flame of Liberty promised in our Constitution, but also from the spark of Redemption offered in true, tangible, Reality.
That is -- new life.
If you are at all interested in following up with this explanation(for Dummies!) of a case that has already been ruled upon, I appreciate the audience you graciously grant. If you are easily threatened by ideas, regardless of their merit, or the merits of reasonably crafted argument, I suggest you stop.
Plus, I don't want to become paranoid of assassination.
Plus, I don't want you marching with signs in my front yard, or resorting to the violent,culturally abhorrent, tactics that we as a nation witnessed last summer. Dobbs is only the beginning, the "conception," if you will, of a struggle for Justice that started with a dumb decision (choice) to speak out in school with a sincerely held legal opinion. It was 40 years ago, in a galaxy far away.
Thanks for not killing me.
It's 2023 now, and there has been a restoration.
Kindly look upon this sincere srivening as a way to bring peace to a turbulent issue in a way that any intelligent middle-school student, well, at least an earnest college freshman, can read and understand, as to why things have happened as they have happened.
This is an effort to add clarity for others to reflect upon, test, and digest, the validity of the Dobbs holding, to help us to see how it is essentially remedial and restorative, and how it expresses something we humans, at the end of the day, are seeking. And this will be an effort to explain why our Representative Republic is built as it is built, namely --
OF, BY, AND FOR, . . . THE PEOPLE.
First Caveat: I am of an ethnic minority, heterosexual, male born in Generation Jones.
Second Caveat: I am a feminist who loves women as women, and men as brothers.
Third Caveat: I especially LOVE and TREASURE my wife and my dear baby girl.
For you lawyers, do you recall this classic case study from Torts class?
Palsgraf vs. Long Island Railroad Co. 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928) is legendary because Judge Cardozo's analysis of proximate cause reinforced one of the basic elements required in order to plead a valid cause of action for liability on the grounds of negligence. But back to my point, since I refuse to walk back into those weeds planted in my brain during those hellish indoctrination rituals called "law school" and "bar exam."
Let it suffice to say that chasing Truth down rabbit holes is a journey full of surprises, and you never know where gritty, honest research will lead you. The Newtonian paradigm is gone. Quantum Mechanics and the Butterfly Effect are real things. Dark Matter and String Theory rule science.
For now.
I simply wanted to discuss the problem of Factions in a large republic (link here!).
But, in a momentary lapse of reason, during the course of my study, I had a flashback -- yes, another 80's song (no, not "Take On Me"). This one is by The Fixx, called "One Thing Leads to Another."
Good tune. May be worth your time (3:12 duration). Press "Play," and pay attention to the lyrics.
Or not.
So back to the problem of dealing with Factions, what they are, and how Madison thought we could handle the problem of factionalism within a large republic such as ours. A Faction is a number of citizens, whether amounting to a
majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by
some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights
of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the
community.”
In Federalist 9, Hamilton needed to address the ideas of Charles Montesquieu, a French Philosopher whose prinicipal work, L'Esprit Des Lois, is one of the greatest works in the history of political theory and in the history of jurisprudence. Madison's Federalist 10 was a sequel to Hamilton's Federalist 9.
See? One thing leads to another.
It started with Federalist 10, a proper study of which necessitated that we retrace the origins of the debate back to Federalist 9, which led to a recognition that Montesquieu's work set the foundational precepts. This sequence of connected historical sources led me to thinking about how so many apparent effects have unacknowledged causes. That led me to realize the legal importance, and occasional futility, of finding proximate causes, which was the key issue in the Palsgraf case. For me, the whole discussion of proximate cause reconciled musically, to The Fixx.
Simple Minds Need Complex Stimuli
Boomers, I've said it before and I'll say it again -- gettin' old ain't for sissies.
Brief history lesson: The Federalist Papers were published under the pseudonym "Publius," and were written to persuade American Revolutionaries that a "federation" of sovereign States was, for many reasons, the best course of action to form a government in the late 1700's.
After we defeated the British, a world without kings became possible. The ideal of human Liberty now superceded the "divine right" of inbred dilettantes. Uncharted aspirations and claims that were made, written, and signed by our nation's wisest elders on July 4, 1776, could now become manifest without monarchic suppression.
"Equal Rights Under The Law!"
Now to the problem of forming that government. Montesquieu advocated Separation of Powers doctrine as a way to address the problem of factions, however, he also contended that the theory would fail in large republics. He thought large republics, such as that proposed on the North American continent were prone to fall into despotism due to their sheer size, and therefore, the cannibalistic nature of factionalism would not be contained. As a sidenote, he was also an early adopter of the notion that climate (!) has a substantial influence on the human society.
Beginning with the formal title, Madison responded:
"THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED
THE UNION AS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST DOMESTIC FACTION AND INSURRECTION"
Now that title appears to be written in English, and because I am a natural, native, English-speaking American citizen, I am empowered to understand (as you should) what the author is saying.
Literally. Today. Year 2022.
I mean, WTF did we go to school for? To learn to drink? Was it to learn how to woo a spouse. And by "spouse," I mean that person you married who has a different chromosomal composition than yours.
But I digress.
Look, writers are accountable for the words they utilize. But conversely, a reader is NOT entitled to ascribe to a writer thoughts and ideas not at all supportable in the words expressed in writing. Some may call this form of constitutional/statutory interpretation a curse. I disagree. It would be more precise and correct to say that holding words to the users meaning is a "spell." Deviate from the word, you deviate from the spell. The constitution is a covenant, a spell structured to maximize Liberty (for ALL), by recognizing natural democratic processes, but limiting their reach, in order to counteract and suppress tyrannical leaders, who desire to implement their factional, numerically justified aims, regardless of their adverse effects. Unchecked factions lead to injustice and they are the fatal flaw of direct democracy. Thus, our Founders, through the words "We The People," called for and eventually ratified A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.
Why? Because words cage thoughts.
Publius creates the argument. Whether you think it valid and logical, or misleading and fallacious, the contention is that the Union of States are a SAFEGUARD, a protection, a precaution, an answer, a bulwark, if you will, literallyagainst domestic factions and insurrection.
Please note the correct usage of "literally."
Whether from the loony left or stenchly conservative right, it is literally indisputable that the Founders saw the creation of our Union (as constituted and ratified among the several States) to be the ideal answer to the problem of political factions, which are the early formative stages of mass psychosis. (Hello, Mr. Hitler)
Despite our large geography, and the cacophony of Tweets, the melting, snowflake tears claiming that THEIR particular untethered rights should prevail over others more wisely and virtuously considered, Federalist 10 shows how we avoid the mistakes of past civilizations and transcend the fate of past governments that descended into centralized, totalitarian, madness, like the current one, surrendered to the whims of senile, insane, child-molesting, sock puppet, power-hungry, criminal creeps of a certain faction. You can guess what THEIR letters stand for.
“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a
majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by
some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights
of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the
community.”
James Madison
Break it down, nerds.
If not, we will know how it feels to be thick as a brick.
So I had a nice two-week travel break, thanks.
I got to see the kids. I got to visit one of the oldest lighthouses in United States -- Beavertail. I also got to revisit a "road not taken" by taking pictures at the gate of the Naval Academy in Annapolis.
And last but not least, I found another topic that interests me.
These next few weeks, I will talk about the heavy conflicts in the political realm, circa 2022. Social life is so fractured, yet, it isn't as if great minds haven't thought of these social problems before. It may be good to review the major ideas -- what did primary authors of our Constitution say? What actuallyisthe best wayto structure a form of government that acknowledges, accounts for, and deals with, the problem of factions and factionalism?
Madison 's epic argument is presented in the pages of Federalist #10,
There is a lot to unpack here.
I try to make the complex understandable, but that is no guarantee that I won't be subject to criticism. Bring it on. Some old guy on the internet will not help restore populist fervor to preserve, protect, and defend constitutional principles that were reduced to writing back in 1789.
JUST KNOW THIS: I am not a Russian disinformation agent.
Now, if you truly believe that words used in the late18th Century carry a substantively different meaning than today, even though they are being used in the exact same context, or if you actually think that the Constitution of the United States of America is some cultish "code" for white supremacy, then for the sake of your mental health, you should probably just go away. Please, politely, go away. Your mind is incapable of processing complex solutions to timeless questions about human society, presented rationally, that have been pondered by wise and gifted minds over the years. If you don't think we humans have lived -- for centuries -- at war against monarchic and oligarchic oppression, you are quite simply out of your element for this content. You need to connect more dots, especially the ones staring you in the face and biting you in the ass, trying to enslave you.
So many poor lost souls have been deceived, and I suspect it is because of the fake term "higher education." Too many young skulls full of mush are misled to think meaning is determined under the "Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language, i.e., words mean whatever their user wants them to mean.
That maybe okay for academic purposes, but the difference between objective communication standards ("words mean things") and subjective social expression ("words only mean what I say they mean") is essentially the same difference between coitus and masturbation.
You feel great at the end, but with the latter, nobody can relate to how you got there.
Let's find out how we got here. Let's examine how we (Americans) should deal with factions.
So, a great French comedian once said, "Zee timing, she eez evereething."
I Think, Therefore I Drink
Based on that, I think once a week should be the proper dosage of this comic relief, plus or minus a paragraph or two. If you could just help me calibrate it . . . if you don't mind . . . that would be great.
We are hunkered down in the Carolina Piedmont, stocked up with white bread, toilet paper, and almond milk. We got hit by a full inch of snow and sleet, just before MLK Day. Then we got hit again just this weekend.
And the NFL isn't rigged. Hmph.
I can hear my Yankee friends laughing scornfully at the Southern facade, the genteel, neurotic, Prince of Tidesmachismo, panicked at the prospect of driving in icy conditions. It's hard.
Speaking of scornful mockery, I will do my best to never mention or use the disrespectful term "President Brandon." Never again. So how's that working out?
And as for you little vegan fairies, stop drinking so much damn soy milk and grow a pair! Tits or balls, I don't care. Wait 'til this summer -- when I'm 64.
There is a reason for stereotypes, regardless of the hundreds of millions of counter-arguments put forth by We the Feeble, We the Sincere, We the Pitiful Bloggers trying to set the record straight. Pay no heed to the boomer behind the curtain. Most of us are probably a lot like this guy anyway --- insofar as having a penchant for quixotic rants.
Speaking for most older bloggers, I don't want to set the world on fire. People just need to have their say, and . . .
Oops. Strike that.
As a matter of fact, during the Summer of 2020, a small group of younger and extremely energetic "bloggers" actually did try to set the world on fire!
From THE LEFTIST HANDBOOK: "Think like us. Or else."
NOW WHAT?
It's been -- one year since we looked at the "inauguration,"
Five years since they laughed at us for saying "fake news,"
Three years since the living room TV showed a "flu" in China,
But it will still be two years 'til they say "I'm sorry, Boomers."
Did you catch the pop reference? If so, you may not be a true baby boomer. You do, however, have the ability to think in non-linear fashion, bless your heart.
And THAT, in a nutshell, is whatthe "Q" phenomenon was about ... the ability to think in non-linear fashion. The phenomenon was more than a reductivist oversimplification: "something, something, something ... politics stand ... something, something ... I love Trump." God, no.
Many others mistakenly believed it was a quasi-religious cult with dastardly racist(!) intent. On closer examination, the Q "thing" was far above and well-beyond that mean stereotype. Nor was it some "right-wing conspiracy," as it was so gleefully, so erroneously, and so fearfully, characterized.
"Luke, trust your instincts."
And for fuck's sake, don't tell me you are so gullible that you are giving any serious credence to Wikipedia, one of the internet's leading fonts of misinformation.
OK, bye. Come back soon. This topic, any discussion of that letter that rhymes with "cue" the 17th letter, creates weird somatic responses in readers, a neuromuscular, gastrointestinal reflux making pink, purple, lime-green, and blue-haired readers, even ones in pinstripe suits, abort rational thought or wear red baseball caps. Or both. I reckon if a reader is triggered by my rapier wit, I am already BLOCKED, i.e., filtered, censored, ignored, ghosted, and generally will never be heard from again by you. Bye Bye Bye.(Uh, is this a bad time to ask you to Like, Share, Comment, and Subscribe? 😉)
Science ≠ Morality
That's alright. Think of this essay as a less-explosive version of the classic millennial TV series, "Mythbusters," and in today's episode we examine the impact of asynchronous mass communication on various digital platforms manifests in the neuropsychology of users, the failure of ethics in journalism, and the national security implications of those effects, particularly those unique to American culture.
Use Ockham's Razor, apply the scientific method, stay smart and skeptical, and I promise you will overcome the initial barrage of auto-reflex impulses subconsciously telling you to reject what boomers (or your elders) say, just because a particularly effective content creator from somewhere on Sullivan Street has captured and cornered our cultural narrative utilizing this ... this ... accursed symbol from the Latin alphabet ---
"Brought to you by the letter Q."
So, back to school. Classical scientific method originated from Cartesian Philosophy, within the discipline called Skepticism. Descartes was a younger contemporary of Galileo, the person generally accepted asthe central figure of the Scientific Revolution. And you may already know the word "science" derives from the Latin word meaning "knowledge." I'm not sure why, but I just noticed that I over-italicize things. Anyway, the first step in using the classic method of applied science is to ask a question. Yes, you too, can be a conscious, critical thinker like me. That was condescending. Sorry about that. Or am I?
Oh, Ram Eye
But seriously even without Adam, Jamie, Grant, Kari, and Tory's help, we should be able to agree that proper science seeks to discover or create Knowledge, not to establish moral constructs.
Think of Science as the Yin. The Yang, the necessary opposing principle of scientific inquiry is Humanism, which seeks to define and prescribe the moral conduct of human beings. Thus, I contend that amorality, the absence of moral proscription, is a definitional, fundamental element of pursuing and having "faith" in the scientific method. Science alone is a grossly imbalanced non-humanistic enterprise.
Think of Sheldon Cooper. He's a really (really) smart character. Great theoretical physicist. To be honest, though, he is a horrible person. Great scientist. Total asshole. And we're talking legendary asshole.
Anyway ... Insofar as that absence of morality's imperatives predicates applied science . . I think . .
er . . .uh . . . wait . . . oh my . . . I'm trying not to digress . . .
really . . . trying . . . not . . not . . . oh, no . . .
... ARGGH ... shiiitt ...
the memes beckon ... the memes . . . the damn memes . . .
What were we talking about? ... oh yeah, Science. Or was it the letter cue?
Shit. I'm already approaching my word limit, which means attention spans wane at this point of the essay. Let us boil it down to the FACTS, and then we can move on to the cure for cancer . . . I mean, the Corona virus, er . . . uh, excuse me . . . I meant, the common cold. Someone stop me.
Definition #1: "Q" was a user handle of a person(s) who posted messages on the internet from October 2017 to December 2020. That user has not been conclusively identified.
Definition #2: An "ANON" is simply an individual human citizen of no particular nationality, ethnicity, or social standing, who "gets," that is, has read, understands, and acknowledges the intrinsic content of the MESSAGE, i.e., the medium, which is -- the Internet.
Definition #3: Distinguishing from the first two definitions, "QANON" is a resultant vector. It is a descriptive noun, invented to capture and communicate to non-readers something they have not personally experienced, but is occurring in the offline world. "QANON" is a MSM entity, borne through manipulation of language, primarily by corporate network gatekeepers, a noun adjunct modifying a manifestation that has had tangible and significant psychological, spiritual, cultural, political, and global impact. The manifestation, the phenomenon, is more simple --- real Anons are people who have read Q posts, and have "heard" the content (well, technically, they "read the message") and have encouraged others, readers and non-readers alike, to think for themselves and make up their own minds regarding the messages. The term "QANON" was put into popular vernacular to be intentionally pejorative and misleading.
That's all, folks. We're talking about asynchronous multi-vector content messaging
. . . and bullies. (Hat Tip: Nikola Tesla and H.G. Wells)
Like Mercutio, I dislike binary political constructs, formal organizations (save the Bar), and their 501(c)3, 501(c)4 quislings. A lot of boomers have been online before AOL and BBS. We had dial-up the internet on x286 processors. We can spot a shill from ten hyperlinks away.
I'm a lot like you.
Not many boomers hang out on the so-called "dark web," although I concede that shit on 4chan and 8chan can get pretty dark. But we're way past cat videos.
Here's the point. To discredit certain informational content, because you don't like the source is simply killing the messenger. It's bad form.
Processing information nowadays, with the massive reach of modern telecommunications technology, demands that users be their own psychological filters. The sources might be lying. Everyone seems to be lying. Online messages are not useful until properly and accurately received. We are programmed to receive. After one receives (sees, reads, or hears) the message, only then can one decide whether the content resonates - True.
We are programmed to receive.
Here's a useful analogy, themovable-type printing press. It really was the Internet of the 15th Century. Gutenberg published the Latin Vulgate. That was, in fact, the actual content, the message in the medium. The Reformation was a cultural phenomenon that came about because of technology, because content became self-filtered. Individuals had to learn to read content that for centuries had been spoon-fed by Father Pete or Friar Tuck or Sister Mary Elephant. Likewise, from 2017-19, we have experienced the Q "thing" with differing degrees of tolerance, humor, fear, and yes, Love.
Your digital device = Gutenberg's press, right?
Now what?
Heck, movable-type printing explains how 600 years later, a Catholic Filipino raised in an American military family identifies as "born-again Protestant polytheist" despite years of institutionalized learning from anally-retentive sadistic nuns, and enduring false accusations of chemically-induced mental illness, overcoming shame of being cast as an inferior heretic who should instead be making proper tribute by confession, by eating wafers and drinking wine with celibate, globalist, perverts in robes reeking of incenst. Spell-check is so wrong.
Dark web, indeed. How's your "compliance" now, Agent Smith?
Mainstream sources (friend, you are now far far away from the mainstream), those entrenched, anti-American forces, apparatchiks protecting their bureaucratic Swamp turf, for whom free spirits and independent thinking pose an existential threat, respond to Q messaging with ad hominem fallacy, followed by implementation of the Saul Alinsky playbook, maliciously characterizing thought-provoking and intelligent content as something "spooky," something to be immediately dismissed as nonsensical and pointless.
Yes, it is valid to point out the cryptic nature of the Q posts, the messages, their inchoate character. And it is correct to say reading the posts are almost or exactly like reading your horoscope. That is a moot point. As with everything internet, there will be encryption. Them's the rules. (sic) "Would you like to play a game?'
For the sake of Science, or more specifically, Social Science, ask this:
How did non-linear, cryptic posts on some innocuous internet message platform used primarily by masturbating teenagers evolve into a consciousness-raising, race and gender inclusive, global movement that allegely threatens the existence (and operations) of the "Deep State?"
Why would powerful internet platforms and corporate network broadcasters censor the content of some dude or dudette's rambling internet posts? Jesus, have you been on the internet lately? Admittedly, the corporate gate-keeping could be done better, and by better I mean worse.
What is more puzzling is this -- the extent to which Anons (not QAnons!) are vilified as unintelligent, and violence-prone, when 99.9% of civic violence since 2017 has been carried out by their opposition.
"But what about January 6th?" you say.
And to that I say, "What-About-ism is intellectually dishonest."
And reasonable minds can agree. Special Counsel Durham's work is not done yet. The midterms lurk.
Put it another way. What IDEAS pose the biggest threat to the world's most powerful elite, not just in America but throughout humanity? Science has been completely divorced from Morality, yet people with little or no knowledge of Virology or Immunology talk and act as if they truly believe they are morally superior to people who are just uncomfortable in face diapers, or who don't want to participate in a genetics experiment, or simply don't like needles.
Even if the abyss between Morality and Science is philosophically irreconcilable, what makes the reconsideration ofmoral precepts so frightening to certain factions in the War of Ideas?
Well, I'm hungry. It's time to end this.
Mark 8:36
"We understand you don't like our censorship policy. But it's for people's safety."
"Fuck off, Liars."
It's not too late, America. Step up. We didn't start the fire.
