DOBBS V. JACKSON for Dummies (Part 4 of 5: "Stare Decisis")

Hello friends, and welcome back. 

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.

Happy New Year!

 

© 2024 by Roy Santonil

DOBBS V. JACKSON for Dummies (Part 3 of 5 : "Rights")

Play it safe.

A brief review -- 

Part 1. Conscience is annoying. 

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.

    

OK, time for a musical interlude.

 

Hit "PLAY" and see you next time.

 

DOBBS V. JACKSON for Dummies (Part 2 of 5 : Culture)

Start here.

Welcome back, and thanks for tuning in. 

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.

 

© 2023 by Roy Santonil

DOBBS V. JACKSON For Dummies (Part 1 of 5: Conscience)

Start here.

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 Constitution actully 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 to explain 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.

Welcome to 1985. (See Page 3 of the link.)

© 2023 by Roy Santonil

Mandalas, Mandela, and Ugly Americans

Start here.

Some of us boomers who studied Psychology should easily recall a towering figure from this discipline, a German academic named Carl Gustav Jung. I always thought Jung's work was best understood in the context of his older contemporary, Sigmund Freud.  Where the more celebrated Freud is recognized as the foundational thinker in the area of psychoanalysis, Jung's legacy is somewhat broader, and in my opinion, more far-reaching than Freud's in that it has had substantial impact on other fields besides psychiatry, such as anthropology, archaeology, literature, and my major field of study, philosophy.

This is a MANDALA.

It's been six months since I've shared this internet space with -- well, nobody in particular and everybody in general -- and you -- out there in the inter-webs.  There's one question a writer should always be able to answer ... who is your audience?

Be patient. I'll get to "Mandela and the Ugly American in a second." 

Just to recap, since I posted "No Mercy" we have experienced, inter alia, a Congressional re-boot and the restoration of vertical Federalism under the Dobbs case. Your representatives in Washington D.C. have sent $65 BILLION to a TV comedian in the Ukraine (with potentially another $50B en route). We have seen interest rates continue to rise, and we watched the Houston Cheaters win the World Series.

And the world has not yet come to an end. 

Apocalypse Never. 

So much for history as we knew it. 

In this day and age, within the technological "woo," you are best served by relying on your own capacity for critical thought. Blindly following "the latest thing," is surely the road to ruin. 

As Bernie Mac prefaced his wisdom, "Listen, America." Matthew 7:14

Don't listen to corporate media bullshit. Buy Virtue. Buy Quality. Buy Truth.

Then sell, sell, sell.

***

Back to Carl Jung and Mandalas. 

Here is a crash course on the topic of Mandalas, if you can spare the Time. 

As retired boomers, the internet doesn't matter in our world. Speed kills. We nurture our Time.

To us, social media is "actually talking to someone -- in real life."

So what I have found most compelling about Jung's work was the particular importance he placed on the"mandalas" (see above image), those intricate spell-binding seals, sort of artistic runes containing subconscious expressions reflective of an inner, dare I say, autistic, reality. Jung did some profound research involving the role of mandalas, and, don't get me wrong, I'm no expert in psychoanalysis, but his writings reveal the huge importance of human symbology, and understanding mandalas has expanded my consciousness about how we humans need to express ourselves, somehow, anyhow, including that side of ourselves that everyone else sees, but we cannot.

Not Interested?

The interest rate chart picture above is a sort of mandala. According to Jung, mandalas are fundamental expressions of the human psyche, heavy-handed efforts to "square the circle."

Now here's the twist: This essay is actually about "Mandela."   

He is dead, isn't he?

Now, we boomers know a world without Wikipedia. Still, I should address the origins of the so-called "Mandela Effect." It purportedly began in 2009, when an enterprising writer named Fiona Broome had a specific recollection that Nelson Mandela's funeral took place in 1990.  It turned out that he was not yet dead, and would not die until 2013. 

 Broome defines this as modern phenomenon as follows:    

The Mandela Effect is when people clearly recall and event in history -- something very specific -- but historical records show that something else happened.

That's all it is.

Just a very clear memory a person has, but it doesn't match historical records.

She elaborates that there is no one-size-fits-all explanation for it, but there are widespread instances where people remember things that, if you delve further, records reveal they are false memories.

Here's my point, (because brevity is the soul of wit, I'll keep it short, so you can go back to decorating your cubicle, or selling stuff, or beta-testing software, or fixing your boss's spreadsheets, or whatever variant of data-mining it is that passes for corporate work nowadays):

    "THE UGLY AMERICAN" WAS ONE OF THE GOOD GUYS.

Yes, the pejorative stereotype, "Ugly American," mistakenly depicts us as exhibiting loud, arrogant, demeaning, thoughtless, ignorant, and ethnocentric behavior, mainly abroad, but also at home. 

Although the term is usually associated with or applied to travelers and tourists, it also applies to U.S. corporate businesses in the international arena. 

The term originated in popular culture from the 1958 novel by Eugene Burdick, a decorated Navy Lieutenant Commander, PhD., Social Scientist, and Southern California surfer

The book is about a U.S. diplomatic worker, a plain-spoken, humble man named Homer Atkins, who is sent to the fictional Southeast Asian country of Sarkhan, to assist and advise with engineering projects. Over the course of his experience, it is Homer, the ugly American, who is the heroic figure. He, along with Col. Edwin B. Hillandale are the lone forces for good. They are the fiew who try and expose America's misplaced priorities, her entrenched interests, as well as the incompetent arrogance and corruption of her diplomatic corps.

The only characters facing these challenges, the only ones perceived by the locals as truly working for the good of the Sarkhan (loosely analogous to Thai, Burmese, Vietnamese or Filipino) people are, in fact, Homer Atkins and Col. Hillandale. That unattractive American engineer was the only decent, effective, positive element of American foreign policy in Southeast Asia during those Cold War years, according to the novel. He built water pumps for the locals, he was kind, learned the language, and in general, was portrayed as a humble, serious person.

Perhaps it is a stretch to say usage of the term "ugly American" a Mandela Effect. 

Perhaps it is less a false memory, than a false agenda.

Still, prevailing usage of "the ugly American" is pejorative. I can say, having actually read the book, that the so-called "ugly" lead character, Homer Atkins, was seen by the (ahem) "Sarkhan" people as a decent, sincere, thoughtful American, who, despite his outward appearance, worked to expose and overcome the many corrupt institutions, bureaucratic obstacles and foreign policy blunders of the time.

Just to complete the picture, we should know the President Eisenhower, a Republican demi-god, is rumored to have labeled Burdick's book "sickening." JFK, on the other hand, was impressed enough to send a copy to each of his Senate colleagues. The Ugly American is a classic that needs review in these troubled times, as poignant and incisive a work about American culture as that of Harriet Beecher Stowe or Upton Sinclair. 

As we taxpayers recklessly support Khazarian thugs to further NATO's obsolete aspirations and cover-up Defense Department biological weapons laboratories (not a "debunked" assertion). As with Vietnam, or Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, we propagandize the masses to maintain control of resources and massive money laundering/human trafficking operations, to keep the world under the Central Banking (ergo, Vatican) enslavement rituals. Remember TRUE history, and be wary of the Mandela Effect.

And as for ugly (read: deplorable) Americans, know that the book is always better than the movie.

Endless LIES.

Endless WARS.

Endless INFLATION.

Endless 'PRINTING'.

Endless OPPRESSION.

Endless SUBJUGATION.

Endless SURVEILLANCE.

What will put an end to the endless?

Ugly Americans?

  

    © 2022 by Roy Santonil

 

No Mercy

Start here.

Hello again, Boomers, Jonesers, and Non-Boomers alike.

Nothing to talk about lately?

What do we Americans do when the temperature starts climbing above 80, and the lawn needs mowing? 

Well, for the last couple of centuries, there was this thing called Our National Pastime. Notice the word  "pastime" suggests an activity unabashedly and unequivocally meant to be an acceptable and civil way to pass time. I would even go so far to say, pre-Internet distraction, there was a tapestry. a weaving of the fabric of your cultural character in sport, a mythos, conjured and nurtured for the benefit of inter-generational respect and  civility. Heck, even affection. Love you, dad.

Alas, locusts and honey will have to suffice anymore

"Oh, there you go again 15, being literal, and trying to find out what words mean."

I suppose so. Unfortunately, in my blogging experience, if you are a fan of scholarly etymology and  reasonable contextual usage, with a dash of tropism, you are now generally considered to be A REAL ASSHOLE in cyberspace.

I humbly accept your unjustified aspersions, if it means I can "pass time" peacefully, and scribble away this "old man rant" verbiage in a constructive manner, and fully exploit the legal training for which I so sadly (perhaps foolishly) overpaid.

Well, it is indeed the middle of beisból season, and my team is awesome. 

No not the Padres.

I respectfully disagree.

Having relocated to the capital of the third world, Los Angeles, in 1987, I eventually became a Dodger fan. It was like Saul on the Road to Damascus. Do as the Romans do.  I suddenly recalled my Little League team was called the "Dodgers." The circle was complete.  I had left (one of) my childhood homes (San Diego, inter alia), to live under the bright lights of Hollywood, and presto!

Assimilation happens.

Back to baseball. In lower level and recreational leagues, you may know there is a rule called "the Mercy Rule." If a team was leading by more than ten runs after three (or 4?) innings, the game is over. The team leading the game wins, even though you have not played every inning of a regulation game. Simple concept, designed more than likely to save the kids from embarrassment, as well as save the parents' time.

You may ask yourself, as I do, is there a real world equivalent of the Mercy Rule?

Have you ever seen a contest, or conflict, that reached the point where everyone thinks:

 "OMG, this is just not a fair fight. It's almost laughable to continue. We really should \just end it here. We know who will win this thing."

Oh, by the way, 

• Someone in the halls of the Supreme Court of the United States is in BIG trouble. Unless they abort the prosecution.
  

• Congress has indicted itself by sending taxpayer money to their Ukrainian subsidiaries. That should resonate well in minority communities.
  

• John Durham has obtained voluminous discovery documents pointing to a conviction of a top Democrat lawyer, who did NOT act on behalf of the Clinton campaign. Right.
  

• Trump-endorsed candidates are 58-1 (as of this post) in their primary contests. But Biden got 81 million votes.
  

• Middle Eastern governments are reportedly refusing to take calls from the POTUS. But at least we are energy indepen -- never mind.
  

• The stock market has tanked, along with everyone's (hello, Boomers) 401k retirement assets. Capitalism sucks, except when you need a cup of coffee.
  

• Inflation is approaching double digits, eating into retiree savings plans. What COVID hasn't killed, the Federal Reserve can.
  

• Interest rates are projected to rise +/- 50 basis points in 2022. But I repeat myself.
  

• Our Southern Border is worse than a sieve. It is a port of entry for scofflaws. I'm being nice here.

• The newest SCOTUS nominee cannot even attempt to define a "woman." Sheee-iiit.
  

• Parents who disagree with sexual indoctrination in public schools were labeled FBI "terrorists." Poking mama bear, eh?
  

• No one seriously believes anymore the information broadcast from mainstream sources. QED.
  

• What happened to the "pandemic?" I guess we are all sick of the lies.
  

• There is no mercy rule in real life. Only zombies and zombie companies.

• I'll stop here for brevity's sake.

If you don't know by now, the REPUBLIC of the United States was ATTACKED on Nov. 3, 2020. 

From where I sit, we are now in counter-attack mode.

See you in November.

 

 © 2022 by Roy Santonil

One Thing Leads to Another

Start here.

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, literally against 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.

"I'll circle back you on that."

I'll drink to that. 🍺

 © 2022 by Roy Santonil

What Do You Call A Black Guy Flying An Airplane? (republished post from March 2009)

A pilot, you racist.

Jokes aside, spring has sprung. Can you hear the music?

For me, there's warmth and sustenance in the manna from Bobby Jones's little toonamint which starts in less than two weeks. Golf's big boys will kiss the King's ring in Orlando, swing through Houston, and re-assemble at the Cathedral of Golf that is Augusta National.

Way before I became a curmudgeonly ex-lawyer and cyber-entrepreneur, there was, and there remains, an epic quality to the Masters which I will admit holds me spellbound, if not because of the ethereal atmosphere created by their meticulous greenskeeping, then only for the theater of human folly which is golf, placed on emerald pedestals amid the looming yellow pines, bright azaleas, and wound around the depths of Rae's Creek.

The Masters mythology lives in the same realms as the World Series, the Super Bowl, the Kentucky Derby, Daytona, Indy, and, okay, sometimes the Stanley Cup.

In spite of the degrees of separation experienced in daily drudgery, what passes as a banal earthly existence becomes the stuff of legend when we gather for these cultural festivals, when simple human will expels the fickle formulations of spreadsheets and peurile aspirations of foolish discretion. There is a shared ethos in sport that gives substance in its immediacy. Reality TV also gives spectacle, but is empty of character. It is perverse where sportsmanship is noble.


Fans who consider themselves to be "purists" may now be only remnants of those who have loved sports. The couch-riding, nacho-slurping, beer guzzler shatters the myth in the same way fat Roman child molesters cheered for their favorite gladiator in the Colisseum. That is one of the realities, as are the obsene piles of money changing hands as fans wager predictions among the winners and losers.

All the more reason, I think, the Masters is a special event. Its values and venue serve to give to golfers and fans alike, but especially to golfers who cherish the game, a chance to portray to the world, a higher ideal. At this level, golf is not merely token fancy. At Augusta, you are a "Patron", sharing in the competition in a process taking you beyond mere spectator. For golfers, the Masters allows us to partake of the experience whereby we look into ourselves.

Epic sporting events mark time, so that you can know what you were doing, where you were, at a given point during your life. Humans have always sought these archetypal reference points, and the individual dramas played out provide the particular shared experiences for us not only to enjoy, but to draw upon, for whatever we need that is good; whatever we need that endures; whatever we need that triumphs; whatever we need, whatever that may be.

Whether the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat, we golfers share unlike any other sport, a knowledge of our impermanence and the frailty of human endeavor. Yet, we gather again, to show the world there is another world of better things.

The event is not without taint. As a 500-plus year old game, golf has had a beleaguered history fueled by social contingencies, sometimes castigated and sometimes praised by agents of social change. But a real golfer will tell you there are few greater joys than the freedom of spirit found in our game.


Ultimately, though, pro golf is a game of Sorrows. Like every shot in life that we have ever taken, our old selves are dead and gone. You will never play a round of golf as the same golfer you were. The Masters makes an exta effort to pay homage to the amateur golfer, who has nothing to gain from shooting 65 on Sunday. The touching scene of Ben Crenshaw's 1995 victory serves as my own "Masters moment" because the price of victory was death. Transcending sports, the Masters serves as an "F--- You" to the slimy, ugly, and vulgar things in life.

I'll see you on the back nine Sunday.

[NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR: The above essay was posted on my previous blog, "Wit, Gun and Stein" on March 26, 2009 and is presented again for the benefit of golf aficionados and fans of the good side of Tradition -- everywhere.]

 

 © 2009 by Roy Santonil

Slaves to Faction

I 💓WRITING

 Start here.

“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 actually is the best way to 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. 

Stay tuned.

 

 © 2022 by Roy Santonil