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

Code Breakers (Part 3 of 3)

Start here.

Welcome to Part 3, The Series Finale. 

Part 1 and Part 2 did surely go by quickly. 

Time flies when sorting through the lies.

Where were we? 

That's right! The subject was cheat codes, and the linguistic fuckery that is more than prevalent in MSM, so much so that Hunter's Laptop was "Russian Disinformation" only until the crime boss could begin pretending to lead the United States. In less upright sectors of the legal profession, it is called "terms of art." The lies we have uncovered (together) are too numerous to review. Their deceptions create dragons, imagined and real, munching mushroom clouds on the world stage. Their stratospheric falsehoods wear legal trappings, sheepskin garbed, traps to hypnotize, pervert, and enslave our sad, opiated, and most of all, unthinking fellow human beings.

I have no doubt that you folks, you, the rational, and the rest who cannot care less about political agendas, have long disspelled the notion that legacy mass communication contain a shred of reliable or actionable information. Simple truths are outstanding mental floss. Try them.

No mature adult needs a Tik Tok account. 

Instagram is a bonfire of vanity. 

Facebook is an abandoned DARPA project. 

It's simple.

Thanks, internet. 

Yes, you are a force for human liberation. But with great Freedom comes great Responsibility. No "RIGHTS" at law can be recognized as valid or enforceable without corresponding "DUTIES." Simplistic aphorisms resonate as applicable truths because they are expressly derived from natural existence, and common experience, not from some synthetic form of hubris. This explains why a semester of introductory economics can be compressed into the saying, "There is no such thing as a free lunch." Or more succinctly, "Know Supply and Demand." I would add, "Do the Math."

For those of us seeking to establish some baseline for determining the validity of news reports through analysis of data sets, here is one, graphically represented in Cartesian coordinates, expressing degrees of thought and expressions of information and descriptions of events, plotted along the XY quadrant of a multi-variable function. 

Oh, and thanks, Trigonometry.

One look at that chart, and you know, here comes trouble. 

This week, I will simply add to our roster of linguistic cheat codes, the ones that slip by so easily amidst the booming buzzing noise of daily life, permeating our consciousness and sub-consciousness. These are the programmed phrases, playing on Repeat, leading future generations to a Never Never Land of snowflake nirvana, where accuracy in reporting is sacrificed at the Altar of the Unthinking, and zombie-like trance of shit posts, dumb tweets, cowardly commentary, and unbeareable hypocrisy. This is the final highlight reel of well-used weasel words that boomers should find particularly irritating, if not outright malevolent.

OK, Boomers.

 "Long story short." -- [translation: "Forget the details."]  Making a long story short is a great time saver, and it is also a way to hide the devil, who as we know hides in details. Or was it god who hides in the details? Oh well, long story short, watch out if someone is communicating to you, yet finds they really don't have the time to share important or unimportant details of the narrative. Real, lasting content is in fact comprised of long stories. They are called epics. Be epic.

"Thoughts and prayers." -- [translation: "I'm online and I really am a good person."] This phrase has become recognized as the epitome, and early expression of "virtue signaling." So prevalent in the world of online social media, "thoughts and prayers" is a sad by-product of our digitally induced shallowness, whose insincerity is soon to be surpassed by the currency devaluation of the phrase "Thank you for your service."

"Social Justice" -- [actual meaning: "collective retribution"] Justice is experienced on an individual level. The concept of "Social" Justice is mob justice, a shakedown, and a money-grabbing ruse for the race-baiter industry. It is one the biggest frauds out there, and an insult to the proposition that we are judged not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character. If you are a "social justice warrior," leave me out of the guilt-tripping 21st Century revenge fantasy against my counttry. YOU are the real racists. Period. Dot. Fin.

"Follow the Science" --  [actual meaning: "It is immoral to disagree with me."] We decoded this one in a previous post. The realm of science is the least capable discipline to determine social policy. It is the least capable to form precepts to guide benevolent human conduct. "Follow the Science" is the reason we needed the Nuremberg Code. In fact, the classical origin of being "scientific," means being a skeptic, not a sheep.

"Trope" -- [???] I am seeing the increased usage of the word "trope" as a shiny debate tool growing in popularity among the internet generation. A trope was a figure of speech, a metaphor, when the writer employs a word that is used in a non-literal manner, e.g., through irony, hyperbole, liltote (opposite of hyperbole), metonymy, or synecdoche. It is particularly fascinating as, perhaps, the word "trope" is not so much a linguistic cheat, as much as it is a definitional error, and its rise in usage (to dismiss potentially valid propostions before examining the proposition) supports my favorite trope generator: Wittgensteinian analytical philosophy.  Put simply, he says that regarding language, Usage trumps Definitions, and not only that, Usage creates Meaning. Humans play Language Games. As I have seen it, some folks think an idea can discredited by calling it mere "trope." Actually,  when someone says, "Oh, that's just a trope," they probably intended to dismiss your idea as cliché, and that could be a valid point.  But by no means should a concept (or policy preference, for that matter) be dismissed merely because it was expressed creatively. Enough on the difference between "trope" and "cliché." I rant.

In closing, as an homage to being a North Carolinian for 28 years, here is one of my favorite linguistic decodes, courtesy of comedian Jon Reep. If you have lived in the South, you already know this.

Peace. Out. 

 © 2022 by Roy Santonil

Fascism, False Flags, and Freedom

Do you hear Sopranos?

Start here.

Do you see part of the image above circled in red? 

What the heck are those?

Why are they hovering above the chamber of the House? 

Apparently, they live.

As you and I keep calm and cope with corporate media dialectics, staying the Babylonian money magic stream of lies pitting:

• left against right,
• conservatives versus liberals 
• male versus female
• black versus white 
• and of course, the currently popular diametric Russia versus Ukraine,

that old imperial strategy seems destined for failure. It is time for the causes of our national malaise to fail, and to fail in catastrophic ways. 

"Choose a side," they implored us.

"Don't worry," they assured us. "We can fix this. Yes, we can." 

Well, sorry, Your Highnesses, but that divide and conquer strategy is old and worn. It is dead. It started to die at Runnymeade. It got worse for you in Trenton. Your destiny was sealed in the fields of Normandy and the streets of Moscow. The kids watched you from the living room TV, as you lied and killed your way through the jungles of Vietnam and Nicaragua, sacrificing youth and energy in the deserts and mountains of Iraq and Afghanistan. But you are done. We have devolved, and our constitution is being restored.

Sure, you have made futile attempts, temporarily derailing humanity's quest. Your litany of falsehoods includeds last-gasp efforts over the millennia -- sinking the Lusitania, followed by the Titanic and more.

But we have long since connected the dots . . . between FDR's foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor ... JFK's monetary agenda ... the fake news from the Gulf of Tonkin ... the dark history of Bush family ... 9-11 truthers ... and now ... the plandemic Covid-19 (better known as the Biden election strategy.)  

Many youthful researchers doubt the seriousness of your Georgia "Guidestones," dismissing them as an obscure art project by some wealthy nut job. The kids may be right, but try asking the people of Hiroshima or Nagasaki whether there exists a certain faction of world powers and principalities having an express, and very clear, depopulation agenda. 

With eyes wide open, to them it's no joke.

But it just won't work. They are destined to fail.

Sure, ordo ab chao was a nice, catchy motto back in the days of Manifest Destiny, when you could opiate the masses and conjure hellscape visions with technological spell-casting, hypnotic images of horror broadcast to make us afraid. You have harvested natural Caution to exploit irrational Fear. Your lust for the blood of innocence inflamed your hatred for Truth and the Beauty.

Little Lambs became Terrible Tigers, burning bright in the forests of flyover America. And our people perish for lack of knowledge. But now, we know. We know your methods, we know your goals and we have learned your ways. Your time has come, you pinkie-sucking, narcissistic, silk-tie wearing monsters. Your days are numbered.

Don't dream. It's over.

This week I commend to you an article from The City Journal, a literary organ of the Manhattan Institute. 

The piece was written in 2014 by Eugene Kontorovich. At the time, Kontorovich was Professor of International Law and Constitutional Law at Northwestern University Law School.

I had no idea that this symbol, used by Mussolini's fascist regime in Italy, is now plastered all over the architecture of many Federal office buildings in Washington, D.C. 

Fascinating.

The fasces symbol may be less notorious than the swastika, but I find it no less detestable. It's meaning and symbolism elicit, in my view, the precise opposite of American ideals, especially the Emersonian ideal of self-reliance, not to mention the concepts of inalienable rights and natural law.

Let me explain. As Professor Kontorovich put it: 

"In republican Rome, the chief magistrates were protected in public by lictors: bodyguards who each carried a fasces, a bundle of 12 rods tied together and surrounding outward-facing axes. The lictors used this unwieldy-looking scepter to chastise wrongdoers, and it came to symbolize the coercive power of the consul."

The symbol of the fasces represented magisterial and priestly authority  in ancient Rome, symbolizing "strength in unity," the way a bundle of sticks is harder to break than one single stick. The strong implication is that the state power is a derivative from corporal power, the power of physical punishment, and the authority is based in a collective, bound together to (unthinkingly) enforce the will of the ruling class, its media, and entertainment outlets. Essentially, the fasces is a weapon, in Latin, a "bundle," that represents the imposition of authority . . . just because . . . well . . . uh, let's see . . . because a large mob of people say so?

That coercive aspect offends me. Coercion, done by goons, hired by effete elitists. It is what makes fascism so repellant to American sensibilities, yet it is so similar to current events, namely, greater central bank control through militarization of local police.

And yes, the Founding Fathers did have admiration for the ancient Roman Republic. One of the first official acts of Congress was to adopt the fasces as the emblem of the Sergeant at Arms.

The Professor again:

"Fasces were part of the standard visual vocabulary of classicism. Like the lamp and the scales, they represented a particular attribute of the classical view of justice: physical power or the ability to impose order."

"When he came to power in Italy in 1922, Mussolini resurrected the symbol and employed it to represent the strength and unity of the Italian state. Political fascism made physical power and the ability to impose order central to its ideology, and so the term “fascism” quickly became synonymous with authoritarian regimes. Mussolini made the fasces symbol almost as common in Italy as the Nazi swastika became in Hitler’s Germany. If people associate the fasces with fascism less than they associate the swastika with Nazism, it may simply be because Il Duce’s historical infamy pales beside Hitler’s [and our WWII ally, Stalin]. 

Kontorovich's piece is titled "When Fasces Aren't Fascist. The Strange History of  America's Federal Buildings." As I read it, he is rationalizing the existence of fasces in the halls of the U.S. Congress.

Kontorovich is attempting to render palatable the disturbing prevalence of that symbol as merely a cultural speed bump, an almost quirky artistic preference. He says the fasces symbol "had no nefarious connotation before Mussolini." 

I beg to differ. The swastika had no nefarious connotation before Hitler either, but we don't see it emblazoned anywhere except those flags hanging on basement walls of shaven headed kook jobs. 

Or Buddhist tombstones.

Symbols are powerful. Symbols will be their downfall.

Indeed, the Founding Fathers adopted elements of a republican form of government when they formed the United States of America. However, the idea that governmental power should be dispersed between three branches, and that man's utter depravity and corruptible greed necessitated a de-centralized form of government is a basic American precept that FLIES ON THE FACE of opposing ideals expressed by the symbolism of the fasces. The Sergeant at Arm's actual job is to enforce the rules of the House, so in a small way, the image of the fasces was an appropriate emblem in 1789. 

However, the Office of the Sergeant at Arms is NOT the government of, by, or for the People. 

The use of the fasces as a symbol in American public architecture did not become prevalent until Mussolini made it so in the 1920's. Fascism was seen as something "cool" in the period of time between the so-called World Wars. Mussolini was admired for getting Italy back on its feet, just as Hitler was admired and promoted by financial interests which included the Bush family, The New York Times, and yes, the Vatican. The fasces symbol, and the philosophy it represented, became so trendy during that period of history that architect Cass Gilbert, and his disciples, imported the "gospel of fasces" into American public life. 

It is sad to see how far we have strayed from our Founders vision. That symbol of collective authoritarianism (OK, dictatorship through corporal punishment), expresses ideals antithetical to our foundational precepts. Do I need to repeat the first three words of the preamble again? 

OK, Boomer. Let's leave it at that. 

I have a medical appointment to deal with some knee pain.

Stay tuned. Same Bat-Time. Same Bat-Channel.

 

 © 2022 by Roy Santonil