American Supreme Court Idol

Back during the election, one of the big issues that received only minor attention was the fact that so many of the Supreme Court justices were getting really, really old. There was rampant speculation that the person who won the race for President during the 2008 election cycle would have the chance to hand-pick up to three Supreme Court justices during their term. Many Religious Conservatives saw this as a means of overturning the Roe Vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion in the US, if only they could get a republican elected. Many Social Liberals saw this as a chance to shore up what they saw as eroding Constitutional freedoms and extend Constitutional protections, whether explicit (spelled out) or implicit (assumed rights extrapolated by the courts to cover holes in the fabric of Constitutional freedoms), if only they could get a Liberal elected.

In the end, the Liberals got their man. The question now is: what happens next? Conservatives have railed against "Activist Judges" whom they accuse of abusing the power of the courts to create law as they see fit, without regard for the letter of the Constitution, while Liberals have lamented what they see as the gradual destruction of the rights of the individual citizen (see: The Patriot Act). Each side wants to see someone who shares their Constitutional views picked to replace the next retiring judge, and both will fight tooth and nail to see that they get what they want.

Remember folks: these are lifetime appointments. While some Justices do indeed choose to retire, many serve until they drop dead. This means that a Justice who opposes the views of one party or the other becomes a serious threat to the ability of a President or legislative body to erect those views into legal precedent.

So grab a drink, sit back, and get ready to see some fireworks during the course of the selection and confirmation process to replace Justice David Souter.


- V.

What is the cure?

I've begun to read editorials and opinions from people who wait for things like pandemics, hoping that this will be the one to return balance to the planet. Their perspective is one of equilibrium; they feel that human activity has thrown the natural balance off and that every one and everything would be much better off if only there were fewer people in the world.

That sentiment brings to mind that scene in The Matrix where Agent Smith is interrogating Morpheus:

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I've realized that you are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment. But you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague. And we...are the cure.

I'm not so sure the sheer number of people on this planet by itself is the primary issue. I believe that we simply need to rediscover how to achieve balance in our daily lives and in our approach to the world around us. The "equilibrium" Agent Smith spoke of is merely living in harmony with our environment, something that should be a basis for our society. But rather than a guiding principle, this idea is merely one spoke in a cycle in which balance is discovered, taken for granted, then thrown out the window in the pursuit of a short cut to happiness.

Working to achieve that balance, that harmony with the natural and social environments we are surrounded by, would eliminate mot of the problems many people believe a "culling" would solve.

Totalitarianism (American style)

Tell me folks: how does the traditional definition of Totalitarianism differ from Consumerism?

from Wikipedia:

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a concept used to describe political systems whereby a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of:

• An official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media
  
• A single party that controls the state
  
• Personality cults
  
• Control over the economy
  
• Regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism
  
• The use of mass surveillance
  Widespread use of state terrorism

Consumerism refers to economic policies placing emphasis on consumption. In an abstract sense, it is the belief that the free choice of consumers should dictate the economic structure of a society. (cf. Producerism, especially in the British sense of the term)

In modern America, economic ideologies have been substituted for the overtly political ideologies to produce a kind of neo-Totalitarianism.

Don't believe it?

• An official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media - In America, we call this "advertising" disseminated through privately held mass media
  
• A single party that controls the state - In America, we call this "Big Business" controlling the economy
  
• Personality cults - In America, we call these "Brands" used by lifestyle marketing as a means of meeting the artificially created interests, needs, desires, and values of the consumer population
  
• Control over the economy - In America, this falls under the realm of our financial institutions. Our recent bubble economy was driven by the business and consumer credit controlled by various financial entities
  
• Regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism - In America, we call this the "chilling effect"
  
• The use of mass surveillance - In America, we call this "Market Research"
  
• Widespread use of state terrorism - In America, this last piece of the Totalitarian puzzle is supplied by the culture of fear necessary to sustain economic bubbles. The artificial desires created through lifestyle marketing have at their core the individual need for identity and the fear generated by the gap between perception and reality.

Just as our foreign policy under the last administration was based on fear of the "other", lifestyle marketing exploits the need most people have to pursue the vision of who they would like to be, while distancing themselves from who they feel they are not. In a Consumerist Totalitarian system, who needs religious or political dogma? When you can sell an illusion for a fraction of the cost of the reality, you've struck gold.


- V.

"Gay marriage answer cost me the Miss USA crown"

This controversy brings to light a common response by bigots who insist on publicly expressing themselves.

Time and again, I hear racists, homophobes, misogynists, and other bigots defend ignorant statements like the one uttered by Miss California as their "God-given right to free speech" (that right is outlined in the Constitution, not the Bible, but that's neither here nor there). They climb up on a high horse and proclaim that to object to their bile is to restrict their freedoms and violate their rights.

I call bullshit.

The Constitution does not automatically grant unlimited freedom of speech. There are restrictions built into it related to the violations of the rights of others, as well as protections in the Constitution for the rights of all citizens. That document represents not only a guarantee of freedoms, but a balance of freedoms that keeps the exercise of one freedom by a group or individual from infringing upon the freedom of another group or individual. This balance is highlighted by the restriction on the "majority rules" aspect of the Constitution: the line in the sand to this concept is drawn right at the point at which the majority would deprive anyone of the same constitutional rights they themselves enjoy.

According to the The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"...All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..."

Marriage is one of those concepts that span both religion and government. If a religion wants the government to recognize their concept of marriage, it can only do so if the government recognizes every religion's (and non-religion's) concept of marriage. We are not a Christian nation; we a majority Christian nation. And while majority rules, it does not rule absolutely. The beliefs of Christians has had a large impact on the development of our society, but that particular system of belief is not the law of the land. If we are to hold true to the foundation this country was built on, we need to resist turning a secular government created to protect the freedoms of ALL citizens into a theocracy bent on forcing every citizen of this country to live according to the narrow views of a single system of belief.

This isn't a matter of faith, folks; it's a matter of Constitutional law. In this country, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but you cannot force others to live by those beliefs.


- V.

"Why you sag them jeans, boy?"

Once again, I've been confronted with yet another article that tries to address that scourge of older sensabilities: the style of wearing slightly over-sized pants below one's waistline in a way that exposes more of the torso than is considered acceptable by mainstream culture. The article in question uses historical examples to paint this style as representative of many things that are "wrong" with our society, even going so far as to say that this style only aids those who would destroy African American culture.

*Yawn*

Really? We're going to assign THIS much power to a clothing style? As a student of history, I could cite literally dozens of examples of older people pointing at youth culture and lamenting how it is representative of the general decline of society, a recycling of past undesirable cultural influences, or an affront to authority, examples that range from Flappers in the 1920s to Hippies in the 1960s, with their unique hair and fashion rebellions. However, my favorite example comes in the form of a quote that puts this kind of generational culture clash into its proper context:

"Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers."

- Socrates


Yes, THAT Socrates. This quote is literally THOUSANDS of years old. It is a lament that continues to echo uselessly throughout the ages. The young will always try new and different things, especially if those things piss off their elders. How sagging your pants somehow represents an imminent cultural threat, when hundreds of other styles in our nation's history have failed to destroy our way of life, is beyond me.

Now, don't get me wrong; I fully recognize the context some people are pointing to when they rail against this particular fashion statement. I would like to point out, however, that those who gravitate towards this style do not do so using that same context. One parallel example is the wearing of earrings by men. A practice not uncommon in other cultures or in our own past, it became stigmatized as a mark of homosexuality by the middle 20th century. Yet here we are in the new century and I'd be willing to bet most of the men reading this have at least one earring in right now. Does this make us gay because part of Western culture defined this fashion as such at some point? I submit that pants being sagged by prison sweetmeat, or any of the other definitions assigned to that style, do not define that fashion for today's youth culture.

As we get older, we all put aside childish things (exceptions not withstanding). History shows just how harmless even the ugliest, most shocking fashion statements really are. I say let them have their fun and grow out of it in their own time; there are more substantive issues we can focus our energy on.

Illusionary wealth as cultural status

It is a common fallacy that turning our society away from materialism is easier said than done. There are, however, many societies in which material wealth was seen as simply a means of pursuing spiritual and cultural wealth, rather than an end in and of itself. The ancient Athenian Greeks, for example, did not use their wealth to pursue the creation and expansion of an empire (the Delian League was an alliance of defense against the Persians, not an Athenian empire); they used it in pursuit of cultural and artistic achievement.

I think the trick would be to modify the cultural definitions of wealth. Current concepts of wealth are tied into consumerism. One of the primary factors in the current economic crisis is the belief by the average consumer that credit equals wealth; the capacity to use credit to acquire material goods, in many minds equals the ability to truly purchase and own. The illusionary "wealth" of credit, and the acquisition of the trappings of wealth, has become more important than what true wealth is supposed to do: decrease the struggle to survive and freeing the mind to pursue goals not directly related to day-to-day survival by increasing leisure time.

Without strong personal and social ties, the only means of acquiring cultural status in through the pursuit of those things that have become representative of cultural status. Rather than a reputation serving this purpose, the artificial and culturally accepted proxy reputation bestowed by consumer brands imparts that status.

Our leaders believe that increasing consumer spending is the key to solving the current economic crisis. I believe that nothing could be further from the truth. The over-reliance on credit got us into this mess. Shifting consumer spending from the credit-based acquisition of status items to cash-based expenditures on staple goods will not only correct current detrimental spending habits, but shift the acquisition of status away from symbols and towards interpersonal relationships, social relationships, and other non-materialistic, culture-strengthening pursuits.


- V.