The Northern Review

Reading the voting rights case of Chisom v. Roemer I tried mightily to determine which side was right on the issue of whether Section 2 of Voting Rights Act, as Amended, included judicial elections.  The question came down to wheter under the statute the term “representatives” includes the election of judges.  Justice Scalia for himself and justices Kennedy and Rehnquest said it did not.  Justice Stevens and the other justices said the term representive included judges.

My mind spun one way and then the next.  I looked for proof that one side or the other spoke the “truth.”  I tried to see if the words of one side or the other made it clear which side truth was on.  In the end I knew how I would vote — to include judges in the definition of representatives — but in the end I had to admit my decision was on the basis of what I might in the end determine as good sense, and fairness.  But good sense and fairness was not the basis upon which the battle between the majority and the minority was all about.  The battle was about logic and some kind of truth within the context of the issue as to what congress intended when it amended the Voting Rights Act.

In the end I suppose I must admit I wonder whether in the end, judicial decisions are arbitrary.  If this “realism” is true, then clearly judges engage in political decision making.  As such, no one could honestly say judges are not “representatives” of the people.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are a knock-off of the Nazi Storm Troopers.

As we watch the state expand the role of government (so that it becomes ever more involved in the control and sometimes ownership of the economic aspects of human relations) we encounter new thoughts about the state and the power of the state.

In these times of rapid development of machines which have the ability to process information and take action there is a new theory of socialism.  It is called transhumanistic socialism.  The thinkers of this topic define this “new thing” as follows:

Definition:Transhumanist socialism is a particular type of socialism which holds that future transhumanist technologies such as molecular nanotechnology will make it much more feasible to bring about a truly socialist world. A transhumanist socialist believes that despite the risks that may be involved in these new technologies, such as even more potent weapons and means of totalitarian control, it is on balance worth developing transhuman technologies in the long term, because of their potential to transform society for the better. (Note that this in no way necessarily implies that technology alone can solve problems. Everybody must change as well, because true socialism is not just a matter of who is “in charge”, it is a mode of being of a whole society, on a world scale and including every person.)

Reference

 Interesting, but far more interesting are the statements in the parenthetical - “Note that this in no way necessarily implies that technology alone can solve problems. Everybody must change as well, because true socialism is not just a matter of who is “in charge”, it is a mode of being of a whole society, on a world scale and including every person.”

And in the perenthetical we find the real problem.  The new theories sound good but they are destined to failure because they neglect an understanding and appreciation of the nature of the human being.  The proponents of the new nanotechnology socialism say that “[e]verybody must change as well . . . it is a mode of being of a whole society.”  Whoa!  And how does one suppose the people changes are to come about?  The answer of course is state power over the individual.  The individual will be forced to change.  He will be threatened to change or be removed.  Sounds just like Hitlerian Facism, the Soviet Union, North Korea.  But there will also be the gentle people control of the so-called more civilised countries.

Sigmund Freud did not have much good to say about communism because it depended upon a human nature which was not the human nature of reality.

One must wonder whether the rush of the United States of America into this new economy those in control of the state have embarked upon and our numerous wars to somehow turn great groupings of people to our way of life are not doomed to failure because they too ignore the reality of human nature.  One fears a police state, or worse, a state where people are simply shunned out of existance, turned into objects of mass hatred and then removed by genocide.

What is the work of the courts?  Some thinkers about courts say the law is what judges say it is.  They doubt the law as espoused by a court and the facts connected to the espousement are anything more than what a mere human being says the law and facts are at a given moment in a given circumstance.  Experience confirms these notions.  So much would we like to think differently we endow our judges with fantasies, illusions, projections of the goodness, rationality, decency, wisdom of those who hold positions of power as our judges.  The power of the court comes not only from its place in the organization of our government, but in the veneration we naively grant to the people who are paid to be our judges.

Law and judging is, maybe, an exercise in imagination, make believe?  One doubts that it must be this way.  But then I read the cases and the tomes of our judges and thinkers and wonder. 

The Washington Court of Appeals is the “real supreme court of the state of Washington.”  We think we elect the judges of the Court of Appeals.  But, in reality, we do not.  The judges who decided the major cases are not elected, they are appointed.  And, you would think we have one “court of appeals”  that is what the state constitution says we have.  But we do not.  We have three courts of appeal.  And, making matters worse, we do not elect judges to the panels the local court of appeals sets up as the judges of the court of appeals.  It may seem a bit complicated, and it is.  But, rest assured the status quo is betting on your lack of understanding and also is betting on your complacency.  Meanwhile “things keep falling apart.”

Life is the soul’s nursery — its training place for the destinies of eternity. — Thackeray

Life cannot be the soul’s nursery if it is taken over by the state.  If the state and its “government” is to provide the what friends and neighbors from time immemorial provided to friends and neighbors what will be left for the human being, human souls, to do?  We cannot let “our government” do what can only be done at a human level.  We destroy ourselves when we think and act as if we can collectively provide what we will not provide in person.  What human connection can the state have to the other human being.  When there is need, there is a necessity of human interaction, of a personalistic interaction, a face to face connection.  We are moving in the wrong direction.  How can a government convey the human love which can be conveyed when one being needs the help of another.  The direction we are moving is a direction which will cause the great burden of need o become subhuman, and it fall in on us, because the collective cannot provide it, and we will be crushed. Following our present course, ever greater suffering will ensue.  When it is done we will say it all happened without our knowledge.  That is to say, the evil which is gnawing into our souls is insidious.

In the United States of America we hardly recognize the country, the people, who live north of the borderline separating the states of the Northern Tier from Canada and the vast expanse of country which is home to millions.  A testimony to the narcisissism of the United States of America, a warning to us about the vast diversity of people who live next door to us.  One wonders what we would be like if we were to acknowledge and regard the people near to us, just across the borderline.

The New York Times reports,

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan on Friday disputed criticism by the Obama administration that his government was not doing all it could to fight corruption. He said instead that any gulf between the countries had more to do with the civilian toll of American airstrikes in Afghanistan. [Emphasis added,]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/world/asia/09policy.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=karzai&st=cse

There is corruption, but there is also a civilian death toll.  In fact, America is killing civilians in its war effort.  This fact cannot be denied — it is called collateral damage.  It is called “the end justifies the means.”  This materialistic philosophy is the end of America.

America will never be a world leader if she thinks civilian deathes in the face of battle are unimportant.  One recalls My Lai.

The problems of the protection of vulnerable adults will increase dramatically as more and more “baby-boomers” become less able to manage their affairs and become more and more an more dependent.  The battles in this area will often come down to differences between the family and lawyers for the vulnerable adult and new lawyers and others who claim they are representing the best interests of the vulnerable adult.  For information about this topic go to http://www.steveeugster.com/vulnerable_adults.htm.

If the up-coming Six Party Talks fail the so-called people in the know in the world scene say Isreal will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.  People also say Israel will not be able to do  so without the military reconnaissance assistance of the United States.  We are coming to the point of a real crisis.