DOBBS vs. ROE v. WADE

A quick word search for “Ninth Amendment” on the DOBBS case, which overturned ROE v. WADE, yielded no results among the dissenters. The 9th Amendment, part of the “supreme Law of the Land,” per Article VI in the Constitution itself (unconditionally ratified by ALL states), recites as follows:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

So the Ninth Amendment was NOT cited by the dissenters (Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer) ANYWHERE! THAT is utter incompetence on their part, as far as I am concerned. Samuel Alito’s Opinion in DOBBS makes much of the fact that the US Supreme Court has, in years past, drawn a distinction between “rights” that are deemed “deeply rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition” and whether or not they are “fundamental to our 'scheme of ordered liberty,’" as opposed to those pesky “rights” that certain undesirables insist on asserting but which don’t, in fact, exist in Alito’s fevered brain. He is particularly critical of those who insist that the expansive “rights” of the Ninth Amendment are further reinforced by being incorporated by the post-Civil-War 14th Amendment, thus being applicable to the States.

For example, Alito says:

In interpreting what is meant by the Fourteenth Amendment’s reference to “liberty,” we [who?] must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what that Amendment protects with our own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy. That is why the Court has long been “reluctant” to recognize rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992). “Substantive due process has at times been a treacherous field for this Court,” Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977) (plurality opinion), and it has sometimes led the Court to usurp authority that the Constitution entrusts to the people’s elected representatives. See Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 225–226 (1985).

This recitation seems to refute the plain language of the 9th Amendment! AND, it appears to presume our ready “confusion” desperately in need of Justice Alito’s generous clarifications! 

Practically speaking, the Supreme Court DOES have to go along with the actual language of the Constitution, but it’s a blatant violation of the justices' straightforward individual oaths to support the Constitution if they choose to ignore that plain language by using legislative approval (“the people’s elected representatives”) as a fabricated screen for enforcement of ALL our rights. The very existence of our RIGHTS should not EVER depend on our “elected representatives"! Who in the Hell do they think they are?

Ailto’s ludicrous Opinion draws on a lot of very ancient history, much of it written back when slavery was still legal, and on a lot of British theory, against whom we fought a Revolutionary War to escape their tyranny! Not only is Alito WRONG, he’s boring as Hell! Blahblahblah.

So, as far as I am concerned, the RIGHT to exclusively control our own bodies (male or female) and all parts thereof (including NON-viable fetuses—NOT merely “a woman’s right to choose") is STILL VALID, up until there is a fetal life that can exist on its own as a legal “person” separate from its mother (“viability”). Alito obviously takes great delight in disparaging the concept of fetal “viability” as a legal “fulcrum.” Sadly, but ONLY for the time being, our Supreme Court is not going to enforce those rights. But Alito and the rest of his thuggish “Gang of Six” cannot EVER take our rights away. And one day they will all be D-E-A-D! EVERY one of them!

Many may dismiss these opinions as those of a non-scholar of constitutional history. Howver, I can read plain English.

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST

 Listen—and watch:

<BR-R-R-RT!! (br-r-r-rt.) BR-R-R-RT! (br-r-r-rt.) BR-R-R-RT! (br-r-r-rt.)>

A cacophony of procreative insistence.

(No point in creating resistance.)

Bullfrog’s strong and comely daughter

Lays her eggs in the water.

(Thank you, Ira Gershwin.)

Suitor’s milt soon to descend upon those eggs,

Lying among the dregs

On the bottom—Got ‘em!

Tadpoles will then soon emerge

To morph into new generations. 

Said new frogs will then surge

Upon the shore’s penetrations. 

All over again.

New fireflies, floating in the dark,

Blinking urgently;

Emergent. See?

Seeking mates, full of hope,

But some must bear a big fat “Nope.”

NATURE’S choices—randomly.

Wins and losses—and, you’ll see

How probably it works for each of us,

Regardless of a prayerful fuss.

Sadly, we embrace likely truths

That our legacies depend upon the tooths

We sink into rivals’ flesh,

While we seek mates with whom to mesh.

So it must be.

© 5/6/2024

All rights reserved.

DICK-TATER IN CHIEF

 

QUANTUM MECHANICS & RELIGION

One of the things most Christians have been taught since childhood is that “God works in mysterious ways,” so there’s no point in questioning the seeming lack of “logic” in whatever happens, like innocent babies born with AIDS or fetal alcohol syndrome or drug addiction. Or why little children get bombed and maimed.

Bad things DO happen to good (& innocent) people. One may blame the “Devil” or God or whatever, but the all-powerful creator-deity of choice seems just too busy to deal with it all.

Or, HE may have a “higher purpose” in mind.

OR, he’s just a demented prick who likes seeing HIS people suffer! Whatever.

The main point is that the creator-deity’s “mysterious ways” make no sense to our logical thinking. And, neither does “quantum mechanics,” the way in which sub-atomic particles (like protons, electrons, gluons, etc.) behave utterly contrary to our “common sense.” Where maybe even TIME runs backward when messing around with “positrons,” which are positively charged antimatter “electrons” whirling around a negatively charged atomic nucleus! Supposedly, that has all been calculated mathematically, illustrated by the so-called “Feynman Diagrams” showing the interaction of electrons (tiny particles of matter) colliding with photons (electromagnetic energy particles), as developed by the late Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman, who was a professor of physics at Cal-Tech in Pasadena.

WHEW! WAY over my pay grade! Feynman, a non-drinker, liked to ride around Pasadena at night in his Dodge van, decorated with his Diagrams, and hang out in bars, playing his bongo drums with the local bands. Can I get a witness?

  One just has to ASSUME that theoretical physicists (like Feynman) know what they are talking about, so just have “faith” that the sub-atomic world exists in that way. That seems almost like a “religious” experience to me. One must just have “faith” that things work those ways in the sub-atomic world. On top of all that, in the quantum world, the behavior of sub-atomic particles is said to be determinable by “probability,” in that the determination of particle motion and particle position are mutually exclusive (the “Uncertainty Principle” developed by German physicist Werner Heisenberg), by “guesswork,” such that the more one determines or measures the particle position, the less certain the particle motion, and vice-versa. Strange ways, indeed!

“Science” has been defined as anything that can be DIS-proven. Religious matters defy “proof” of any sort, but “science” is ALWAYS subject to further revelation or revision, as more is learned. Even the “theory” of gravity is open to question, but not likely in the way alleged “creationists” might be inclined to so do. Sub-atomic particles do, indeed, behave in strange ways, and one must be open to accepting those weird ways and not try to shoehorn them through the venturi of “common sense.” That is, of course, my pathetic oversimplification of the phenomenon but as the gal said, when asked about the “future” on “I Think We’re All Bozos On This Bus” by the Firesign Theatre comedy group, “I say, ‘Live it, or live with it!’”

For years physicists have been trying to mathematically unify the four fundamental forces in the Universe: (1) Electromagnetism, (2) the Strong Nuclear Force (keeping the atomic nucleus bound together), (3) the Weak Nuclear Force (controlling atomic decay—atom-splitting), and (4) Gravity. Sub-atomic particles seem to define the first three, but I understand that only gravity remains a mystery. Albert Einstein’s “General Theory of Relativity” addresses some of that, and he spent his lifetime wrestling (mostly unsuccessfully) with understanding the mechanics of gravity. It defies definition and “connection” to this day. All matter (mass) seems to exhibit gravity, but nobody really knows how it works. It WILL bend light waves (pure energy), which have no mass at all! Einstein called gravity a “warp in space-time,” much like a bowling ball being held in a big blanket, sucking everything else in the space-time “blanket” down to it. I have no clue how that really works.

Einstein mostly rejected those “probabilities” of quantum mechanics, given his famous quote about how “God does not play dice with the Universe.” For years physicists have tried to integrate gravity with quantum mechanics, but now some physicists are suggesting that gravity operates as “classical physics” and may not belong to the quantum “club” at all. It continues to defy definition.

The sub-atomic world is illustrated by the phenomenon known as the “Standard Model,” which seeks to show sort of a balance among all the various particles. I found the following chart on Wikipedia:

    I don’t know if the “balance” has been truly satisfied, since it appears from the chart that three more particles need to be included in the “Scalar Bosons” column along with the “Higgs Boson,” sometimes referred to as the “God Particle.” It is named after Peter Higgs, the Nobel Laureate who discovered it at the CERN particle accelerator in 2012, and the late Leon Lederman was the Nobel Laureate who had given it the nickname in the 1990’s. He wrote a delightful, funny book by the same name. And there may be even more particles yet to be discovered, so the chart may never get truly completed, as some physicists believe.

[As an aside, in his novel Mason and Dixon, about the 18th-century British surveyors who ran the eponymous southern boundary of Pennsylvania and the western boundary of Delaware, as they adjoin Maryland, the author Thomas Pynchon opens with Mason sailing on a ship to the South Pacific to observe a total eclipse of the sun. I love the fact that the “boatswain” (pronounced “bosun”) crew member on board is named “Higgs”! Coincidence?]

It was hoped that the Higgs boson would illustrate some sort of mathematical “connection” of gravity to the other three fundamental forces, but I don’t think that’s been shown (yet). We must all just wait and see.

______________________________ 

THE (futile) PURSUIT OF HAPPY-NESS

  What is “happiness”? 

Whatever that means.

I have no clue! I have a prodigious, “sticky” memory, going back almost to infancy, but I simply cannot remember when I ever felt what might be declared as “happy.” I have variously personally felt or experienced hatred, anger, fear, dread, jealousy, envy, indifference, meanness, bigotry, stupidity, depression, offense, umbrage, embarrassment, perhaps other negative emotions; even guilt. But I cannot describe a time when I felt generally “happy.” It is obviously subjective, but I suspect that all those negative emotions have punctuated other moments of good feelings for most others.

I have also experienced much pleasure, gratification, satisfaction, love, gratitude, respect, admiration, fun, mirth, amusement, triumph and pride, among other such emotions. I am truly grateful for all those experiences, but that’s the best I can do. It hasn’t been all bad.

Our culture seems to INSIST on our being “happy”; seemingly insisting on some sort of personal duty to be “happy.” Or else. We are so hammered with that notion that “guilt” is the likely (intended?) result, for failing to somehow measure up. That stuff is simply not possible for me. I certainly don’t speak for anyone else. There may be others who truly feel and declare their “happy-ness,” but I suspect they are just witless idiots who CHOOSE to ignore the serious things happening in our culture, especially to others. Yet those who do ignore those unpleasantries happening to others may well feel truly happy! What—me worry? I can’t do that.

It figures the Germans would come up with the word for what I suspect is a common emotion: schadenfreude—literally translated as “sadness-joy.” Taking pleasure in the misfortunes of others. I have surely felt that emotion, too, from time to time. Is that a component of “happiness”?

In the Declaration of Independence, it is written that we colonists in rebellion are entitled to the “pursuit of Happiness.” But there is no guarantee we’ll ever catch it! We are not guaranteed “happiness”; only the right to chase after it. I’m tired of running after it. I’m 77 years old now, and I just can’t run anymore. I have had a very INTERESTING life, for which I am most grateful. It was punctuated by all sorts of emotions—some good, some bad. I tried to learn from most of it. But it was not what I would call “happy.” It just was.

And I suspect (regardless of what others may think) that most of us are in the same boat. We choose what to remember and what to forget. Fortunately or unfortunately, I’m not able to forget much. I feel cursed with that “sticky” memory, even though I have a “sieve” for a brain when it comes to remembering names! I even addressed my second wife by my first wife’s name, more than once! Duh. Thankfully, she just laughed. I thought I felt some degree of “happiness” with each of my wives. They were beautiful, honest, intelligent people, and I foolishly alienated both of them and, sadly, the marriages ended, to my everlasting shame. But I cannot be anything other than what I am. After 13 years, they each tired of the emotional “rollercoaster ride” and left. I have never blamed either of them. I just don’t deserve to be “married.” I can live with that. Thankfully, I remain mildly friendly with both of them.

So, there is a lot out there that might “get” to us, one way or the other. I think we should take pleasure, etc. wherever and whenever we can find it. And savor it, and HOPE that things will eventually get better, while we pathetically wallow in our miseries.

SEPARATE, BUT EQUAL?

 

If "separate but equal" is unacceptable for the US, then it should likewise be unacceptable in Israel!

The separate "two-state solution" for resolving conflicts between Jews and Arabs was embraced by the US years ago and recently buttressed by Pres. Biden. It purports to "give" Arabs an "equal" voice in Middle East affairs, but it is based on the utterly specious ethnic distinctions between Jews and Arabs.

What OUGHT to happen is that Israel immediately transition from a theocratic monolith to a single SECULAR state made up of BOTH Jews and Arabs as equal, full citizens, with MINORITY protections from the tyranny of the majority. But, I ain't holding my breath. Given the history of the iron-clad establishment of Israel in Palestine as a JEWISH state, I doubt it will ever change.

And that renders Israel as a recipient of US aid and diplomacy "invalid," in my book. I have no use AT ALL for theocracies of any sort, including the absurd US diplomatic relationship with the Vatican, which is NOT a country! It's a CHURCH, for Christ's sake! I firmly believe that the establishment of diplomatic relations with any such is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as the First Amendment SPECIFICALLY prohibits Congress (including the Senate) from making any law "respecting the establishment of religion." 

The fact that Pope Pius XI  got together with with Italian Dictator Mussolini in 1929 to declare that the Vatican is a separate "country"  ought to be dismissed OUT OF HAND as pathetically STUPID! It is just amazing that those in the American government feel they must honor such nonsense!

US taxpayers have no business being burdened with the costs of same. The US Supreme Court ought to have the guts to put a stop to such crap, but it won't.

But, I guess I'll get outvoted, AGAIN, in Happy Witless Duh-mock-racyland!

Goddammit!

WHEN RIGHTS COLLIDE?

  Not long ago I was listening to Keyris Manzanares on VPM News “Focal Point,” presenting a special program reviewing when disagreeing people’s “rights” conflict with each other. I realize that there is plenty of disagreement of expression in the world today, but I would respectfully suggest it is a collision of OPINIONS, not of “rights.”

I do not believe that people’s rights collide within the United States. That notion implies that “rights” are conditional or limited and in possible need of curtailment, lest their exercise produce unacceptable conflict. That notion is further due to a widespread misunderstanding of what, exactly, “rights” are. Rights belong to individuals, not groups. Individuals surely have a “right” to act in groups with like-minded other persons, but the “rights” still belong to each individual, only.

No government or court or judge or army can take our rights away from us. Every official in the United States, federal, state or local, including all military officers, lawyers and judges, are SWORN to support the United States Constitution and its implicit guarantees of our rights. But, our “rights” are not dependent upon nor even granted by that document. The ONLY thing that any government official can do, including EVERY judge, is simply to ignore our rights, in blatant violation of the solemn oath to support them. Sadly, that happens on occasion.

Most often, this is seen where two (or more) individuals express differing opinions, in conflict with each other. But the EXPRESSION of opinion is not what is in conflict. It is the opinions themselves that are in conflict, and no one has a “right” to cut off or censor the other’s expression, even if they don’t like it or agree with it. Each of us must endure hearing those opinions, whether we agree or not. Ugh.

As someone else said, the answer to offensive speech is MORE SPEECH! Not censorship. This does not mean, however, that people have a “right” to attend and disrupt a public meeting. The chairs of such meetings are obliged to enforce rules to allow the orderly conduct of business, including an orderly expression of opinions, but that does not include a power of censorship. I see no conflict of rights there if the “rules” are strictly observed.

It is also well to observe here that our “rights” are only with respect to government activity and with respect to those who are acting “under color” of government authority. There is no guarantee of “rights” enforcement against individuals OR businesses regarding private, one-on-one relationships. But neither individuals nor private institutions can conspire to have “government” deprive others of their rights.

There are no such things as “special rights,” a phrase one hears from those who are offended by someone they dislike demanding enforcement of his or her rights. Everyone’s rights are the same rights we all have, including “rights” of protection and enforcement. And, it is important to remember that really despicable people have those same “rights,” and we are obliged to respect that fact, even if we vehemently dislike the individual claiming or exercising such rights. Admittedly, that it really difficult to honor, sometimes, but it is necessary. Also, no one has a right to “feel good” about something. Feelings are internal, subjective and constantly subject to injury or offense. Just get over it!

States have constitutions, too. They are nothing more than governments that have transitioned from being mere colonies in rebellion (at the time of the Revolutionary War) to states, endowed with powers by the people living therein. States can’t just “do” whatever a majority wants. They don’t have a “blank check” of unlimited powers, nor should they. They must be constrained by their own constitutions, and if that document does not grant a specific power, then in my opinion that power does not exist. Of course, finding a judge or politician with the spine to enforce that may be problematic!

States don’t have “rights,” either, notwithstanding a persistent belief to the contrary, especially in the South. As governments, they have only “powers” or the lack thereof. Only the “people” can have rights, subject to their forfeiture by operation of constitutional law or by a constitutional grant of contrary or limiting “power” to such government via the respective constitution.

Powers and rights are two different things. It is important for everyone to understand that difference and be clear about which is being invoked. We, the people, have a right to have our rights enforced and respected by ALL government officials, but our only means of true enforcement is at the ballot box. It is well to keep that in mind at all times.

_____________________________ 

"ASSAULT" WEAPONS

 

Much is understandably made of the preference many jerks have for using "assault-style" guns when conducting their terrors.

But, I must ask if the murderous incidents would NOT have happened BUT FOR the availability of those weapons? Are they the sine qua non of mass killings? I doubt it. And, I don't believe an "assault-style" definition can be written to withstand the strict "due process" requirements of criminal prohibitions. We may all know what it "is," but it can't be easily defined WITH NECESSARY PRECISION. A semi-automatic "assault-style" rifle is still a single-shot-per-trigger-pull action. Fully automatic rifles ("machine guns") are ALREADY tightly regulated by federal law. I have read those laws.

No law is self-enforcing. Criminal laws MUST be logical and unambiguous. A lawsuit against a gun manufacturer may help grieving families "feel better," but if the sale is lawful, how might that generate any liability?

Many journalists Seem to rhetorically demand to know WHY "police" didn't just "stop" the gunmen when "warned" about them. What, exactly, do those people EXPECT the "police" to do? Arrest somebody BEFORE they commit a crime?  Lock them up in jail for their own good, until they can "prove" their sanity? And who, exactly, are the officials "tasked" with checking up on "suspicious" people, and what POWERS do they have to intervene? Who does the "tasking"? By what authority?

I savor the irony of those insisting on exercising their First Amendment rights (quite properly so) demanding that certain "undesirables" have their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights summarily revoked, or suspended, until they pass somebody's "smell test"! Forget "due process"! Just ask those who've been stopped by cops for DWB--"driving while black"!

There are just too many assumptions that the "police" can actually PREVENT a horrible crime from happening, and by my experience, that is almost impossible! Summary authority to intervene and stop people from going about their business is NOT allowable in the US! Real freedom involves assumption of risk that something bad might happen! Sadly, crime "prevention" is mostly a fantasy that exists in the mind.

I certainly believe that larger magazine/clip capacities make such assailants harder to bring down, but those are available for most ANY gun, regardless of "aesthetics." Sadly, I do not believe there is much, if any advance screening of people that could be mandated by law to PREVENT the mass murderers from acting. I think a key may be to only limit their "duration" with mandated smaller clips.

None of that seems to have been proposed, yet, and a "clip" prohibition should be accompanied by a VERY GENEROUS "bounty" offer, to buy up as many of the large-capacity clips ALREADY in circulation as possible! Otherwise, a black market would be immediately established with such a mere prohibition. A "clip" law should also provide severe criminal penalties for people engaging in a "black market" scenario.

The other day on NPR an anti-smoking "advocate" was talking about how RJR Tobacco used the cartoonish "Joe Camel" to promote cigarette consumption by children. I believe a jury so found and awarded big bucks against RJR. How has it been "proven" that children have been influenced to smoke by "Joe Camel," then gotten "government" to censor the silly ads?

I am a lot more concerned about intrusive government than I am about children smoking or possible lunatics with guns.

___________________________ 

DOGGEREL--OFF THE LEASH

 

I'm no longer a "pup."

My blood sugar's up.

My knees don't work.

I've lost my ol' perk.

I use a C-PAP.

Utterly CRAP!

Overwhelmed with pains,

Dragging balls and chains.

All whined out and blustered,

I can't "cut the mustard."

Misspent youth—now afar,

But I can still lick the jar!

10/30/23

I TRUST

Each red waif

Wafts to ground,

Fluttering, helplessly, soon

Rotting to death as soil,

Deserting naked fingers

Stretched outward, upward

Toward blue above.

Piles, fluffs, slick films,

Blanketing surfaces.

Darkening, or yellowing, with

Fleeting late October.

Reds fading now, following 

Already-dead bacterial chloroplasts,

Leaving only yellows, browns and grays.

No more greens except for

Ubiquitous cedars, growing anywhere.

Quieter now.

No robins; no swallows; only

Imperious jays, multilingual mockingbirds, and

Woodpeckers hammering,

Sometimes faintly,

On corded gnarl, twisting up

Toward the fingers,

Black against the blue above.

Imperious crows--hollering insistently

In the distance.

Yellow sunlight slants shadows across

The late-year ground. One last gasp of

Warmth as cold rot begins, with

Tiny buds newly

Forming

On bony fingers.

Soon, I trust.

10/29/23