Bite This

The definition of “judicial restraint” seems to hinge on whether one is a Democrat or a Republican. For Republicans, it would appear to mean restraining the courts from doing anything that reverses legislation or popular votes that violate the U.S. Constitution. For Democrats, it means not letting the courts sit idly by while the Constitution is infringed upon while using the document as a guide for decisions.

Let’s face it: legislators and voters approve things that cannot be justified when held up against that simple, elegant and eloquent document that the Constitution is. Because it is simple, it requires interpretation. It set very broad guidelines and left the interpretation of it to future generations.

Mr. Lincoln interpreted it to prohibit slavery, and that interpretation tore the country in half like it has never been. He was probably the first activist president we had after the first few administrations of our young republic. After several generations, activism is now considered by many to be un-patriotic.

Questions aren’t allowed.

When I was young, I asked a preacher about a foot-note that I had read in a Bible the church had given to me in appreciation of my work with the children's choir. My question raised an issue that I’m not quite sure the preacher was willing or able to deal with, so his response (and I quote—it’s still vivid all these years later) was “there’s a special place in hell for people who ask questions like that.”

That, in a nutshell, is the Republican definition of “judicial restraint.” It’s more bizarre than “don’t ask, don’t tell”. It’s just “don’t ask.”

If the courts are not allowed to interpret the Constitution, then what, exactly, is their purpose? If offering an honest opinion that does not suit the current administration constitutes “activism” and doesn’t adhere to the policy of maintaining e status quo, where does that leave us?

We were not formed as a country that maintained the status quo. Our fore-fathers broke the law to make new ones. Ones that allowed room for dissent. From the court room to the ballot box.

We have a long history of dissent in this country, and it has torn us apart once before.

Rather than demonize dissent, we should glorify it. Recognize it for what it is: the Constitution helping us work our way to a more perfect union.

The framers couldn’t anticipate every problem, so they left things open. And they created the judiciary to deal with those problems. Attempts to castrate it only serve to diminish the on-going experiment in democracy that we started a couple of hundred years ago.

Judicial restraint should not be about further infringing on civil rights, but about protecting them.

The judiciary was not created to rubber-stamp Presidential policy. It was created to keep Presidents and Congresses in check.

Implicit in the phrases “judicial activism” and “judicial restraint” lies this philosophy: one branch of the federal government should not act unless the other two say it’s ok. That is not, never has been nor was ever intended to be the function of the judiciary.

Legislators and presidents are activist by nature. That’s what got them into politics and drives their ambitions, and therein rests the core of their personalities.

And if the Congress and the president have the ability to legislate at will on a broad range of issues, why are they insisting that the third branch of our great republic relegate itself to being an impotent rubber stamp? That is the exact opposite of the role the judiciary was meant to play in our political system.

The words that the legislative and executive branch throw around like so much confetti could easily be turned right back on them. “Activism” and “restraint” cross party lines, as well as the branches of government. What they really mean is “I don’t agree with you” or “I do agree with you”, respectively.

And they are tailored to stir up trouble by re-naming what should be our most sacred duties as a nation and making them seem scary on an apocalyptic scale.

Judges don’t make laws; they just point out when laws are inconsistent with the Constitution. They are the last bastion of sanity and serve their greatest purpose when they tell the President or the Congress to bite them.

Without the judiciary, we could easily descend into a dictatorship or military government. And if the other branches of government don’t like it, they can just get down on their knees, find a good spot on my heinie and bite me.

Running Out of Fuels

"Running Out of Fuel, but Not Out of Ideas" ignored the obvious solution to the spike in gas prices: consume less by design. The choices we make about things like where we live in relation to where we work and what vehicle we drive are just that: choices.

In the rapidly-sprawling traffic nightmare that Austin, TX, has become, I moved to 2 blocks from my office. I wasn't so much concerned about gas prices back then, but more about quality of life issues. Instead of spending 1 1/2 hours each day commuting, I could have a short 10 minute walk home. Even in the appalling Texas summer heat, a 10 minute walk after a grueling day at work is refreshing.

And there are many stores within walking distance to take care of all my day-to-day shopping needs. In Austin, TX, which has tried but had mixed results in trying to create sustainable, pedestrian neighborhoods. It's still dangerous to be a pedestrian here. We are a pioneer breed.

Granted, I pay a premium for living in what used to be North Austin, but is now the geographic center of the city. However, I more than make that up in what I don't pay for in gas.

For the little driving that I do, I have an inexpensive American-made car that gets mileage that rivals much more expensive imported hybrids. I use a very small tankful every three weeks.

We are victims of the oil crisis because we allow ourselves to be. We drive absurdly outscale cars too far to get to work. And then take the same behemoths shopping, running errands and visiting friends.

We are a co-dependent nation that has been enabled by cheap oil (to use psychobabble-speak). We are victims because we choose to be, much like an abused spouse who recognizes the problem but does nothing about it.

We need to either act as individuals to break the cycle or just shut up and quit whining as a nation. It's not like a thinking person didn't see this coming down the highway.

I bought my inexpensive American car that sips gas as genteely as an old southern lady nursing a mint julep a year and a half ago. Back before they commanded either a premium, or at least full sticker price.

My choices about where I live and the car I drive had little to do with gas prices. Rather, they were about quality-of-life. What I could do with the time I wasn't sitting on a grid-locked freeway. How much stress I could avoid by not having to fight crazy drivers who have no concept of their own mortality. How I could secure inexpensive transportation, both in terms of investment and operating costs, on the best terms.

Those priorities happily coincided with an astronomical spike in oil prices. It's a philosphy that would serve many well to adopt.

And until the American vision of "quality-of-life" changes from a house in the suburbs, we're choosing ourselves into the ground. No one else is doing this to us: we're doing it to ourselves.

Losing Hope

10

These politicians are driving me up the wall talking about 10 point plans. Like Moses came down from the mountain and declared that every plan must have 10 points. Why does every political plan have to have ten points? What if it only needs 3? Or 15?

I’m so sick of 10 points I could scream. It’s kind of like the dogma of 12 step programs: they must have twelve or they don’t work. 11 and 13 steps are not allowed.

I have to wonder if our political leaders don’t use their 10 step plans in the same way. 10 is the magic number. Any less, it’s not comprehensive. Any more, it’s too much government interference.

That’s the only explanation I can find for language hidden in legislation and legislative proposals.

Nine isn’t enough. Eleven is too many.

Didn’t they ever watch “Eight is Enough”?

Enough is enough is always enough. Whether it be 10, 7 or 120.

To continually rely on a magic number to solve grave problems is tantamount to confessing that the problems are not as important as a political career. To admit that no magic number exists would be a death knell.

Trying to fit complicated problems into sound-bites does nothing but degrade both the political process and the democracy as a whole. It denigrates our political process, reducing it to 10 point plans.

Mr. Jefferson would be appalled.

He drafted the Declaration of Independence and a good bit of the Constitution to be sufficiently vague to allow for a free (if, that is, you were a white man who owned property) electorate. And even with all his shortcomings, he would not understand a 10 point plan if it bit him on the face.

He had one point, and one point only: ensure freedom for what would become the United States from England.

It didn’t take a 10 point plan to start the Revolution. It took enough people getting pissed off about someone half a world taking their money to stand up and say “No more.”

“This shall not stand. We’re mad as hell, and we’re not taking it any more.”

There was no 10 point plan for the Boston Tea Party. There was no 10 point plan for the Civil War. There wasn’t for WW1 or WW2, either.

There was always one point: freedom from a repressive government; restitution of the Union; defeat of tyrants who threatened world peace.

This election should likewise be about one point, and one only: restoring the country that I call home and love, much like a parent that loves a difficult child in spite of all else. That should be the point.

One point.

Not 10.

And if they can get around to other things, so be it.

Just no more 10 point plans, please. I beg of you.

They are hollow, a clanging gong, signifying nothing.

Love Me Do

Shannon and I have known each other for about 9 1/2 years. We've lived together for about nine of them and have survived working-class poverty, mental illness, physical incapacity and death. We started out with challenges that I'm not sure either of us would have gotten through without the other.

We've worked through them and continue to address them. Money's as tight as ever. But some things never change. Our income hasn't quite kept up with inflation, especially in light of a rising rent market and rapidly inflating gas prices.

Even so, Shannon's been relatively stable the last year or so. When he wasn't, but was laid up in the hospital, we lived and worked through it. I didn't really mind the hospital visits, except for the traffic. And I'm not sure God could have made enough traffic to keep me away.

When your primary goal is getting someone you love better, that goal defines your actions. I've taken care of him before and will again if I need to.

That's not to say that any of it's easy. It's hard as hell to stand by a hospital bed and try to comfort someone who doesn't really know who you are or he is. Someone who goes from thinking you're the enemy to nuzzling his head on your belly for comfort.

He's better now, but I never know when he might snap again.

Beyond that, he doesn't get around very well. We live constantly with his physical limitations. Neuropathy (irreversible nerve damage) isn't fun. It means that he can't feel his hands or feet very well. And most of the time they feel like they're on fire.

Enough to drive someone crazy even if they didn't have a predisposition to go down that road.

Still, he's kind and sweet. He worries about me. He loves me with an intensity that I've only known once before. The other was Rich, and he died June 20, 1995, at the ripe old age of 27.

We had five years together, and I miss him so. That absurd cackling laugh and him calling me Sweet Pea.

So when I think about Shannon and me, all our "challenges" (code for "problems"), I always remember that I've been able to bring him home from the hospital. I didn't bring Rich home.

Things like money don't seem so big in that context.

What's big is making a life together. Making it happen, regardless of illness or other peoples' opinions.

Making it happen right here and right now.

Making it real.

The New Cannibals