Bork the Dork

On 27 June the New York Times had an article titled “In Battle to Pick Next Justice, Right Says, Avoid a Kennedy”.

In 1987 President Ronald Reagan nominated three men to fill a position on the Supreme Court: Robert H. Bork, Douglas H. Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy. Fifty-eight members of the Senate rejected Mr. Bork, a staunch conservative, thank you God and 58 Senators. Mr. Ginsburg shot himself in the foot by admitting that, in his college days, he’d smoked marijuana (too bad, he’d have approved the medicinal use of marijuana). Mr. Kennedy was the third choice. Mr. Bork, sour grapes I think, is now on the attack against Mr. Kennedy.

According to the article: “his traditional [Kennedy’s] Catholic background has little in common with the flag-burners, pornographers or abortion advocates his reading of the Constitution protects”; “Virtually unknown to the public, Justice Kennedy was scarcely bred for the crossfire. By outward appearances, he has lived a life of utter conformity, attending his parents' alma mater, Stanford; taking over his father's law practice; and raising his three children in the house where he was raised.” And, “Liberty, especially liberty of speech, remains a defining concern, and he is a zealous enforcer of First Amendment rights. A 1980 case drew his special ire as an appeals court judge (9th Circuit). The police paid a 5-year-old to inform on his mother - an infringement of the parent-child bond he called an especially "pernicious" encroachment upon "personal liberty." And, again: “In a 2003 case, Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy wrote the decision that found constitutional protection for homosexual sodomy. And he did so with unexpected sweep, calling the Constitution sufficiently expansive that "persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." Gays are "entitled to respect for their private lives," he wrote. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny" by outlawing sex. [By advocating abstinence and attempting to outlaw contraceptives and refusing to educate the young in matters of sex, the conservative right is trying to outlaw sex, period, notwithstanding heterosexual or homosexual.] As Justice Kennedy read from the decision, which overturned a recent precedent, some gay and lesbian lawyers in the courtroom silently cried.”

There is now a movement afoot, spearheaded by Mr. Bork, Michael P. Farris (chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association), Phyllis Schlafly and helped along by House majority leader Tom DeLay to have Mr. Kennedy impeached because he is not conservative enough to suit the likes of Christian groups such as the Family Research Council, leaders of the Federalist Society, Focus on the Family, Progress for America and the Judicial Confirmation Network. “One critic at a forum on the “Judicial War on Faith” accused Justice Kennedy of upholding “Marxist-Leninist, satanic principles.”

According to Mr. Bork (we used to refer to him as Bork the Dork back in the days they considered him for the Court), in an interview the previous Thursday, Justice Kennedy’s opinions typified a court “no longer sticking to the Constitution” but “enacting a political agenda”. Double-speak if I ever heard it. If Bork had passed inspection by the Senate he would have followed his own political agenda, and to the devil with the Constitution. What Dork doesn’t comprehend, never did and never will, is that in a position on the Supreme Court one must first study and then swear to uphold the Constitution. You must be above partisan politics; you must do your best to serve all the people. You must consider majority rule along with minority rights (Note: see Principles of Democracy: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/majority.htm)

Again, according to the article: “For much of the right, his story is a dismayingly familiar one. Ever since the elevation of Earl Warren, Republican presidents have picked justices who disappoint the Republican faithful: William J. Brennan Jr. (President Dwight D. Eisenhower), Harry A. Blackmun (President Richard M. Nixon), John Paul Stevens (President Gerald R. Ford), Sandra Day O'Connor (President Reagan) and David H. Souter (the first President Bush).”
I applaud the justices mentioned. They voted their consciences and not the party platform.
I’ve also witnessed presidents who were elected on this platform or that, suddenly turnabout, for example John F. Kennedy who said: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Clearly, a president elected because of his liberal views termed what is considered to be a conservative view on his inauguration day. Harry S. Truman, clearly from the conservative South, who pushed for desegregation of the armed forces and, in current years, has been vilified for his use of the first atomic weapons, in order to end a war and save American lives.
The whole point is that, even when they don’t totally and always satisfy our individual ideas of right and wrong, members of the Supreme Court should remain true to the Constitution, remain above politics, the flavor of the day, lobbyists who abound in Washington, and majority rule. I’d like to know where the ACLU has been hiding since the Patriot Act and Homeland Security was pushed through Congress. Time will tell if the ACLU will come out of hiding and take up the gauntlet. But today, right now, someone should remind all those far-right conservative fanatics that we have a separation of church and state in America. And for good reason.

Hable Con Ella

Well, now that they've got me started I guess I'll continue.

Thank you Monkey! Monkey lent me a movie called "Hable Con Ella" (Talk to Her), Spanish with English subtitles (I missed most of the acting because I was reading the subtitles; have to watch it again for the acting). It got me to thinking again about the twists and turns of life (ala C. Dickens): how each of us affects the people we meet, fate, destiny, chance meetings, who planned it and why. Pre-destination or free will? I've been asking "Why?" all my life;drove my mother crazy because she couldn't, wouldn't, or didn't know the answer.

When I left New York and moved to San Francisco, back in the 1970s, I took a stab at palm reading. Looking at the destiny/today's reality juxtaposition I came up with more questions. I noticed that some people had palms with hardly any activity while others, like my own, were overly lined (don't laugh, I was young at the time). It was explained to me that palms with little activity were new souls and had little or no Karma, while mine were indicative of an old soul. [Note: my husband and both children are old souls as well.] Up until then I was convinced that I was completely in control of my life, I didn't believe in pre-destination. However, everything my destiny palm said would happen had already come true, and then it said I would have two children (which I laughed at heartily because I didn't want any at that time). I've been told that I think too much, but maybe it's that other people don't think enough (when people accuse me of being opinionated I say thank you, because you cannot have an opinion without having thought through the subject matter). I hypothesized that we're not just placed here, willy-nilly, from some biological mishmash of DNA Russian roulette. Weird me, I decided that we were placed here for a reason. Each of us has chosen this life or that, for a particular reason.

Good or bad we, each of us, have certain lessons that we must learn in order to take that knowledge back with us when we go home again. Yes, I believe that we have an immortal soul, but not in the "God fearing" way we were brought up to believe. I reject the idea of heaven and hell and I believe that we choose the life we come into, each time we come into a life (heretic that I am I believe in reincarnation for this reason), in order to teach ourselves to be better in our spiritual manifestation in order to impart that knowledge to the higher being that some of us, here on Earth, call God and others may call the Prime Mover. And we each come here to teach and to learn, together with our parents and our children, hopefully to better mankind (certainly not to murder each other).

I want to thank God for all these twists and turns I've experienced, the people I've met, the places I've been, now living in Prague, I think it was all meant to be. Frank could not live long enough to restitute his family's property, it was not his destiny, and his sister has said that she would have given up long before this. But I'm young enough, strong enough, determined enough to do this for my family. I've attracted the kind of friends who want to help me in this endeavor, and who have helped me beyond all bounds of reason. Pre-destination based on the life I chose to come into, knowing that I would face poverty at a young age when my father left us, having a mother who had the good sense to divorce my father and marry a man who raised us with respect (in spite of the Catholic Church telling them they'd spend an eternity in hell), leaving home to find myself and a life in California, meeting and marrying Frank. That's where the free will comes in: my soul chose to have this life, this time around.

Having said all that, I want to thank my children again for deciding to join their father and me in our shared journey on this little planet. By the time I had them, as a middle-aged adult, I'd already formulated this theory and raised them with the idea that they needed to be responsible and make their own choices, which they've been doing since early childhood. They have been a joy, and an experience I'm glad we chose to have together for I believe that each of our souls knew the experiences we, each of us, would share together before we came here.

I'm not saying that every day was a joy, especially though the teen years. Personally, I hated mine (wish I'd come up with this theory when I was a teen and perhaps it wouldn't have been such a painful experience for me). And I am certain that I made some mistakes in raising my daughters, no child is ever fully satisfied with their upbringing, but they certainly had a different kind of a life here in Prague than they would have had in the States. True, they were drinking at a young age; but at least they were not driving automobiles while drunk. Kids in America are driving at sixteen and, though they're not allowed to drink until they're twenty-one, seem to get into an awful lot of accidents while drunk. My two didn't go to normal American high school, didn't go to school at all, but then they didn't have to do homework every night and did not have to take tests, or put up with teachers that knew less then my children. They read books, magazines, newspapers and they each got their GED without a problem.

My favorite story to tell is of my elder daughter's preliminary GED essay. Instructions were to write on any subject and she wrote it on existentialism according to Jean-Paul Sartre. I'd venture to say that most college graduates in America couldn't even spell existentialism. The teacher wanted to know: WHERE THE HELL SHE'D BEEN GOING TO SCHOOL. I guess she got more out of her education then the average American kid gets. This number one daughter wants to be a writer and now, having worked for a legal research company, wants to be a lawyer. Daughter number two got her GED in Austin, TexAss, and quickly arranged a class in welding. She does very large sculptures and has now been getting commissions to do private work.]

Yes, I brag about my daughters. They overwhelm me and I cannot wait to see my little granddaughter Grace grown and sassy. I'm contented, happy, and love my life. Can't wait to see what tomorrow brings

There was this dream I had...

"If I can't have you, I don't want nobody - Baby!"

Well, it has been a long time since Frank died. But seriously, folks, whoever is out there in the nether world reading the cranky discourse I'm about to undertake, to quote Bette Davis in "All About Eve": Hang on, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

My mother is worried about me. She and my cousin Frances announced, about 2 months after Frank died, that they thought I should marry again. Very nice idea, and very considerate of them. My children also think it would be all right if I married again. Also, very considerate of them. My question is, and always will be: Why?

I've been married twice, divorced one and buried one. Do I want to go through either circumstance again? No. In Prague, where I currently reside, the Czech men who are my age look as if they have one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. The expat community is another story: the men my age are running after girls half my age. Therefore, I should look for a younger man - Right? Wrong! Why do I want a younger man? Why do I want or need a man at all?

Raised in a society where a woman was not a "real woman" unless she married and had children (during the fifties for all you young'uns out there), I rejected those ideas long before it became fashionable during the late 1960s. My favorite expression in my teenage years was: I'm not interested in dirty diapers and dish-pan hands. I was more interested in what was being discussed by the men in the living room rather than what was being discussed in the kitchen by the women. Yes, I was an aberration in my very Italian family.

True, I married young. But, in those days pre-sexual revolution, I was in lust. That was what was available to me at the time. So, I married. I quickly divorced. No children, no guilt, no pain. He found someone more suitable to his tastes and ended up with a 19 year old girlfriend at the age of 35, with his wife at home taking care of the kids. Glad I left him. I didn't want to marry again. I didn't like "marriage" because it changes people. I didn't trust the concept, knowing full well that the institution nullifies a woman's right to independence. Before marriage I had my own credit cards. Once married, I changed my name on the credit cards. After my divorce, changing my status back to single, I had to develop a new credit line and prove, all over again, that I was a good risk. They were my fucking credit cards to begin with! Damn it!

It took me a long time, having kissed a lot of frogs, before I found my prince. He was older, stable and not intimidated by me. He actually liked my style. After having two children, we decided it would finally be time to marry. We knew each other for three years before we had our first date, and we loved talking to one another. We trusted one another, we liked one another, we respected one another and, low and behold, a love came from that unlike any other.

So, now, do I want to be an appendage on the arm of another man? Do I want to change my name yet again? Do I really need this shit? Yes, it's true that I'm sick of playing computer games and I do go out as much as I can stand it (quite happy in my apartment - alone or with friends), love theater, opera, concerts, dancing, cooking and baking for friends. I have many interests and still work at my advanced age, but looking forward to retirement so I can follow my own interests. But do I want to fall in love again? What for? Do I want to share my time with a "special friend", why not... if the right person shows up at my door I will be happy to cook for him, dance with him, make love to him and then send him on his way if he's a mind to go that way. I'm free, love being free and would hate to impose my will on another human being. Frank liked me that way. He always knew that he could leave at any time, married or not, and he chose to stay. That's real commitment. That's life the way I like it, and it will remain so. I will come and go as I choose.

Well, Max and Monkey were right - I do feel better having written this down.