Beyond the cash-crunch which is crushing the California State Court System, let us consider two larger issues which should further question the rise and expanse of judicial power in the state in the first place.
The California Court System was implemented to protect and enforce the California Constitution. Yet the California Constitutions dwarfs the United States Constitution in sheer length, in addition to the extensive inane addenda micromanaging county and local facilities. There is so much to contend with. It is inevitable for someone to take exception to something, either between parties are with the state as a whole.
Moreover, what are judges supposed to be defending anyway, when the contents of the Constitution keep changing in one ill-planned statewide referendum after another? Attorneys general and governors dispute amendments supported by popular vote, like Proposition 8. If they refuse to enforce portions of the Constitution, which the People of the State of California have endorsed, then where does that leave the officers of the court throughout the state?
In addition to the question of what the courts are supposed to be upholding, there is the larger problem: what are courts of law for? What is their role in society in general? Most people would understandably respond: to see that justice is done, and to see that those parties who have been wronged are compensated, and those who have done wrong are punished.
Yet do we see justice transpire in courtrooms? The rules of evidence automatically exclude pertinent information in some cases. The deaths, or weak memory, of witnesses compromise prosecution and defence. State officials, from the police officers on the beat to the prosecutors pushing a case to the judges and jurors who apply the law and try the facts, inevitably make mistakes. Who is responsible, and how they are fixed, are two issues that are never adequately resolved.
A courtroom provides a forum for begrudging resolution, nothing more. Full justice will never be meted out in a court of law, no matter how august the judge or impeccable the attorneys who practice.
With the shuttering of courtrooms across the state, the people of the State of California should breathe a sigh of relief, for with fewer outlets for state-sponsored outrage between aggrieved parties, perhaps potential litigants will exercise self-restraint and practice more justice in their daily lives, letting the good comity that follows make up for any loss suffered at the hands of artless neighbors or incompetent business.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
California Courts Crushed in Budget Crunch
The Dean of Courts and California Supreme Court justices are decrying the new slew of budget cuts authorized by Governor Brown.
The complain that with all the court closures, litigants throughout the state of California will have to wait even longer to process court documents and proceed to trial. Small claims litigants will now have to wait an entire year before receiving a hearing before a judge.
In a society as litigious as the United States, it is hardly lamentable that there are no more factors which would discourage citizens from pursuing court actions.
How many times have we endured harangues from judges that private parties should take whatever steps necessary to settle disputes among themselves? In most cases, it would better if wronged individuals simply ate the loss from minor indiscretions of witless perpetrators. By avoiding court, individuals could save time and energy, then invest their money in more profitable ways.
The court system is slow by design, wasteful for its slack in tackling major issues. Employees within the system, from the clerks to the bailiffs, have little incentive to ensure an efficient process, even in good times.
Rather than trusting a lawyer in a black dress or twelve apathetic triers of fact, plaintiffs should rely on living justly rather than fruitlessly searching for justice in a court of law.
Instead of disparaging the stripping of funds from the California court system, thing, the citiznes this state should be grateful for the opportunities forced upon potential litigants to seek more expedient and less controversial means for resolving disputes and recouping loses.
Let us not discount the long-term savings in cutting the court bureaucracy. Fewer courtrooms means fewer public employees with little incentive to provide adequate service to the public, and more importantly, fewer summons to jury duty!
The complain that with all the court closures, litigants throughout the state of California will have to wait even longer to process court documents and proceed to trial. Small claims litigants will now have to wait an entire year before receiving a hearing before a judge.
In a society as litigious as the United States, it is hardly lamentable that there are no more factors which would discourage citizens from pursuing court actions.
How many times have we endured harangues from judges that private parties should take whatever steps necessary to settle disputes among themselves? In most cases, it would better if wronged individuals simply ate the loss from minor indiscretions of witless perpetrators. By avoiding court, individuals could save time and energy, then invest their money in more profitable ways.
The court system is slow by design, wasteful for its slack in tackling major issues. Employees within the system, from the clerks to the bailiffs, have little incentive to ensure an efficient process, even in good times.
Rather than trusting a lawyer in a black dress or twelve apathetic triers of fact, plaintiffs should rely on living justly rather than fruitlessly searching for justice in a court of law.
Instead of disparaging the stripping of funds from the California court system, thing, the citiznes this state should be grateful for the opportunities forced upon potential litigants to seek more expedient and less controversial means for resolving disputes and recouping loses.
Let us not discount the long-term savings in cutting the court bureaucracy. Fewer courtrooms means fewer public employees with little incentive to provide adequate service to the public, and more importantly, fewer summons to jury duty!
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Wu, Weiner, and all the other Weirdos
Wu, Weiner, and all the other Weirdos. . .
What were these wackos thinking? . . .I'm sure that is the question a lot of people in this country are wondering.
People in high places have engaged in outrageous personal misconduct, polluting the air waves with filthy communiques and consortia, meddling with staff members, hurting family members.
In all honesty, however, anyone rich or poor, famous or obscure, is susceptible to the same perverse fallout that these and other high profile people have succumbed to.
Everyone of us wants to be successful. We want to have influence. We want to make big decisions and move influential people.
Yet when anyone steps into the role of king, kingmaker, or kingpin, human beings quickly realize that they have taken on something beyond their scope to manage.
We cannot predict in advance how others will react to our decisions. This burden stirs up great anxiety in our minds. Sometimes, we do not have the faintest ideas as to what we should do, yet we either push ourselves or we face pressure from those we serve to do something.
The stress literally impinges on the human soul.
Couple the growing strain on our time, ability, and resources, the high profile positions and pay cannot satisfy the deeper needs that every human spirit struggles with. All the perks, all the name-dropping, all the connections do not begin to compensate for all the demands forced on us.
Pushed from one side by increasing demands and on the other side by decreasing return in our onerous commitments to the high callings we insisted on taking upon ourselves, it is small wonder that we human beings with eternity in our hearts look for satisfaction elsewhere, or at least a temporary release from the strains and troubles which we have created for ourselves, which we will not relinquish, for fear that we would lose a source of great joy or lose the esteem of those we hoped to impress, including ourselves.
This chronic escalation of trials, strain, and despair most certainly weighed on the two Democratic Congressmen recently slammed in the press for sexual improprieties. The source of their troubles originates in their desire to be big people making decisions, yet once they faced the humbling reality that they took on duties beyond any person's capacity, they insisted on trying while compensating for weakness and weariness in wicked, worldly ways.
Let their misconduct and fall be a lesson to us all. Pride does come before a fall, but it is a climb precipitated by a desire to do good, be great, and have something more than what one had before.
The real question we need to ponder: how does the human soul escape this desperate dilemma of seeking great things for ourselves without being overwhelmed in the process?
What were these wackos thinking? . . .I'm sure that is the question a lot of people in this country are wondering.
People in high places have engaged in outrageous personal misconduct, polluting the air waves with filthy communiques and consortia, meddling with staff members, hurting family members.
In all honesty, however, anyone rich or poor, famous or obscure, is susceptible to the same perverse fallout that these and other high profile people have succumbed to.
Everyone of us wants to be successful. We want to have influence. We want to make big decisions and move influential people.
Yet when anyone steps into the role of king, kingmaker, or kingpin, human beings quickly realize that they have taken on something beyond their scope to manage.
We cannot predict in advance how others will react to our decisions. This burden stirs up great anxiety in our minds. Sometimes, we do not have the faintest ideas as to what we should do, yet we either push ourselves or we face pressure from those we serve to do something.
The stress literally impinges on the human soul.
Couple the growing strain on our time, ability, and resources, the high profile positions and pay cannot satisfy the deeper needs that every human spirit struggles with. All the perks, all the name-dropping, all the connections do not begin to compensate for all the demands forced on us.
Pushed from one side by increasing demands and on the other side by decreasing return in our onerous commitments to the high callings we insisted on taking upon ourselves, it is small wonder that we human beings with eternity in our hearts look for satisfaction elsewhere, or at least a temporary release from the strains and troubles which we have created for ourselves, which we will not relinquish, for fear that we would lose a source of great joy or lose the esteem of those we hoped to impress, including ourselves.
This chronic escalation of trials, strain, and despair most certainly weighed on the two Democratic Congressmen recently slammed in the press for sexual improprieties. The source of their troubles originates in their desire to be big people making decisions, yet once they faced the humbling reality that they took on duties beyond any person's capacity, they insisted on trying while compensating for weakness and weariness in wicked, worldly ways.
Let their misconduct and fall be a lesson to us all. Pride does come before a fall, but it is a climb precipitated by a desire to do good, be great, and have something more than what one had before.
The real question we need to ponder: how does the human soul escape this desperate dilemma of seeking great things for ourselves without being overwhelmed in the process?
Debt Ceiling Dance: Continued
Don't stop the beat, Republicans!
Obama rejected a bipartisan deal to cut spending and raise the ceiling: his folly, his loss.
Do not let the moody stock markets and credit rating gurus scare you. The debt and interest will devour this country in a matter of time, no matter what happens to the interest rates. Citizens in this country must borrow less, spend less, save more, do more with less. Any correction by the market which advances these outcomes should be welcomed.
Whatever it takes, Boehner and company, demand at all costs that the United States Government cut spending.
Tax hikes notwithstanding, this government has a major spending problem which cannot be supported. Close loopholes to induce some Democrats into this process if necessary, but cut the spending spree!
No more bailouts. No more half-measures. No more compromises.
We cannot kick this can down the road any longer, it is so flat with the beating and constant hammering and neglect.
If this government keeps skirting the issues, there won't be a can or road to kick it down!
Obama rejected a bipartisan deal to cut spending and raise the ceiling: his folly, his loss.
Do not let the moody stock markets and credit rating gurus scare you. The debt and interest will devour this country in a matter of time, no matter what happens to the interest rates. Citizens in this country must borrow less, spend less, save more, do more with less. Any correction by the market which advances these outcomes should be welcomed.
Whatever it takes, Boehner and company, demand at all costs that the United States Government cut spending.
Tax hikes notwithstanding, this government has a major spending problem which cannot be supported. Close loopholes to induce some Democrats into this process if necessary, but cut the spending spree!
No more bailouts. No more half-measures. No more compromises.
We cannot kick this can down the road any longer, it is so flat with the beating and constant hammering and neglect.
If this government keeps skirting the issues, there won't be a can or road to kick it down!
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Amy Winehouse Dead: A Reflection
"They tried to make me go to rehab, but I said, No, NO, NO!!!"
Good advice always ends up becoming bad advice.
No one can be told what to do. If people choose to live dissolute and empty lives, there is nothing that other people can do to stop them.
Winehouse epitomizes, once again, the futility of fame in a rapidly self-involved world. She made great music, she won some awards, yet she could not stand to be with herself.
One occasion, she could not accept the award for one record because her visa had been revoked. Her obstreperous behavior posed enough of a nuisance to the U.S. Government, that she was forced to perform on a sound stage in London for a music awards ceremony in the United States. A dubious distinction, to say the least.
In Winehouse's case, how many times will a person have to check in before they check out?
Still, if her music makes someone happy, there is some consolation. Yet would it not be better to excel at being who you are, regardless of how much fame you accumulate in the end?
Winehouse's death poses a critical question: is fame, finances, and frolic worth your life?
In one week, will anyone care that she's dead? Such is the fast life, such is fame, such is the fate of the one who needed rehab but said "No, NO, NO!!!"
Good advice always ends up becoming bad advice.
No one can be told what to do. If people choose to live dissolute and empty lives, there is nothing that other people can do to stop them.
Winehouse epitomizes, once again, the futility of fame in a rapidly self-involved world. She made great music, she won some awards, yet she could not stand to be with herself.
One occasion, she could not accept the award for one record because her visa had been revoked. Her obstreperous behavior posed enough of a nuisance to the U.S. Government, that she was forced to perform on a sound stage in London for a music awards ceremony in the United States. A dubious distinction, to say the least.
In Winehouse's case, how many times will a person have to check in before they check out?
Still, if her music makes someone happy, there is some consolation. Yet would it not be better to excel at being who you are, regardless of how much fame you accumulate in the end?
Winehouse's death poses a critical question: is fame, finances, and frolic worth your life?
In one week, will anyone care that she's dead? Such is the fast life, such is fame, such is the fate of the one who needed rehab but said "No, NO, NO!!!"
Response to Response #3 "Deficit begins with loopholes" Press-Telegram
"Arthur, there we were, in semi-complete agreement on almost all of your thoughts... right up until you took a swipe at folks on Social Security and our veterans.
Ya see, of all the cuts you mentioned, those two particular groups aren't "entitlement" constituents, they've earned the little bit our government pays them. The retirees have faithfully paid into the SS system for their entire working lives... and the vets, well, they've paid with their blood and sacrifice. Neither group, in my humble opinion, is "on the dole"." -- Waldo Dennison
Since when is it a good idea for the government to take you money now and pay it back to you in stratified payments over time in your golden years? Don't you think that you can save, invest, and spend your own money better than someone else?
Would it not have been better if you had received your full, well-deserved pay in the first place? What was the government' angle in taking care of your money for you? They obviously have not, since the Social Security Fund is going broke!
As for the plight of our veterans, they would have been much better served if they received a lump sum and access to private health care, where they could have taken better care of themselves and relied on better medical care. By depending on the government, even if the government "owes" you the service, a citizen is still at a disadvantage. The government can not do well enough by our veterans, in my opinion. They would be far better off making choices for themselves with resources presented to them at once by the U.S. Government. Perhaps giving them greater tax breaks than they already receive, for example, or a complete exemption.
Ya see, of all the cuts you mentioned, those two particular groups aren't "entitlement" constituents, they've earned the little bit our government pays them. The retirees have faithfully paid into the SS system for their entire working lives... and the vets, well, they've paid with their blood and sacrifice. Neither group, in my humble opinion, is "on the dole"." -- Waldo Dennison
Since when is it a good idea for the government to take you money now and pay it back to you in stratified payments over time in your golden years? Don't you think that you can save, invest, and spend your own money better than someone else?
Would it not have been better if you had received your full, well-deserved pay in the first place? What was the government' angle in taking care of your money for you? They obviously have not, since the Social Security Fund is going broke!
As for the plight of our veterans, they would have been much better served if they received a lump sum and access to private health care, where they could have taken better care of themselves and relied on better medical care. By depending on the government, even if the government "owes" you the service, a citizen is still at a disadvantage. The government can not do well enough by our veterans, in my opinion. They would be far better off making choices for themselves with resources presented to them at once by the U.S. Government. Perhaps giving them greater tax breaks than they already receive, for example, or a complete exemption.
Response to Response #1 of "Deficit begins with loopholes" Press-Telegram
"Arthur, you almost got it right, but you obviously never served in the military. If you had you would not be taking anything away from our veterans who for many years have prevented you from speaking German, Japanese, Korean, Farsi and any other foreign language and country with whom we have been to war with. When you have walked a few miles in our shoes I can only ask you to measure your words more carefully in so far as the veterans are concerned." -- Ike Oshana
First of all, if you wanted to make a quick buck or ensure long-term care for yourself, there are better ways to do than joining the military.
Second, does the state even provide adequate compensation and care for our veterans? There were scandalous reports out of Walter Reed Medical Center, where veterans were treated in the shabbiest of conditions, where colonoscopy apparatus were reused without cleaning on unknowing patients. Can we really say that our veterans are getting the care they deserve from our current Government Veteran's Administration?
What' worse, can we really say that we have done well by our veterans, only to see many of them struggling to get by on the street. They fought for this country, yet have they been trained to fight for themselves in the domestic coldness that defines daily life?
Third, much of the fighting that our veterans have engaged in: has it really been about preventing us from being overrun by military marauders across the world?
Our interventions in Vietnam, Bosnia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq II (2003)--have those armed excursions kept this country any safer? Can we really say that the men and women who fought for in those countries. . . fought for the well-being of this country?
As far as I can tell, with the escalation of the War on Terror, fewer people enjoy any privacy, it is harder to get on airplane, it is harder to travel period. If people speak out against the aggressive growth of the military-industrial complex, they are loudly condemned as anti-American pinkos are complicit with the terrorists themselves!
The first President of the United States made a concerted point that this nation would stay out of foreign entanglements. The third person slashed the military budget of this country, yet was not reticent about sending a navy flotilla to wipe out the Barbary Pirates in Tripoli.
First of all, if you wanted to make a quick buck or ensure long-term care for yourself, there are better ways to do than joining the military.
Second, does the state even provide adequate compensation and care for our veterans? There were scandalous reports out of Walter Reed Medical Center, where veterans were treated in the shabbiest of conditions, where colonoscopy apparatus were reused without cleaning on unknowing patients. Can we really say that our veterans are getting the care they deserve from our current Government Veteran's Administration?
What' worse, can we really say that we have done well by our veterans, only to see many of them struggling to get by on the street. They fought for this country, yet have they been trained to fight for themselves in the domestic coldness that defines daily life?
Third, much of the fighting that our veterans have engaged in: has it really been about preventing us from being overrun by military marauders across the world?
Our interventions in Vietnam, Bosnia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq II (2003)--have those armed excursions kept this country any safer? Can we really say that the men and women who fought for in those countries. . . fought for the well-being of this country?
As far as I can tell, with the escalation of the War on Terror, fewer people enjoy any privacy, it is harder to get on airplane, it is harder to travel period. If people speak out against the aggressive growth of the military-industrial complex, they are loudly condemned as anti-American pinkos are complicit with the terrorists themselves!
The first President of the United States made a concerted point that this nation would stay out of foreign entanglements. The third person slashed the military budget of this country, yet was not reticent about sending a navy flotilla to wipe out the Barbary Pirates in Tripoli.
Response to " Adults who do not Speak to a Parent"
Mr. Prager's religious commentaries are becoming more off-base and irrelevant with every issue.
For example, he writes:
"I became aware of something that, as a parent, I view as a nightmare: children who voluntary disappear from a parent's life."
The phrase turns on two realities: his perception and his alarm, both of which are unfounded.
I believe that the Torah teaches:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:24)
It is normal and understandable for children to reach a point in their lives when they leave home. If they want to be gone once and for all, that is their choice.
When the Lord commanded through Moses "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee," (Ex. 20:12), the understanding is that we would recognize that we did not make ourselves. We are not obligated, however, to undo our lives to incorporate abusive or distant parents. Sometimes, the best way to honor one's parents is to stay away.
Moreover, parents have to be more than parents. Their lives simply cannot revolve around their kids (or grandkids), who will (and should) grow up and move on with their lives.
Besides, the alarming number of adult children who still live at home and depend on Mommy and Daddy--that is the greater nightmare.
For example, he writes:
"I became aware of something that, as a parent, I view as a nightmare: children who voluntary disappear from a parent's life."
The phrase turns on two realities: his perception and his alarm, both of which are unfounded.
I believe that the Torah teaches:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:24)
It is normal and understandable for children to reach a point in their lives when they leave home. If they want to be gone once and for all, that is their choice.
When the Lord commanded through Moses "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee," (Ex. 20:12), the understanding is that we would recognize that we did not make ourselves. We are not obligated, however, to undo our lives to incorporate abusive or distant parents. Sometimes, the best way to honor one's parents is to stay away.
Moreover, parents have to be more than parents. Their lives simply cannot revolve around their kids (or grandkids), who will (and should) grow up and move on with their lives.
Besides, the alarming number of adult children who still live at home and depend on Mommy and Daddy--that is the greater nightmare.
"Government is the Problem!" is Part of the Problem
Let's not content ourselves anymore with the smug cliché "Government is the problem. . "
We need government to lead us out of the long-term problems which weigh on this country. Despising the means to enact change is simply unacceptable.
Railing against too much government has been the status quo, de facto position of every president in modern times, yet they still continued to spend like drunken sailors growing money on trees and slaughtering golden geese as if another gaggle will be gotten in the (never to come) future.
Ultimately entrenched, concerted inaction is what we need. What if Senators, Congressmen, and Executives across the country did not do anything? What if they ceased their empty deliberations, the chronic sucking up of air time with back-and-forth debates that are just plain posturing to the American public that they want to do something, when in fact their is no incentive for them to do anything, lest they get handed the bill for any failure, and ultimately lose their seats of power.
We need people in government who will not do so much. Or we need more legislators who will frustrate government from doing anything.
As George F. Will commented, "We have more to fear from government haste than government tardiness."
We need government to lead us out of the long-term problems which weigh on this country. Despising the means to enact change is simply unacceptable.
Railing against too much government has been the status quo, de facto position of every president in modern times, yet they still continued to spend like drunken sailors growing money on trees and slaughtering golden geese as if another gaggle will be gotten in the (never to come) future.
Ultimately entrenched, concerted inaction is what we need. What if Senators, Congressmen, and Executives across the country did not do anything? What if they ceased their empty deliberations, the chronic sucking up of air time with back-and-forth debates that are just plain posturing to the American public that they want to do something, when in fact their is no incentive for them to do anything, lest they get handed the bill for any failure, and ultimately lose their seats of power.
We need people in government who will not do so much. Or we need more legislators who will frustrate government from doing anything.
As George F. Will commented, "We have more to fear from government haste than government tardiness."
Friday, July 22, 2011
What would Reagan do? How about "What are we going to do?"
We know that President Reagan pushed a 10% tax cut across the board.
We know that President Reagan wanted to stop inflation.
We also know that he increased military spending considerably in his ongoing fight to bring down the Soviet.
We also know that entitlement reform as we know it is nothing like entitlement reform as we need it, and Ronald Reagan failed to deliver in either respect.
It is a crime, certainly, for one segment of the population to their own detriment to support the wealthier denizens of the state for their own benefit. It's about time that we went beyond cutting taxes. We must make sure that every company, every corporation, every welfare recipient begins earning and paying in their fair share.
We the people must stop the spending on all levels. We must stop sending out troops and our treasure to foreign lands where the indigenous populations refuse to be ruled, let alone rule themselves. We cannot be the never-ending hand-out to the outlandish here and abroad who refuse to take care of themselves.
Reagan was right to cut taxe rates across the board. He was wrong, however, to spend money that this country did not have. He could have tackled entitlement encroachment early in his administration, yet he let it go to deal with the equally pressing problem of the Soviet menace, still collapsing in its final death throes.
Today, let's stop asking "What would Reagan do?" because what he did then is not enough for us now. We need to cut, cap, and balance for the long haul. We need to stop talking about slowing the growth of government. We need to stop growing government in the first place.
We know that President Reagan wanted to stop inflation.
We also know that he increased military spending considerably in his ongoing fight to bring down the Soviet.
We also know that entitlement reform as we know it is nothing like entitlement reform as we need it, and Ronald Reagan failed to deliver in either respect.
It is a crime, certainly, for one segment of the population to their own detriment to support the wealthier denizens of the state for their own benefit. It's about time that we went beyond cutting taxes. We must make sure that every company, every corporation, every welfare recipient begins earning and paying in their fair share.
We the people must stop the spending on all levels. We must stop sending out troops and our treasure to foreign lands where the indigenous populations refuse to be ruled, let alone rule themselves. We cannot be the never-ending hand-out to the outlandish here and abroad who refuse to take care of themselves.
Reagan was right to cut taxe rates across the board. He was wrong, however, to spend money that this country did not have. He could have tackled entitlement encroachment early in his administration, yet he let it go to deal with the equally pressing problem of the Soviet menace, still collapsing in its final death throes.
Today, let's stop asking "What would Reagan do?" because what he did then is not enough for us now. We need to cut, cap, and balance for the long haul. We need to stop talking about slowing the growth of government. We need to stop growing government in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)