Blind Justice

The Supreme Court’s hearing a case that could be interesting (or not) involving a ginormous cross in the Mojave National Preserve atop Sunrise Rock that was put there in 1934 as a “war memorial.” Ten years ago, as the L.A. Times reports, “it came under legal attack from a former park service employee who, though a Catholic, thought it was inappropriate to favor one religion over another in the preserve. The National Park Service had turned down a request to have a Buddhist symbol erected nearby.

“A federal judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the stand-alone display of the cross in the national preserve was unconstitutional and, further, Congress’ move to transfer it to the private VFW did not solve the problem.

“The Obama administration, joining with the VFW, urged the high court to uphold the display of the cross now that it is in private hands.”

In other words, the government was trying to duck the issue by shoving a piece of (formerly public) land with the cross on it off into private hands then declare, See, it’s a private matter right to have a ginormous cross right in the middle of public land, heh-heh.

Well, the court will now decide to focus on the “private” land deal only or go for a larger view, but what was interesting was how well this case illustrates how we get ourselves into paradigms that then that construct becomes “real.”

In this case, without even thinking about it much, it is culturally accepted that a cross signifies death, graves, war-dead memorial & etc. You name it, if you’re looking for a symbol involving “dead,” the cross is simply a cultural “given,” handed down from our theocratic ancestors. Build a memorial to dead people? Put up a cross. No questions asked. Of course we put a cross up, we’re honoring dead people. What else would you put up??? So, Honored Dead = cross; case closed.

So now we have Justice Scalia apparently stuck in this paradigm, which is scary. A justice of the Supreme Court? Stuck in constructs?

Argued the ACLU, a cross “is the predominant symbol of Christianity. It signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins,” Peter Eliasberg told the justices. But because of its special religious significance, he said, it should not stand alone as a prominent symbol in a national park.

“Justice Antonin Scalia sharply disagreed. ‘It’s erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all the war dead.”

“Eliasberg objected, ‘I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew.’

“Scalia shot back: ‘I don’t think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that the cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that’s an outrageous conclusion.”

Uh, no, Mr. Scalia, the outrageous conclusion is that a Supreme Court justice finds himself comfortably and unquestioningly in a cultural construct that accepts, without question, that, Of COURSE a War Dead Memorial = A Cross, What else should be used” in honor of all the war dead?”

What else, indeed. Think, Mr. Scalia. THINK.

Quick, Hide the Gerbils

Followup story on the Supreme Court’s hearing on the 1st Amendment case versus selling videos of dogs fighting or “snuff” films involving torturing and killing small animals for sexual gratification of sickos & etc. (Quel Make-A-Buck American! Quel human, alas!) the Times reports the justices taking the discussion of this issue to an interesting new place.

“Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. garnered the attention of his colleagues with a series of questions on whether videos portraying humans being killed would be protected as free speech.
“Describing a hypothetical scenario, Alito said there might well be a “pay per view” market for programs made outside the United States and beyond the power of U.S. law that showed people actually being killed. He call it the ‘Human Sacrifice Channel’ and wondered aloud whether Congress could outlaw the showing of such programs in this country.

“Live. Pay-per-view, you know, on the Human Sacrifice Channel. That’s OK?” Alito asked.

“A lawyer defending a Virginia man who sold dog-fighting videos said she wasn’t sure.

“The fact conduct is repulsive or offensive does not mean we automatically ban the speech,” said Patricia Millett, the lawyer for Robert Stevens.

“She said the 1st Amendment usually protects speech and expression, even if the underlying conduct is ugly or illegal. She said the government should work to stop the illegal acts rather than make it a crime to show the illegal acts. [Forgetting the powerful link between sales fueling and even creating the behavior because it’s so lucrative – the old free market at work.]

“Several members of the court pressed her.

“I’m still looking for an answer,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. “You are unwilling to say that Congress can pass a law that you cannot have a Human Sacrifice Channel.”

Ah, doncha love it. A Human Sacrifice Channel. Well, rest assured, if there’s a way to make THAT happen, bet on it – it’ll show up on your nearest pay-per-view and will make a bundle!

Meantime, this case will attempt to somehow figure out where 1st Amendment lines can be drawn. So far it’s No yelling Fire in Crowded theatres and no Child Porn. And, of course, there’s all kinds of remedies in civil court vis a vis libel & etc. But will the court add No Animal torture & snuff films for profit and/or No Human Sacrifice Channels to the list? Or will those be O.K? Stay tuned.

How Much Is That Fighting Pit Bull In the Window?

Well, in the case of quarterback Michael Vick, about “$1.6 million this season with a team option for another year at $5.2 million,” according to an August 15 L.A. Times story by Sam Farmer. Vick, who spent 18 months in federal prison for running a dog fighting operation which included charges of inhumane treatment of dogs, including torturing and killing them when they angered him or didn’t perform properly, recently signed with the Philadelphia Eagles for that nice $1.6 million.

Michael Vick's Redemption

In prison he apparently saw the light with mentoring from retired Colts coach, Tony Dungy, who also ministers to prison inmates. Dungy believes in second chances and spoke recently on 60 Minutes about many young black men who may have lacked proper childhood parenting and so too often went wrong. In that same interview, Vick spoke of a childhood where dog fighting was simply an accepted way of life, including watching the police observing the activity, shrugging and walking away. Which sent the young Vic a powerful message: Dog fighting and gambling on dog fighting and abuse of dogs was simply an accepted cultural norm for his community.

Also on 60 Minutes with Vick and Dungy was Wayne Percelle, head of the Humane Society of the US (HSUSA). As part of his parole and as evidence of his redemption, Vick has committed to an ongoing outreach program to communities to talk about his downfall as well as educating communities about dog fighting as well as urging kids take another look at the issue of animal cruelty in their own lives and community.

So, it’s win-win all round. Vick gets the dough, Dungy saves another soul and the media-savvy Percelle gets a high-profile spokesperson for his money-making operation.

And Then PETA Shows Up!

Naturally, PETA and others had a cow. As the Times reports, one wag showed up at the team’s headquarters bearing a sign that said, “Hide your beagle, Vick’s an Eagle.”

The Times also notes this all important gem: “Meanwhile, according to Sports Business Daily, the price and number of tickets purchased on the online ticket site StubHub for the Eagles’ Dec 6 game at Atlanta against Vicks former team have tripled since he was signed.”

Ah, yes, money, money, money. Makes the world go round. But before too much outrage gets generated over this deal, a couple of points should be considered. First, people do change. As Oprah Winfrey is fond of saying, we do better when we know better. For Vick, it’s likely he realized that in the wider culture, pit fighting and dog abuse isn’t supposed to be “publicly” acceptable.

Too Many Dogs In L.A.

Which brings us to point Two – Irony. In Los Angeles alone, the Animal Control Services there euthanized 7,500 unwanted, unadoptable dogs in 2008. There were also 10,000 owner turn-in dogs and 20,000dogs were picked up as abandoned strays or lost. That’s a whole lot of “abused” dogs and an excellent example that our culture at large, just like Vick’s childhood neighborhood, doesn’t value dogs very much at all. In reality, in our wider culture, dogs (and cats) are as disposable as garbage.

And point Three. If what Vick did to the fighting dogs in his control was brutal and cruel, what do giant, testosterone-fueled football players deliberately do to each other each Sunday afternoon? Professional football is not beanbag and the physical damage these players are supposed to inflict on each other in pursuit of that lucrative win can leave players with short careers and permanent disabilities, including brain damage from head-slams that even a helmet cannot protect against. Professional football, like pit fighting, is a brutal “sport,” which is exactly the way sports fans like it.

Fighting dogs, bad-boy, body-slamming human behemoths, big money, violence and blood on the field on a pleasant Sunday afternoon. What could be more American?