Jack Yan on Vox

I have read the judgement but my views aren’t changed

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Wed, 28 May 2008 18:35:09 +1200

Finally, I have read the judgement from California about gay marriage. It may be prudent to post a comment from an earlier post, in response to a commenter, Madonna. I should note that I am not part of a conspiracy behind an ‘anti-gay industry’ or ‘“ex-gay” head cases’. I’ll also refrain from saying ‘You’re not bright,’ as you did to another Voxer, but I will begin with your own words, ‘Let me educate you.’ One proviso: I have read fewer Californian cases than, obviously, someone trained in an American law school. I have written based on what I have observed with Californian and American cases.
It may also be instructive to read the below in conjunction with the previous post, also a response by me to a commenter who was considerably more civilized, in where I deal with Perez v. Lippold in more depth.

After having read the majority opinion, I remain unconvinced. While I agree the article is biased, I have to come to the same conclusion as Justice Baxter, principally for many of the reasons I outlined above.
   This may be time, now, to address Madonna’s points.
   First, Madonna, your attack on another commenter is unwarranted, and it’s a shame you would deny her her opinion from the outset without putting your reasoning first. It would not be unfair to dismiss anything that came afterward from you.
   I can equally attack you with your words:

No rational person can criticize the Court's decision here without having at least a basic understanding of the governing California precedents. Anyone who condemns this ruling without having that understanding will be demonstrating a profound ignorance of -- and contempt for -- how the law works.

Precedents do not govern, they persuade. And if you do look back at Californian decisions, regardless of whether the issues are as controversial or not, they show a gradual, progressive moving forward of the law, catching up to public opinion in many cases. I believe you are ignorant of this basic fact of how the law has worked in California and, indeed, your own country, based on this very general, sweeping proposition. Indeed, Perez itself shows this, and I find the lead judgement in particular to be very, very clever.
   These precedents which I have at least enquired into do show some persuasiveness but none of them get around the problem California has with the Governor’s vetoes. The fact that the ‘a man and a woman’ definition has been placed in really do not help supporters of gay marriage. So we are essentially stuck with the position that I stated in my comment to the Gay Curmudgeon.
   Effectively I believe that the law has been circumvented, and not very cleverly, the majority judges trying to bury the core issue with legalese.
   Your bill argument is unconvincing. If the Governor’s position is so dead wrong, then vote the man out. I come back to the basic idea: the judge’s role is to interpret the law. And a bill is not law.
   As are your arguments, from a legal standpoint, about polls (not really a consideration generally for courts, though they are slightly persuasive), while another state’s court ruling is based on the legislation of that state.
It is also irrelevant which party appointed the judges.
   The position I had in the above post, then, is the one I must take. Perez shows how a clever court gets around restrictive legislation. You obviously believe that the law is restrictive and unfair here and perhaps even offends public policy. I respect your view. Common law precedents are littered with cases where the court has got around such law. The court in this latest case has not done its job and I would say that if the majority had an agenda to accept marriage for same-sex couples, then it has done it in a clumsy way that opens the case for future attacks.
   Even if I were on your side totally—and I am not saying I am totally against you, either—I would advise you both to continue campaigning for your cause, because this judgement is weak when compared with others that have, let’s say, pushed the law in a certain direction.
   Your battle is far from over though given current trends in the California, you may yet win. However, I will guarantee you now that it won’t be on this decision.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The gay marriage ﬂap in California summarized

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Tue, 27 May 2008 22:01:02 +1200

John Armor in the Sun–Sentinel gives an excellent summary of the controversial case in California over gay marriage, where judges have ignored the separation of powers, trying to create laws from the bench. He begins:

The recent decision on gay marriage handed down by the California Supreme Court will have long-lasting and widespread effects far beyond the issue at hand. It creates a dangerous precedent justifying judicial violation of the separation of powers and demonstrates the increasing inclination of some judges to usurp the lawmaking powers reserved for the legislature and the people.
Creating laws is clearly designated as a legislative function in both the California and U.S. constitutions. For example, it is the business of California’s legislators (or the people, in the case of a referendum) to vote for, or against, gay marriage. Enforcing the laws and applying the Constitution is the role of the courts. But as Justice Marvin Baxter wrote in his dissent, in handing down this decision, “the majority places this controversial issue beyond the realm of legislative debate and substitutes its own judgment in the matter for the considered wisdom of the People and their elected representatives.” …
Sadly, some of our judges have become black-robed politicians who happen not to be elected and who serve for life. They have turned their courtrooms into ad hoc statehouses, handing down laws that appear to have more to do with their personal beliefs than the Constitution.

   The rest can be read here. My view: if a schmuck like me outside the US understands the legislative function, democracy and the separation of powers, how come those four judges don’t?
   Whether or not you agree with gay marriage, this is an assault on democracy and the principles of the Founding Fathers.
   If I were an American, I’d be very worried—dodgy politicians on the one hand, and contemptuous judges on the other.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Psycho Missouri cops

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:25:38 +1200

This is from a friend of mine living in the US. This is disgusting behaviour, and comes on the same day I find out that one in four prisoners on this planet are in the US.

Today, **** went to the **** Missouri police department to ask them if the knife he made is legal.
   He asked the receptionist and she said she would ask an officer to come and tell him. Well, he sat down, and waited and waited.
   Finally, he just got up to leave. About the time he got to his car, two policemen asked him if he was the one asking if his knife was legal.
   He said yes. They told him to bring it over to them. He took one step towards them and they pulled their guns, aimed them at him and yelled, "Drop that fucking knife!!" **** was startled and of course and dropped it.
   They set him up! And they never told him if it was legal or not. They ran his tags and all and let him go but I am just so upset that it happened. It is like someone hit me in the gut.

   Not really the by-the-books policemen we see on Cops. This gives all American cops a bad name.
   Hey, Missouri police—pick on someone your own size and solve some real crimes, OK? Imagine how much of the taxpayers’ money they wasted.
   And I thought there was a War on Terror on.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

How to restore faith in American politics

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:16:01 +1200

American Infidel posted an excellent piece from Cross Action News on how the US political system has been compromised, by Carl Parnell. Some excerpts:

However, as seen in these different opinions, politicians have been blamed for the failure of America’s political system. But, one respondent to the survey voiced a strong opinion that put the blame on average Americans. Her opinion was:

Our Constitution frames the best form of government on the planet. The balance of powers and the system of checks and balances provided a framework that allowed our young country to grow and develop and remain despot free for the last 220 years. The government itself is not what I have lost faith in. “We the People” is what I have lost faith in.

And advice for the electorate follows (my emphasis), and I have to agree with it as I have never, in the elections I have participated in, voted for personal gain. Even for those who do not believe in God or in prayer, the remaining advice is still useful:

   “Of the people, by the people, for the people” means the people should educate themselves and elect leaders at all levels that work for them. The people should watch what those elected officials do and boot them out of office when they no longer work for the people. The caliber of citizens and politicians has declined in the last 220 years.
   Therefore, America’s political system is at a crossroads in 2008. When the American electorate votes for the President of the United States and for any members of Congress in November 2008, they must absolutely know the true facts about each candidate. Citizens of the United States must not permit the race, gender, or political party of the candidate be a determining factor in who wins the election. Citizens of the United States must not let personal economic gain become the deciding factor in which candidate they vote for in any election. Citizens of the United States must vote for candidates who have the true qualities of great leaders, such as those possessed by America’s forefathers. Some of these qualities would be honesty, integrity, morality, faith in the nation they serve, faith in the people they serve, having the character of a statesman instead of the character of many modern-day politicians. Of course, true representative leaders of the United States should always pray to God before voting on any legislation that affects the greatest nation in the world.
   However, if America continues to elect people to office that assume the role of a politician instead of a statesman, America may lose more than just the faith of its citizens toward its political system. America may possibly lose its status as the greatest nation in the world.

There is still support for the US around the world—but they need a beacon to look up to rather than to criticize. In November, vote to make America great again—not just in economic terms, but in terms of the true leadership and morality that it can stand for.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Have the Clintons committed election fraud?

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 11:05:09 +1300

Before I begin, I should note that this story does not have a response from the Clintons directly, but it makes very disturbing viewing. As Peter Paul says in the first part, the case against the Clintons is proceeding, dealing with a massive election fraud, but there is nothing in the media about it. At the end of Part One, Mr Paul shows a video that demonstrates Mrs Clinton was in full knowledge of the campaign contributions that were raised for her by him and his organization.
Equal Justice Foundation of America, which presents the documentary, calls the incident ‘most shocking expose on the blatant corruption surrounding Hillary Clinton. Includes exclusive home videos of Hillary to expose the illegalities that elected Hillary to the Senate and the obstructions of justice that keep her there.’ One commentator believes that Sen. Clinton has committed a felony punishable by five years’ jail time.
Let us say this is not beyond the realm of imagination and needs to be considered fairly.

The Shocking Video Hillary Does NOT Want You To See! (1of2)

The Shocking Video Hillary Does NOT Want You To See! (2of2)

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Winston Peters goes on the attack, targeting journalists

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:30:54 +1300

As much as I have gone on record to express a dislike for the Hon Winston Peters, the Foreign Minister Outside Cabinet, and express an admiration for TV One talking head Paul Henry, the Foreign Minister’s interview tonight on Close-up (which I still think of as a weekly Thursday night show) was very much won by Mr Peters.
   In it, he defended himself on the Owen Glenn affair by going on the warpath, accusing journalists of cooking up falsehoods and writing stories before they had researched them.
   As I have written here and elsewhere regularly, we have seen many examples of poor journalism, and one sympathizes with Mr Peters.
   His attacking style—coupled with confidence and some might say smugness—played on emotions well, using a mixture of rose-coloured glasses (‘There was a time in New Zealand when …’) and a keen understanding of the law.
   It also exposed the inadequacy of the research that was given to Mr Henry and his colleagues, and the desire of the MSM to sometimes cook up sensationalism when there are better things to do.
   As to whether there would be an ambassadorial role in return for political donations, Mr Peters handled that matter well, too, saying that the government had left the matter over a consul to Monaco at large since 1996.
   It was a reminder that while as daft as some of Mr Peters’ arguments have been over the years—to the point of being a broken record—he is a skilful politician who seems to have rediscovered some of his former vigour.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

In support of Yola Lucire

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:41:49 +1300

We occasionally Google the term Lucire to check for trade mark infringements, and another Lucire always comes up: Australian forensic psychiatrist Dr Yolande Lucire.
   Yola and I exchanged emails many years ago because she was intrigued by the magazine’s name. I found her personable and genuine—and very smart.
   She is very famous in her field in Australia, and often testifies in court as an expert witness. Her thinking can, from what I understand, fall outside the square, because she is perceptive enough to see beyond establishment lies and the commercialization of her profession by Big Pharma.
   Now there is a case where she testified, and the judge agreed with her, but her own professional committee, the NSW Medical Board Professional Standards Committee, is smearing her and ordering her to get psychiatric help.
   In other words, she’s being reprimanded because she tells the truth, and that truth isn’t something corporate interests and the establishment want to hear.
   Philip Barton writes on his blog, ‘Dr. Lucire testified in court about the direct relationship between SSRI antidepressants and violent crime and suicide amongst young people.’
   The establishment didn’t like that.
   Now, Yola wouldn’t have testified this if she didn’t find this in her own research and unlike so many others, she simply refused to cover it up.
   Maybe the Committee would like to teach her how to fake the results of her own scientific tests.
   ‘Whilst the judge found in favour of Dr. Lucire’s testimony her own organization reprimanded her and ordered her to get psychiatric help.’
   In short: say something Big Pharma disagrees with, and it will say you need help.
   Maybe Ritalin and other drugs help some people, but even as a layman I can’t discount the possibility that Yola’s own research is right.
   Galileo had the same run-in with the Church over that whole “the earth is round” gag, and, in time, Big Pharma might be seen to be backward and pathetic.
   I may know zilch about psychiatry, but I know a malicious smear campaign when I see it. Stay the course, Yola.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The United States’ most corrupt politicians: Clinton, Giuliani, Huckabee, Obama in top 10

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 02:04:32 +1300

Who are the most corrupt US politicians? Here are 10 on both sides of the political spectrum.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton tops the list.
She’s followed by Rep. John Conyers (Dem., Mich.), Sen. Larry Craig (Rep., Idaho), Sen. Diane Feinstein (Dem., Calif.), former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani (Rep., NY), Gov. Mike Huckabee (Rep., Ark.), former vice-presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby, Sen. Barack Obama (Dem., Ill.), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Dem., Calif.) and Sen. Harry Reid (Dem., Nev.). (“Hat tip” to Randy Thomas.)

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Thank you to the New Zealand military (Clark and Key won’t say it)

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:04:11 +1300

Not a lot of people in New Zealand will publicly say this, even if they think it: thank you to our troops.
   The fear from both the Government and the Opposition is that this simple expression of gratitude will upset the anti-Americans in the country and make them sound like Bushites. We have some chicken-s*** politicians.
   What an intelligent person will work out is that regardless of one’s political stripes, our men and women in Afghanistan are fighting terrorism admirably and have even been recognized by the US Government for their valour. There are those in Iraq helping with the rebuilding efforts.
   I would even go so far as to express my thanks to the entire Coalition of the Willing, wherever the troops are based.
   Again, this should not be a political matter. Even Democratic politicians have expressed this wish. These people are willing to pay the ultimate price for a cause they believe in.
   I remember the civilians who have lost their homes, family members and their own lives in conflicts globally. I remember those whose family structures have been demolished by tyrants. I hope you find peace in 2008 as the human spirit cannot be extinguished unless we let it.
   It may be naïve to say that I wish for world peace, but on a deep level I do.
   Until we are ready to achieve that, we should be able to recognize good from evil and just what values contribute to a strong, prosperous and safe society where we can say to our children, ‘Be happy. Be yourself.’
   In many western nations I wonder if we can make the distinction between right and wrong.
   When we are clear about it, we can defend what’s right. And sometimes, men of peace must become men of war in order to stamp out villainy.
   This need not just be with guns. In the corporate world, in our everyday lives, we sometimes must “wage war” on impropriety and corruption. When we vote for our governments, we are not voting for who gives us the biggest bribe, but who will either restore, defend or build our values, to create the society that we say we want our children to grow up in.
   And to begin, I give thanks to all those who defend those values—whether they are values based in our faith or in our philosophy.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend