Vox Lucens

There have been many things that have scared me in the last few months about the way out government is going.  I could give you a laundry list, because my mind cannot cease to be boggled about how many things we Americans have taken for granted that can no longer be assumed.  When government owns and controls industry, when government can pick and choose what organizations live and what organizations die by who they give money to, and when the knee-jerk reaction to financial instability is to look to the government for a solution, there are countless indices of freedom running in the red.

But I want to talk about the one that scares me the most, my friends.   This is not meant to be a partisan rant, nor is it meant to be directed at the current Supreme Court nominee - what you see here is the thoughts of a genuinely worried common citizen.

This idea is the one that our judges should be governed primarily by “empathy.”  Merriam-Webster tells me that this word comes from the Greek for passion, feelings, and emotion.  The part of the definition that we are most familiar with says that empathy is “the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another…”  If  judge is to be ruled by empathy, it is to say that this judge, when faced with a case, looks not to the law, but looks to his or her own emotions and discerns which party makes them say “awwwww…” louder.  That’s why I’m calling this the “rule of awwww” - and it can be easily distinguished from the rule of law.

But one cannot be bound by both the law and one’s emotion.  One or the other must reign supreme.  And if a judge feels that he or she must choose based on empathy, that judge must literally disown the rule of law.

I don’t claim to be an expert in the rule of law.  There are many who could expound the theory of the rule of law much better than I.  And yet, that’s the point.  You don’t need to be an expert to know why the rule of law is so vital to any sort of justice and freedom.  Our society is based on law.  The rule of law provides us with stability and expectability, giving us a cause-and-effect in societal interaction.  It serves as the great leveller, subjecting every person, great and small, to its universal principles.  Laws can be changed, certainly, and adapted, but not on a whim of some self-seeking person, and not only in subjective application to targeted individuals.  You don’t have to be an expert to understand the value of the rule of law - and you don’t have to look any further than wherever you’re sitting to see how valuable it is in everyday life.

And that is why judges unbound from the rule of law have been hallmarks of despotism for time immemorial.  Now don’t get me wrong.  I don’t mean to automatically equate an “empathetic” judge with the judges that executed “the people’s” whim in revolutionary France, Hitler’s whim in Germany, or Stalin’s whim in Russia, or Pol Pot’s whim in Cambodia (or countless other examples).  But once one looses a judge from the rule of law, you leave yourself open to that possibility.

A politician is necessarily bound by the will of the people, because he can be voted out.  But a judge is bound only to the law, and if you remove that mooring a judge becomes at very best a miniature dictator.  Perhaps that judge will use his dictatorial power for good, but that’s not a risk I am willing to take - and it is not a risk our Constitution was willing to subject us to.

And that is why the “Rule of Awwww” scares me to death.

I’ve been doing bankruptcy work full time for almost five whole months now.  As I’ve gotten my feet wetter and wetter in this whole bankruptcy world, one of my main tasks has been motion work.  Motions resolve a lot of the practical issues necessary to get a discharge, especially in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy - they value property to determine security interests, avoid liens, resolve automatic stay issues, and who knows what else.

And because we do debtor work, most of my motions are filed against some kind of creditor, and often mortgage companies.  In order for a motion to be effective, we must serve the papers on them in accordance with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7004.  Normally, this means I have to go dig through the bowels of the Internet to find out who an officer of the requisite creditor is - and in today’s world, that often means digging through records of who bought what company and what the new name is.  All this searching has taught me much about these corporate entities.

For instance -

You’ve probably heard of Ditech. (If you have watched TV in the last few years, you will remember Ditech from ads where the evil fat local banker bemoans that he “Lost another loan to Ditech.com” while the blissful customer wallows in happiness.  Or the one where they try to convince you that “people are smart” before insulting your intelligence with a poorly animated professorial creature explaining the “advantages” of their rates.)  But did you know that Ditech is a business of GMAC, the financing arm of General Motors?

Incidentally, speaking of poor advertising, GMAC was recently forced to change the name of its banking arm to “Ally Bank” in an effort to improve its image.

Did you know that Wachovia was purchased by Wells Fargo?  That was in the news, of course, but it gets complicated - you see, Wachovia Bank, N.A., is not a part of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.  They haven’t finished that yet.  But Wachovia Bank, N.A. is a part of Wells Fargo Corporation, the mother company who owns an astounding array of entities.  And then there’s Wachovia Bank, F.S.B., which used to be World Savings Bank, F.S.B. and now has been almost sort of more or less phased out in favor of new and improved corporate structures.

Speaking of Wells Fargo, did you know that the company called “America’s Servicing Company” is actually just a DBA of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.?

It’s nothing short of dizzying.  And I haven’t mentioned Citigroup, JPMorganChase, or Bank of America, and countless other entities.

But I digress.  All this to say that finding the appropriate contact information for Rule 7004 service can be a challenge.

But the federal government might be making it easier on me.  If this goes through, the United States government will own a majority stake in GMAC.  So I am given to wonder, will my service list look like this?

GMAC
Attn: Barack Obama, CEO
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500

Thoughts?

My new state, I’m afraid, is best known for its idiosyncracies.  Perhaps it is often deserved, perhaps it is normally not, but be that as it may - today I found perhaps the best political commentary on this fair state that I can imagine…in a picture.

So I just saw one of CNNs top stories for today.  The headline simply read, “Voters Ready.”

Aside from being inane and totally unimaginative as a headline, I really expected a story like this…

****

“Voters Ready”

PALM SPRINGS, FL - After a countywide voter education project, voting authorities claim that voters are ready to cast their ballots.

“We’ve had extensive training for the citizens of Palm Springs on the use of a Number 2 lead pencil to fill in an oval.  In addition, we have handed out thousands of pamphlets with detailed instructions and definitions on the use of chads, the meaning of a straight line between a candidate’s name and an oval, and the emergency number to Barack Obama’s campaign headquarters in case of confusion,” one election official told CNN on the condition of anonymity.

Mary Jones is a Palm Springs resident that experienced difficulties understanding the ballot eight years ago.  “Before, I was frightened,” she told CNN.  “I thought maybe the line between the oval and the name meant ‘minus,’ and I did not want to cast a negative vote for anyone except Pat Buchanan.  But because of this voter training, I know that if I accidentally fill in the oval for John McCain, Obama campaign lawyers will read my mind and know who I meant to vote for and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court, so I am confident that justice will be done.”

When reminded that Bush won the landmark election case of Bush v. Gore, involving similar mind-reading issues, Ms. Jones claimed that breakthroughs in European theories on chad-reading, like European theories on socialism, were on the rise, so she was confident that her ballot would be read properly.

John Doe told reporters that, prior to the training, he had difficulty fitting the candidate’s name inside the tiny oval provided.  “Before voting, I tried to shrink my handwriting so that I could write the answer in the space provided,” he complained.  “But my friendly Obama rep assured me that I just had to fill in the oval with little circles next to the candidate I want to vote for.  That alone convinced me to vote for Barack,” he went on.  “If someone would have told me this in high school I might not have flunked the SAT and be stuck in this soup kitchen.  Barack has the information Americans need to succeed!”

In a token appearance so that this article does not appear biased, CNN interveiwed a John McCain spokesman who claimed, “It is the McCain campaign’s contention that putting ‘George Bush’ next to Mr. McCain’s name on the ballot misleads voters into thinking that John McCain is, in fact, George Bush.”

“That is blatant hatemongering,” an Obama spokesman responded.

****

Alas, the actual story was far more boring.  And to be fair, I did intend to write a more serious election post.  There’s just so much to write about that anything but parody is overwhelming.

I was highly fascinated by the BBC’s coverage of American elections, as broadcast by PRI on my little Pacific island. But as I was sitting in the Detroit airport during a long layover yesterday, I found the most highly prescient statement of current American politics I’ve ever heard.

Problem is, despite the news blaring around me, I found it in the book I was reading - a history of Burma. On page 216 of the fascinating book “The River of Lost Footsteps,” the author actually thought he was talking about 1940s Burma!

…the political parties inhabited a strange middle space between responsible government and theater.

One of the primary advantages–no pun intended–of being done with the Republican side of the South Carolina vote is that half of the political ads are now no longer on the air. I am heartily sick of looking at ancient pictures of X Candidate with Ronald Reagan–especially when such a picture is the only proof that X Candidate is actually the conservative he claims to be.

But the primary problem with the Democratic primary being next Saturday is that the worst ads are still on air. I mean, unless you’re a hippie, Obama’s ads aren’t for you. And unless you’re a diehard fan of candidates who read their speeches, Hillary’s ads just aren’t going to resonate.

But Edwards’ ads are the worst. First, they have no video–and with just still pictures, I could do a better job with PowerPoint. And as far as the message, I could write a better ad in my sleep. I mean, really–”He will be our president. Not theirs.”

What?

And his other slogan–”A winner every time.” I guess they mean except for his last presidential campaign. Oh, and his last vice presidential campaign. Oh, and every state so far this campaign season.

The primary can’t come fast enough to get this hilarity off the air.