my opinion of "The Law" has become a bit more jaded over the past 2 1/2 years after being exposed intimately to North Carolina's "judicial system" and its behavior during the Duke Lacrosse Frame.
Certainly understandable - but as you well know, that was as much a riot by Homogeneous Journalism as it was anything else. That was journalism acting in its capacity as the Establishment, passing judgement irrespective of the facts of the "case." That is a perfect example of abuse of power on the part of the Nifong - and his power derived directly from his relationship to Establishment Journalism.Homogeneous Journalism™ once had it all. The MSM easily had as much power as elected government at any level. Then they became an extension and enabler of government once they agreed to share power. Sort of a 'peaceful coexistence.'We-the-people need SCOTUS to declare that freedom of the press is an elementary right of the people - at root, freedom of the press is the right of any person not merely to voice his opinion but to spend money and use technology to promote his opinion. Under the Constitution the government does not have right to oppose the right of any person to promote his own opinion in competition with any Establishment.
My take on the relation between Establishment Journalism and the government is that journalism's inherent motive is to attract attention and to be considered important. Failure to do that is financial failure and political failure, and what other motive would remain to journalism apart from success in at least one or the other of those things?Given that motive, and given the means at journalism's disposal, what would you expect journalism to do? I put it to you that you should expect journalism to criticize all the businessmen, and the police and military, who might in the natural order of things be considered more important than journalism.
Now consider the motive of the politician - to promote in the people the idea of his importance and competence. The politician who goes along with journalism in criticizing and second guessing the people who have responsibility for getting things done and working to a bottom line instantly has an ally in journalism. The politician who opposes unfair treatment of businessmen has an instant enemy in journalism. So when the Republican conservative is in power, absolute "it happened on his watch" responsibility is the rule. And when a Democrat is in power, his "good intentions" - and certainly not his incompetence - are all that matter.
To me, that line of reasoning has a lot of explanatory power.
I agree. Additionally, 'journalism' has attracted the largest concentration of Marxists - outside academia - that can be found today. Reading all the comments and blogs and such from those laid off is instructive. Most of them haven't a clue as to how wealth is created. Nor do they care. They've been indoctrinated into believing what they do is a calling and their existence should be guaranteed by the Collective.
And every one of them are union types.
The DukeLax Frame exposed how the Durham Power Structure and the local media partnered to obtain a political outcome. Their "legal system" was not sufficiently sturdy to withstand the strain. It is on a smaller scale what is ongoing nationally with the Media as an active partner with the Collective.
With respect to the SCOTUS, I ask why must we go hat in hand to them to ratify a right which we were born with? Do we not empower them to control us when we ask their permission to do something we already can do? I say we just speak out as we please and defy them to come after us.
It's similar to the Heller case. I'm glad we won it, but what if we hadn't? Why give them the power, I ask?
Perhaps I'm too belligerent, but I think it worth noting.