Pedro's Corner: Submarine Court Trapped on Dry Land

Today, my dad has something to say about the Supreme Court's decision striking down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. Take it away Pedro!

The Supreme Court has now decided that because of changed and improved conditions in our country, that certain guarantees regarding management of voting rights in certain states should be removed.  One could therefore say that laws against crime should be repealed because of a significant drop in crime, a drop that was brought about by these very same crime laws.  The national understanding is that a single crime is sufficiently repellant to justify these laws and single crimes we will always have.  We still enforce laws against fraud because we know that some citizens will turn to fraud feeling they can avoid the consequences by craft.

The voting rights laws were enacted because some citizens have a racial hatred and will act on it.  They struggle to prevent their so-called inferiors from voting.  They will never change and will never stop imparting the hatred to their offspring.  Therefore it behooves us to keep such laws intact, as a form of regulating fair behavior and maintaining public trust in government.  What would be the highest number of unfair, racial incidents permissible (NONE) and how can we predict when such incidents would stop for all time (NEVER)?  This is why we have all sorts of laws punishing, regulating and watching for even a single crime.

A civilized government serves to protect and serve its citizens as a majority decides.  Violence and threats by one person or group against another person or group have no place here.  The government must have the power and the wisdom to squelch violent force along with the MIGHT MAKES RIGHT mentality.

PdC

Pedro's Corner: Edward Snowden

Pedro de Cordoba, Jr.

The saying goes that when you look at life through the eyes of a child, that's when you truly live. While that may be true, I find that the opposite works just as well. These days people seem to forget that our elders know a thing or two. Born in the late 1920s, my dad has a wealth of life experience that gives him a unique perspective on the issues of the day. He always has a point of view, whether it's about religion or the gait of an overweight man walking down the street. It delights me to hear him express what's on his mind, as I never know what he'll say, but it will always be unfiltered and usually in the form of a joke.

After hearing a recent eloquent diatribe on some subject that currently escapes me, I said to him, "Dad, you need a blog to post these op-eds floating inside your brain." He said I should post them for him. So here's his very first post, where he takes on the subject of national secrecy, our right to privacy, and governmental accountability. Take it away Dad!

EDWARD SNOWDEN 

 I would like to view this matter from a position very high above, because it all seems so trivial.  The three agencies, (NSA, CIA, FBI) known to be secretive against each other, proceed on their comically bungling Kafkaesque course, SOMETIMES defending the nation against terrorists.  From their self-appointed, altitudinous perch, they rant against one who (as a likely mental exercise) punctured their giant sack of secrets, found them most unpalatable and cast them off to someone else.  In so doing, he PROVIDED THE TRANSPARENCY-IN-GOVERNMENT promised us by the current President.  No doubt Congress is scrambling to find a relevant infraction to apply.  Perhaps the three agencies are considering a water-boarding session or the correctly sized unmanned aircraft to wreak vengeance, beware collateral damage!  Could this be a case of A SYSTEM HAS TO FAIL IN ORDER TO IMPROVE? 

PdC