I can still remember watching Superbowl XVIII on January 22, 1984. That game was between the Washington Redskins (now called the Washington Warriors) and the Los Angles Raiders (formerly known as the Oakland Raiders). During that game, which was won by the Los Angles Raiders, Apple unveiled its new computer (the Macintosh) with a groundbreaking video directed by Ridley Scott featuring a woman running with a hammer toward a giant viewscreen being viewed by automaton workers dressed in grey (think George Orwell's, 1984). The statement made by Apple:
On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984.
At that time, IBM was the Big Brother that Apple was competing against in the PC world. IBM was the Billion dollar Goliath and Apple was the up-and-coming David. Since then, Apple has become what they originally were dedicated to overcoming - Big Brother. On January 9, 2021, that was apparent when Apple and Google de-platformed a growing social media site, Parler. Parler was becoming the favorite choice of those who favored President Trump. President Trump, and other conservatives, was de-platformed from social media sites like Twitter and Facebook. Apple unphased by its colleagues' attempts to silence President Trump sided with its peers by de-platforming Parler.
Since then, Parler has diminished. First, Parler was de-platformed by Apple and Google. Then, Parler was de-hosted by Amazon. Parler sued Apple, Amazon, and Google. Collectively, those behemoths closed Parler's business. Interestingly, all of these technology companies support the Democrat party. Parler was unquestioningly damaged by the consolidated attack by Big Brother (3). Alarming! But Parler's lawsuit against Amazon barely progressed in Washington, Western Division, United States District Court. The preliminary injunction they sought was denied for "dwindling slight" evidence.
In Parler's case, the damages were extremely clear; it was effectively "shut down" and "shut off". Effectively, they were "locked out" of the home they rented from Amazon, then evicted with less than one day's notice. For a landlord to gain this kind of eviction, he would have to show some immediate irreparable harm from a tenant. Amazon did not show that immediate irreparable harm existed to its platform by Parler. Nor were they required to show that kind of threat existed. Nor could they have shown that such a threat existed. Instead, the judicial lens turned on Parler because its users had a propensity to be among those who supported President Trump.
Today, Parler is a shell of what it could have been. No remedy exists for the harms suffered by them from Big Brother (3). Imagine for a second what would have happened to Apple had the billion-dollar gorilla, IBM, conspired with retailers to shut down sales of Apple's Macintosh computer. Do you think that such a strategy would have worked at that time? I don't. Why? Because it is plainly obvious that a large company was trying to squelch a small company's business. At that time, no court would have allowed such an act; it would have been anti-competitive and collusive to fix the PC market.
Yet now, Apple, in conjunction with Google and Amazon acted to shut down Parler's business due to "political correctness" aka PC. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube conspired to shut down President Trump. Such an act is plainly anticompetitive. How is it that judges lack the common sense to fairly apply the law? Here, what is plainly anti-competitive in the physical world is also anti-competitive in the digital world. Apple, now a trillion-dollar company, acted in concert with two other trillion-dollar companies, Google and Amazon, to shut down Parler's business. Parler sued. But Parler was rebuffed by judges who couldn't see what was plainly visible: 1) Apple and Google shut down the retail front Parler used to acquire customers, and 2) Amazon, on one day's notice, evicted Parler from the rented space on its service.
In both areas, the body of law is extensive. The understanding by judges should be equally extensive. How is it that judges cannot discern what is plainly obvious? Simply put, they have lost the ability to judge correctly. To be a just judge, just judgment is required. When just judgment is absent, judges no longer have credibility. As Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 78, the judiciary "it may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." The judicial branch was considered the least dangerous branch by the founding fathers because the judiciary lacked the power of the purse or the power of the sword. Today, it has become the most dangerous branch. Why is that?
The judicial branch has worked to amass and aggrandize power to itself. As stated in prior blogs, the judicial branch gained ascendancy in America through the three-legged stool of 1) precedent, 2) rule-making, and 3) sovereign immunity. Today, judges have near-absolute power in their courtrooms. I am reminded of a story from Massachusetts regarding Justina Pelletier. In that case, the Pelletiers' were reported to the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in Boston, Massachusetts. But Justina was a resident of Connecticut. How does a judge in Massachusetts have jurisdiction over a Connecticut child? To gain that jurisdiction, Boston Children's Hospital accused the Pelletiers of committing a crime: they were abusing Justina because they were giving her prescribed medicine.
I can think of nothing more tyrannical than the taking of a child from its parents. But, in this case, Justina was taken from her parents and committed to Boston Children's Hospital's department of psychology. The issue: two different hospitals diagnosed two different causes for Justina's "numerous health problems, which included an inability to walk, talk, or swallow". In 2010, Tufts Medical Center doctor, Dr. Mark Korson, who was the chief of metabolism at Tufts, diagnosed Justina as having "mitochondrial disease" (a physical condition). In February 2013, aware of the previous diagnosis, Boston Children's Hospital diagnosed Justina as having Munchausen syndrome by proxy (a psychological condition). The parents believed Tufts' diagnosis and refused the treatment plan by Boston Children's Hospital.
Nevertheless, their daughter was taken from them. Boston Children's Hospital chose to modify the treatment plan created by Korson; in their mind, it was a psychological issue. Justina became worse. She became a ward of the State of Massachusetts for more than a year. But the damage was done to Justina. The parents were barred from treating their child, Justina, with a prescribed medicine by a notable doctor who was a specialist in metabolism at Tufts hospital. How was such an allegation allowable? How is Boston Children's Hospital not liable for its actions? Later, the Pelletiers sued Boston Children's Hospital and lost. To add insult to injury, the Pelletiers were required to sue the hospital in Massachusetts (where the damage was done), not Connecticut (the Pelletiers home).
Lies cause harm. Big Brother(3) is watching. I am reminded of the beginning of the Outer Limits television program:
There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission...We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. For the next hour sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear.
Doesn't that sound like what is happening in America today? Normally, I seed my writings with scriptures. I believe in the authority of Scripture. When I look in Scripture in relation to what I see happening today, I am reminded of Zephaniah 3:3, 4, ISV,
Its national officials are roaring lions; its judges are like wolves of the night that don't leave the bones for the morning. Its prophets are arrogant and treacherous. Its priests have contaminated the sanctuary. They give perverse interpretations of the Law.
Yes, tyranny has become the law of this land. Truth is the only defense that we have against it. Therefore, cling to truth. As Solomon wrote in Proverbs 23:23, CEV, "Invest in truth and wisdom, discipline and good sense, and don't part with them." That sounds like good advice.
Post a Comment