Update no.262

Update from the Heartland

No.262

11.12.06 – 17.12.06

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
Happy Hanukkah . . . to our friends of the Jewish faith.

On Monday, the Federalist Patriot published the words of Suzanne Fields: "Marriage is not only a private contract, but a public one, too, with attendant laws governing care and responsibility for children. Traditional marriage, at its best, fosters social attitudes to help build self-reliant, competent, industrious, self-governing citizens. ‘The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families,’ John Adams wrote in 1778" – I note: private, not public. The Wichita Eagle recently published several opinion articles on marriage. With everyone talking about marriage, I thought I would add a few thoughts. First, generalizations and labels wash out the uniqueness of every individual, so let us try to avoid them. Modern technology and science enabled procreation by choice, and when desired, beyond the genetically biological manner. The historically traditional union of a male and a female begetting progeny defines the common unit we call a family. Societal forces and religion evolved rules to draw order out of chaos and among those rules was the notion of monogamy and the eventual codification of that process in marriage. We could argue the genesis of marriage, but let it suffice to say that rules were intended to protect ordered procreation. Just as science has provided more options for procreation, so to has changing social conditions altered the options for families and marriage. Perhaps one common point is, individual parental performance should be the appropriate metric rather than gross generalities that those so inclined may well use as a hammer to force individuals into the prescribed form. I suggest we have more room for and should encourage those responsible adults to form relationships for a stable, nurturing family environment for raising children to productive, contributory adulthood, and leave them to make the best decisions for their relationship(s) and family. Lastly, the public element of marriage should be quite limited and specific since there are very few aspects of marriage that exist in the public domain. Marriage is predominately a private matter.

In Update no. 260, I wrote about moral projection. The paragraph was submitted separately to and published by the Wichita Eagle on 5.December.2006, and titled “To each his own.” A reader reacted to the original opinion, and as a believer in vigorous public debate, I responded.
Scott Blades wrote:
“In reading ‘To each his own’ (Dec. 5 Reader Views), a response to Brent Castillo's column ‘Getting rid of religion won't solve problems’ (Nov. 30 Opinion), I was struck by a phrase I had never heard before. The phrase was ‘moral projection,’ and it was used to describe Christians living out their faith in the public arena. While the phrase was used in a negative sense, I was more struck by the irony of it.
“If it were not for ‘moral projection,’ there would be no rule of law. All law is the logical extension of a set of moral values. If one embraces the rule of law, then by default he is embracing the moral values on which laws are based. One who believes that religious morals should be concealed within the confines of conscience should relinquish the right to demand justice for himself at any level of personal or civil life. To demand justice is to demand the practical application of moral values. The caveat here is that the set of moral values used as a base of law must offer provision for grace, mercy and justice. Otherwise, as we are seeing in current world events, the results will be disastrous.
“All the generations of this land should be overwhelmingly grateful that our Founding Fathers chose to project a set of Judeo-Christian moral values into the foundations of our government. Unfortunately, our citizenry had departed from those foundations in a manner that seems irreversible. I often see bumper stickers that say ‘God Bless America,’ and when I see them, I always ask, ‘Why should He?’”
To which I submitted this rebuttal on Wednesday, 13.December.2006:

Moral values and moral projection

Scott Blades’ Reader Views “Essential morality” makes an important point – moral values are an essential basis of public law; in that, he is precisely correct. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) said, “Absolute morality is the regulation of conduct in such a way that pain shall not be inflicted.” Further, morality may be defined by our conduct when no one is watching.
Moral values are taught to us by our parents, our families, our religion, our schools, and fellow citizens, and are a matter of personal integrity, not common law. In an authoritarian, autocratic or dictatorial society, the government defines acceptable conduct by its citizens, and depending upon the degree of intrusion, the government has the capacity to inject itself into the most intimate of private affairs.
The Founders of this Grand Republic chose to create a representative democracy, based on the rule of law with the Constitution as its foundation and umbrella. An essential element of the Founding principles is the supremacy of the People over the State along with a carefully constructed process for granting the State authority to act on behalf of the People. The Founders also worried about the majority dominating and imposing its will upon a minority, and as a result, provided numerous checks and balances intended to protect the rights of a minority in the face of a willful majority. The essence of our Republic is the Liberty and freedom for each and every citizen to live their lives as they choose, not as the State or anyone else wants them to live.
The question was asked, what is meant by moral projection? A simple definition is the imposition of one citizen’s moral values upon another citizen, or in more blunt terms, the demand that other citizens live their lives as we want them to live. Moral projection is NOT about the definition of standards of conduct in the public domain – the laws that govern our public behavior – but rather, using the instruments of State to dictate the private conduct of free citizens.
The path terminus of moral projection is George Orwell’s Oceania (“1984”). Once one faction, majority or otherwise, believes that is perfectly acceptable to use the instruments of State to further their moral agenda, the thought police are not far behind. The inverse of this image is our commitment to those unalienable Rights – among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
In a free society that cherishes Liberty, we should accept the frailties of human nature and the vast diversity of species homo sapiens -- as it is, not as we wish it to be. Free societies have many flaws by their very character, thus tolerance, compassion and public debate are critical hallmarks that must be exercised, stressed and adjusted as societies mature.
The avoidance of moral projection is easy. Each of us should live our lives as we choose and accept that other citizens should enjoy the same Liberty. Further, we must steadfastly resist the urge to pass laws beyond the public domain, and we must respect the fundamental right to privacy of every citizen.

On Thursday, the New Jersey legislature passed [Senate, 23-12; Assembly, 56-19] a law authorizing same-gender civil unions to remedy the inequity illuminated and rejected by the New Jersey State Supreme Court in the case of Mark Lewis and Dennis Winslow v. Gwendolyn L. Harris [NJSC: (A-68-05)]. [256] Governor Corzine is expected to sign the bill into law. Thus, New Jersey joined a few other states eliminating discrimination in relationship contracts between consenting adults.

From Wichita Eagle, Reader Views, Friday, December 8, 2006:“Stem cell clarity”:
“Thank you for the story about Nancy, Patti and Ron Reagan and their work to encourage embryonic stem-cell research ("My mother's courage," Dec. Life magazine insert). They are devoted to this issue and are to be admired for their passion. Both of my parents also died of Alzheimer's disease, and I know personally how devastating it can be.
"However, the story was somewhat misleading. Patti implied that embryonic stem-cell research has been hindered by the government in the United States. There are no federal laws banning that research. Billionaire biotech lab owners have asked to go on welfare in order to pursue it, but President Bush vetoed that idea in July of this year.
“He did the right thing. No one is asking for tax money to fund adult stem cell research. This is because it is successful and private investors are lining up to give their support. An added benefit is that no human life is destroyed when adult stem cells are removed.
"In the 35 years since adult stem cells have been identified, 72 cures and therapies have been developed. This is the real promise for cures.
“In the 25 years since embryonic stem cells have been isolated, there have been zero cures or therapies. This is why private investors are not interested. If private investors are not interested, it would be a poor investment of billions of tax money as well.”
To which I responded and submitted:
Marilyn Hein’s opinion (“Stem cell clarity,” December 8, 2006) presented several critical misconceptions.
1. The suggestion that adult stem cell research has yielded medical benefit and that embryonic stem cell research has not resulted in any “cures or therapies” is deceiving and dramatically simplifies the science involved in each area of research.
2. The Federal government is involved in funding adult stem cell research.
3. The Federal government involvement is NOT for biotech lab owners, pharmaceutical companies, or any other commercial entity. The Federal government’s involvement in any research including stem cell research must be for the public good, period.
4. Perhaps the most important reason the Federal government funding of embryonic stem cell research is to ensure that the research remains in the public domain, open to public review and scrutiny, subject to constraints that protect and benefit the public, and not hidden behind the shroud of secrecy and proprietary rights.
5. The biological mechanisms of single cell division and differentiation are believed to be similar but unique from those involved in the differentiation of cells farther down the maturity string. The molecular controls and processes of zygote division and differentiation can only by determined at that level, not by some notional projection of reverse engineering.
In closing, embryonic stem cell research is a vital and viable area of medical research. A vigorous public debate of the issues is essential to extend and protect the public good. As such, we must make every attempt to keep our arguments in the factual rather than emotional domain.

On Tuesday, Islamic Republic of Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the International Conference on World Vision on the Holocaust, in Tehran, which was sponsored and hosted by the Iranian president. Ahmadinejad said publicly, “The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon, the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom.” This is not Ahmadinejad’s first statement of genocide or offense. The reminders and similarities with earlier historic events continue to mount. In 1923, a young, firebrand, former Army corporal publicly advocated the overthrow of the legitimate German government. He was arrested, convicted of treason, imprisoned and released a year later. He wrote a book titled “My Fight,” published in 1926, in which he clearly stated his objectives and intentions. He was properly elected Chancellor of Germany in 1933, and six month later, his henchmen ensured by intimidation the passage of the first of the Nürnberg Laws - The Law for the Protection of Hereditary Health. On 20.January.1942, they completed the codification of der Endlösung von die Judenfrage – the Final Solution of the Jewish Question. Millions upon millions of innocent citizens paid a dreadful price for the complacency, acquiescence, wishful thinking, and appeasement of the day. Today, I truly wonder how much longer it will take the world to recognize history repeating itself before our very eyes? Or perhaps the more relevant question is: WHAT will it take to convince peace-loving people of the evil intentions of today’s rendition of a megalomaniacal ‘president’?

Army Chief of Staff General Peter J. Schoomaker added his voice to Commandant of the Marine Corps General James Conway [259] in testimony before Congress that, in essence, he needed a larger Army or a smaller war. I vote for the larger Army. I wonder if the President is listening.

Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota suffered what is believed to be a ruptured brain aneurism. We hope the doctors are able to help him recover. If he does not, the ramifications to the control of the Senate comes into question. Then, in a particular sad commentary on our society, the Press inquisition focused on the Democrat control of the Senate far more than on Tim Johnson’s health. My cynical vein suggests the Democrat will insist upon keeping Tim on life support at all costs to avoid South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds, a Republican, from appointing a successor, and thus tilting the balance of power in the Senate . . . talk about disgusting. I have zero doubt that the Republicans would do the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.

The rabid bigots of Reverend Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, were ordered to pay costs and fees associated with the suit filed by Albert Snyder of York, Pennsylvania, against Phelps and his church. Snyder filed the suit after the Phelps bigots carried out one of their disgusting anti-homosexual protests at the funeral of Synder's son -- Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder. I hope this ruling against Phelps will be added to more and that they will get the message – keep your bigotry and homophobia to yourselves and out of the public domain.

Comments and contributions from Update no.261:
“[I had] time I don't normally have to pay close attention to the Iraq Study Group's recommendations. Time for ‘hindsight being 20/20;’ ‘I told you so’ and ‘What the f[***] were they thinking?’ Almost 3000 American troops killed and probably 60,000 Iraqis killed and for what? A Hobbesian situation wherein all are pitted against all and where life is ‘nasty, poor, brutish and short.’ Hobbes' solution? An autocracy, and the region returns to the status quo ante. Except that American and Iraqi lives will continue to be sacrificed in the name of half-ass democracy and corrupted self-determination. Not even Woodrow Wilson had such misbegotten goals.”
My reply:
We do not share the same views or opinions of the Battle for Iraq. And yet, I suspect we do share the same opinion of the administration’s mismanagement of the Battle to date, perhaps for different reasons or from different perspectives. Tom Friedman had a rather succinct and sober assessment of the situation in Iraq. We cannot and must not return to the status quo ante. I won’t bore you with more of my gibberish.
. . . and this follow-up:
“Just remember that even retired Marines with that funky Y chromosome are beginning to question the sanity of Americans remaining in Iraq as the target of every disaffected and disgruntled jihadist, insurgent, tribe member, neighborhood protector, criminals, etc., all the way down to the garbage collectors who are furious because they cannot do their jobs.
“I agree there is no ‘civil’ war in Iraq. What exists is pure anarchy and U.S. troops are an easy and identifiable mark for all the disgruntled and vicious Iraqis.
“Do I believe we should pull out precipitously? No. Colin Powell's comparison to a Pottery Barn still holds true.”
. . . and my follow-up reply:
You are precisely correct. I do not want American lives at risk for one more second, if the American People have lost the will to win. So, if the People are mentally and emotionally prepared for the bloodbath that will ensue, then so be it. Let’s withdraw to the safety of our homes, let Iraq implode, and hopefully we can find the will to prepare for the onslaught inevitably ahead and sure to come. Doing a half-assed job is not helping the Iraqis, the region, or those who stand in harm’s way on our behalf. I find it quite depressing that our children’s generation is being subjected to nearly the same insanity our generation endured. The lives of our children are far too precious to be squandered on a noble but hapless endeavor. And, yes, again, you are precisely correct . . . “even retired Marines with that funky Y chromosome are questioning the sanity of American youth remaining in Iraq” under these conditions.

Another contribution:
“Didn't know about McCain's son.
“Good for Gates.
“The media should leave Mary Cheney alone. Period.
“I just don't understand Louisiana politics. They never seem to learn.”

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)