Update from the Heartland
No.293
16.7.07 – 22.7.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.293
16.7.07 – 22.7.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Several subscribers wanted to know how Rocky is doing. Our not-quite-as-big-as-he-used-to-be, male, Rottweiler had a good week. Jeanne felt quite strongly that some of the prescribed medications were making him ill; turns out, she was correct. Now, his butt wags like a shaker machine, and he is moving around better. Rocky has taken a few steps away from the precipice. In other family news, I was in Salt Lake City all week working a forensic investigation on a troublesome roll control actuator. No need to bore y’all with the technical details, but I mention this effort to highlight a delightful restaurant in downtown Salt Lake City – Rodizio's Grill in Trolley Square, a Brazilian cuisine establishment; they bring an endless supply of various grilled meats for an incredible sampling of tastes and flavors. Rodizio’s Grill in Salt Lake City = highly recommended.
The follow-up news items:
-- International inspectors confirmed the shutdown of the DPRK's, plutonium-producing, nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, North Korea. The history of this macabre dance with Grand Dear Leader Umpa-Lumpa continues to unfold, but this appears to be the first positive, physical sign the door may be opened. However, we must not forget the long list of advance and retreat with the DPRK. [198, 239, 246, 252, et al]
-- From the on-going budget battles regarding war funding [265, et al], the Senate pulled a publicity stunt, all-nighter, Tuesday night to demonstrate their earnestness in ending the war . . . presumably they mean the Battle for Iraq, rather than the War on Islamic Fascism. Needless to say, we had a mind-boggling stream of amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 [H.R. 1585]. Included in the torrent was the Dorgan amendment [actually, S.Amdt.2135 to S.Amdt.2011 to H.R.1585] that was passed by the Senate (vote: 87-1-12), and increases the bounty for Usama bin Ladin from US$25M to US$50M -- interesting idea but unlikely to make any difference whatsoever. The folks who might have reward-able information about Usama’s whereabouts are not motivated by money. Nonetheless, the best assessment of the Dorgan amendment came from James Taranto; "If $50 million isn't enough, maybe they can pass legislation offering a million billion trillion zillion squillion dollars" -- my sentiments precisely. Then, after the silly all-nighter, the Senate voted on the cloture amendment [S.Amdt.2087] to end debate in an effort to bring the defense spending and specifically the withdrawal directive to a final vote. The vote to end debate failed [vote: 52-47-1; 60 yea’s needed].
-- The Pakistani peace deal with mountain tribes sympathetic to the Taliban and al-Qaeda is probably defunct in the aftermath of the Red Mosque assault [292]. The peace deal with tribal leaders in North Waziristan [209] and other remote provinces was ill-advised when it was signed 10 months ago. Perhaps Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf will get serious about routing out al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other militants in the tribal areas; early signs suggest so, but we shall see.
-- Ah, yes, the Valerie Plame / Joe Wilson affair, the kerfuffle that keeps on giving. [149, 170, et al] Plame filed a civil suit against Cheney, Rove, Libby, and Armitage, seeking damages related to her exposure as a CIA employee. U.S. District Judge John D. Bates was not impressed and threw the case out of court, stating that the action by government officials was surely within the scope of their normal duties. Plame pledged to appeal the district court ruling.
From the author of "Fiasco -- The American Military Adventure in Iraq," we have this important must-read article:
"Exit Strategies --
Would Iran Take Over Iraq? Would Al-Qaeda? The Debate About How and When to Leave Centers on What Might Happen After the U.S. Goes."
by Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post
Tuesday, July 17, 2007; Page A01
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W6RH028A92541059C0E393170DF330
The article concludes with, "[Wayne] White [a former deputy director of Near East division of the State Department's Intelligence and Research Bureau], speaking at a recent symposium on Iraq, addressed the possibility of unpalatable withdrawal consequences by paraphrasing Winston Churchill's famous statement about democracy, 'I posit that withdrawal from Iraq is the worst possible option, except for all the others.'" There is merit to White's observation, and yet, I have not reached the point of throwing in the towel.
Just when I thought I had this week’s Update constructed, Nicholas Noe writes a New York Times Op-Ed piece titled: “Getting Hezbollah to Behave” (21.7.2007), in which he states, “Indeed, the best way to contain Hezbollah may be to give it some of what it says it wants.” I am certain everyone can imagine my powerful urge to chastise such naïveté. Not surprisingly, my thought is “déjà vu all over again,” as that famous contemporary philosopher Yogi Berra proclaimed, with strains of 30.September.1938, blasting into my conscious thoughts. Truth be told, Noe makes some valid and appropriate suggestions, and perhaps even good suggestions. However, the context in which he offers his opinions sours with his opening premise. Rewarding violence and aggression has never and will never be a successful or winning proposition. Hezbollah has repeatedly provoked Israel beyond the threshold of tolerance with acts of violence, and then sanctimoniously claimed innocence when Israel defends its citizens. Those who resort to violence to accomplish their objectives will always see such capitulation as weakness, and thus will return to violence when it suits their goals. Noe could have been far more effective in persuasion without the foolish supposition.
The Strategic Forecasting, Inc., Terrorism Intelligence Report, dated 18.July.2007, titled: "State Sponsors of Jihadism: Learning the Hard Way" by Kamran Bokhari, asserted the Islamic revolution, or what I describe as the modern version of Islamic fascism, began "with the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan in 1979." Usually, the StratFor reports are well-researched, factual, informative and most importantly devoid of political bias. Nonetheless, in the subject report, I must quibble with Bokhari's wellspring definition. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan commenced on 24.December.1979; that action and subsequent clandestine reaction by the United States certainly contributed to the burgeoning of Islamic fascism. Yet, I contend a better marker for the initiating spark of the jihadist movement would be 16.January.1979, when the Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi went into exile, or even 1.February.1979, when Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Mustafavi Khomeini returned to Iran to form the theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran, and shortly thereafter promoted the IRI as the preeminent state sponsor of terrorism worldwide. We could also argue the genesis grew from earlier moments of distraction and complacency, but those elements remain hidden from public view in diplomatic backrooms. The facts and tone suggest Soviet instigation, rather than United States culpability.
I believe this humble Update journal serves as public testament to my criticism of George W. Bush and his administration, and I have certainly leveled my ire at Congress (of both versions) and the Press as well. Then, along comes one of those items that cause me to shake my head and mutter my disgust to no one but myself. A Friday New York Times editorial titled "Federal Hustings Administration" lambasted the administration for using the instruments of State for political gain. They conclude, "Taxpayers must wonder what happened to the notion of governance. The White House nonchalantly insists both parties have laced the duties of federal office with partisanship. Up to a point, perhaps. But the increasingly relevant question as more abuses are disclosed is just how far the Bush administration has gone in mocking the legal distinction between running government and running for office." The other guys do it is hardly a rational, logical or acceptable defense, and only serves to demonstrate the immaturity and low-road values of the speaker. However, the content and tone of this Times' editorial makes me nauseous. I condemn the President and his lackeys as well as a corrupt Congress consumed by largesse, but the Times does serious disserve to the Fourth Estate and public accountability when they pretend the problem is unique to George and his cronies. We must go after the root cause rather than waste precious time on symptomatic, misguided, shallow practitioners of the current variety. The Times editorial staff misses the point entirely.
I have tried to resist this whole Vitter thing; however, the incessant stream of journalists, pundits, columnists, and assorted talking heads spewing forth their opinions has eroded my ability to resist. I took my first shot with the Vitter kerfuffle, as a springboard, in last week's Update [292]. Two Washington Post columns proved too much to resist.
"Sex and the Conservative"
by Dana Milbank
Washington Post
Tuesday, July 17, 2007; Page A02
"Private Sin, Public Matter"
by Ruth Marcus
Washington Post
Wednesday, July 18, 2007; Page A19
Ruth's opinion pushed me to extend my argument. She wrote, "Men, at least some men, tend to think of purchased sex -- even if they would never think of purchasing sex themselves -- as less offensive. It's more transactional, less emotional, therefore -- supposedly -- less troubling." Ruth concluded her column, "You could argue that prostitution should be legal in this country, as it is in many others -- that America should get over its hang-ups about sex and that regulating prostitution would protect women from being victimized. I don't buy that, and in any event, I don't see my privacy-advocate colleagues making that case." I cannot claim colleague status with Ruth Marcus, but my argument regarding prostitution (as with other sinful activities) builds upon a citizen's fundamental right to privacy and the proper conduct of the State. Ruth does not offer up her rationale for "not buying" the regulated prostitution proposition; perhaps someday she will. She also uses an effective and common technique to blunt or thwart opinions like mine -- as a male, I cannot possibly understand; my rejection of such constraints probably has no bearing. Oh well! My opinion remains unchanged. We must get the State out of private affairs, as we must eliminate the criminal and abusive elements of sinful pursuits like prostitution. Our moral objection is hardly adequate rationale for imposing the mass of the State upon the private, non-injurious, conduct of citizens in good standing. Ruth is wrong!
New York Times Op-Ed Contributor Elizabeth Marquardt wrote "When 3 Really Is a Crowd" regarding a contemporary child custody and support case decided by the Pennsylvania Superior Court (their court of appeals). The ruling addresses two related, parallel, trial court decisions: Jodilynn Jacob v. Jennifer L. Shultz-Jacob [PA Super 1499 (2006)] and Jennifer L. Shultz-Jacob v. Jodilynn Jacob and Carl Frampton [PA Super 1527 (2006)] [J.S15032/07 & J.S15033/07; 2007 PA Super 118]. To consolidate the references, we shall use the simplified Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob to represent the Superior Court's action. As a short synopsis, Jodilynn and Jennifer entered into an extended, committed relationship, and engaged a friend, Carl, to produce two children; they decided to separate; the court affirmed Carl's interest/involvement and remanded the case back to the trial court for a calculation of custody and support that included all three parties. Marquardt used this case to raise her concern regarding the welfare of the children, and implicitly, rejected such multi-party relationships as detrimental to children. The welfare and the growth environment of the children are and must remain paramount. While the specifics associated with each adult party in the subject relationship are quite relevant to this case, what really matters is not the relationship arrangement employed by any parents, but rather the care, education, and nurturing provided to the children. We do such a magnificent job of teaching and training our children already, he said sarcastically . . . our moral revulsion and disapproval does not validate knee-jerk emotional reactions. I reject Marquardt's homophobic saber-rattling and encourage proper public intercourse regarding the State's interest in rearing children to healthy, responsible, productive adulthood. The Pennsylvania court's decision in Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob is appropriate and proper given the facts. We must resist inherent reaction due to the private choices of citizens in good-standing and concentrate on the State's true interest in such disputes. We must return to a condition of proper balance between private and public, between the citizen and the State, that recognizes the inherent freedoms endowed to us by our Creator.
In the same issue of the New York Times as the Marquardt opinion column noted above, we find an intriguing, juxtaposed, Op-Ed column by James Andrew Miller, titled: “Preparing for a Broken Home.” Miller sketches the accomplishments of friends who negotiated detailed pre-nuptial agreements, none of which included children. He suggests providing for a prior custodial agreement for any children produced by the marriage. Prima facie, such agreements take on the appearance of a negative starting point for what should be a lifetime relationship; however, Miller does make some valid points. Nonetheless, my take from his opinion column suggests that we appear to be getting married for all the wrong reasons – attraction, lust, mutual interests, love, legal consensual sex, companionship, whatever. As such, marriages fail when partners lose the connection and balance necessary for relationship stability. Centuries ago, marriages were intended for procreation, to produce another generation, to yield loyal hands to extend the family business. Offspring were the focus for marriages in the olden days. Not so, today, as we see in resplendent and dramatic color virtually everyday through a myriad of examples. If we concentrated upon and chose our life-partners for their child-bearing, child-rearing potential and ability, we might choose differently. Perhaps centuries ago, the disparity between all these various factors was minuscule; however, in our supercharged world of instant communications, global reach, and propensity for instant gratification, we have lost what should be our primary focus. We see a glimpse of the consequences in Ruth Marquardt’s column noted above, but more importantly, we see the worst of consequences in the tragedy of neglected and abused children. One day, we shall achieve a proper focus on children, when our very survival depends upon the strength of future generations.
Comments from Update no.291:
"Some insight on Libby's sentence. Actually, it was not high, but well within the new federal sentencing guidelines. Recently, a conservative, (and largely Republican) effort had focused on getting mandatory sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimums for federal and state courts. The thought was that federal judges were too lenient on criminals and federal judges needed to be given guidelines to follow. The new rules are now in place, and to be candid, Judge Walton was not overly harsh and was well within the guidelines. Add to that the fact that Libby has not confessed or stated remorse (usual requirement for lenient treatment), and Judge Walton was not harsh. True the probation report called for a much shorter term of confinement, but that is the general rule for probation reports, they call for lenience. The same conservatives who were complaining about Libby's conviction and the severity of his sentence are the same who lobbied and legislated the new federal minimums. Where is the consistency?
"Now the President may have caused more havoc than he intended or even contemplated by his unilateral action of commuting Libby's sentence for the reasons given. Already, dozens of convicted criminals are making 'Libby motions' based on the commutation and the President's expression of 'harshness.' He really opened a can of worms for the DOJ, which quite frankly, has enough problems already. Stay tuned."
My response:
Allowing politics to override principle seems much like the fiscal largesse corrupting our governance processes . . . highly unstable and fuel for revolution . . . as one party or the other see-saws back and forth promoting their interests rather than the needs of the Nation. This whole Libby kerfuffle is yet one more disgusting example.
Comments and contributions from Update no.292:
"Haig is good. He made a meteoric rise to fame a long time ago now. From semi-obscure LtCol to 4 star General in a very short time. And from there on to much bigger things. I haven't always liked what he has said, but I have always listened to him.
"My Opinion: I do not care what faction, group, individual person, etc -- If Islamic then we may well have a problem with them. Sorting out the ones we do/will have a problem with is one of OUR problems. Islam is not bad in itself -- I think. It's the interpretation of it's tenents which separates some Muslims from others.
"That is true for other religions too, including Christianity and Judaism, though we see today more radicalism in the Islamic faith. Go back several hundred years, to the Crusades, and we can see ourselves as the bad guys in some ways.
"Almost as an Aside: I find that most Military Officers who reach the highest ranks and highest positions of responsibility have been students of history, perhaps specifically Military History. Along with all the things which go very closely along with that -- GeoPolitics, Religion, The instinct of survival of the fittest, etc, etc.
"GW is struggling to maintain any semblance of a successful 2nd term. But he is too bull-headed to listen to the winds of both public and private opinion.
"Want MY opinion? Iraq is already Vietnam re-incarnated in somewhat different clothes. And that ain't going to change no matter WHAT we do.
"I am not bright enough to see what needs to be done now. I saw long ago that what was planned was VERY short of the planning needed to ensure long-term success.
"So now -- with the 2008 races beginning to heat up I can only say that as far as any candidate is concerned who says 'stick with Bush -- give it time -- make a few minor adjustments -- throw in a few more troops . . . ,' etc, etc -- I WILL NOT vote for them in 2008. Their heads are in the sand.
My reply:
[I]f you are correct in the "Vietnam incarnate" observation, then I'd say we should get out soon and take what comes . . . as it will surely come. This administration has failed. I still believe the Battle for Iraq was the right thing to do; we just tried to fight the battle on the cheap. I don't need to reiterate all that again; you know how I feel. Perhaps the battle is no longer winnable. The President has shown no action to do what really must be done, and now has no chance whatsoever for gaining the support of Congress to do what must be done. So, let's withdraw; let chaos reign; wait for the next attack and another President; and then, let’s see if we can get it right. If we do withdraw from Iraq, I believe we will have to go back for the same reasons we went into Afghanistan. The jihadistanis and al-Qaeda are not the same as the NVA in many ways; our current enemy will not confine themselves to Iraq, Afghanistan, or even the Middle East; the North Vietnamese were content with Indochina. This war is not going away.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
Several subscribers wanted to know how Rocky is doing. Our not-quite-as-big-as-he-used-to-be, male, Rottweiler had a good week. Jeanne felt quite strongly that some of the prescribed medications were making him ill; turns out, she was correct. Now, his butt wags like a shaker machine, and he is moving around better. Rocky has taken a few steps away from the precipice. In other family news, I was in Salt Lake City all week working a forensic investigation on a troublesome roll control actuator. No need to bore y’all with the technical details, but I mention this effort to highlight a delightful restaurant in downtown Salt Lake City – Rodizio's Grill in Trolley Square, a Brazilian cuisine establishment; they bring an endless supply of various grilled meats for an incredible sampling of tastes and flavors. Rodizio’s Grill in Salt Lake City = highly recommended.
The follow-up news items:
-- International inspectors confirmed the shutdown of the DPRK's, plutonium-producing, nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, North Korea. The history of this macabre dance with Grand Dear Leader Umpa-Lumpa continues to unfold, but this appears to be the first positive, physical sign the door may be opened. However, we must not forget the long list of advance and retreat with the DPRK. [198, 239, 246, 252, et al]
-- From the on-going budget battles regarding war funding [265, et al], the Senate pulled a publicity stunt, all-nighter, Tuesday night to demonstrate their earnestness in ending the war . . . presumably they mean the Battle for Iraq, rather than the War on Islamic Fascism. Needless to say, we had a mind-boggling stream of amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 [H.R. 1585]. Included in the torrent was the Dorgan amendment [actually, S.Amdt.2135 to S.Amdt.2011 to H.R.1585] that was passed by the Senate (vote: 87-1-12), and increases the bounty for Usama bin Ladin from US$25M to US$50M -- interesting idea but unlikely to make any difference whatsoever. The folks who might have reward-able information about Usama’s whereabouts are not motivated by money. Nonetheless, the best assessment of the Dorgan amendment came from James Taranto; "If $50 million isn't enough, maybe they can pass legislation offering a million billion trillion zillion squillion dollars" -- my sentiments precisely. Then, after the silly all-nighter, the Senate voted on the cloture amendment [S.Amdt.2087] to end debate in an effort to bring the defense spending and specifically the withdrawal directive to a final vote. The vote to end debate failed [vote: 52-47-1; 60 yea’s needed].
-- The Pakistani peace deal with mountain tribes sympathetic to the Taliban and al-Qaeda is probably defunct in the aftermath of the Red Mosque assault [292]. The peace deal with tribal leaders in North Waziristan [209] and other remote provinces was ill-advised when it was signed 10 months ago. Perhaps Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf will get serious about routing out al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other militants in the tribal areas; early signs suggest so, but we shall see.
-- Ah, yes, the Valerie Plame / Joe Wilson affair, the kerfuffle that keeps on giving. [149, 170, et al] Plame filed a civil suit against Cheney, Rove, Libby, and Armitage, seeking damages related to her exposure as a CIA employee. U.S. District Judge John D. Bates was not impressed and threw the case out of court, stating that the action by government officials was surely within the scope of their normal duties. Plame pledged to appeal the district court ruling.
From the author of "Fiasco -- The American Military Adventure in Iraq," we have this important must-read article:
"Exit Strategies --
Would Iran Take Over Iraq? Would Al-Qaeda? The Debate About How and When to Leave Centers on What Might Happen After the U.S. Goes."
by Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post
Tuesday, July 17, 2007; Page A01
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W6RH028A92541059C0E393170DF330
The article concludes with, "[Wayne] White [a former deputy director of Near East division of the State Department's Intelligence and Research Bureau], speaking at a recent symposium on Iraq, addressed the possibility of unpalatable withdrawal consequences by paraphrasing Winston Churchill's famous statement about democracy, 'I posit that withdrawal from Iraq is the worst possible option, except for all the others.'" There is merit to White's observation, and yet, I have not reached the point of throwing in the towel.
Just when I thought I had this week’s Update constructed, Nicholas Noe writes a New York Times Op-Ed piece titled: “Getting Hezbollah to Behave” (21.7.2007), in which he states, “Indeed, the best way to contain Hezbollah may be to give it some of what it says it wants.” I am certain everyone can imagine my powerful urge to chastise such naïveté. Not surprisingly, my thought is “déjà vu all over again,” as that famous contemporary philosopher Yogi Berra proclaimed, with strains of 30.September.1938, blasting into my conscious thoughts. Truth be told, Noe makes some valid and appropriate suggestions, and perhaps even good suggestions. However, the context in which he offers his opinions sours with his opening premise. Rewarding violence and aggression has never and will never be a successful or winning proposition. Hezbollah has repeatedly provoked Israel beyond the threshold of tolerance with acts of violence, and then sanctimoniously claimed innocence when Israel defends its citizens. Those who resort to violence to accomplish their objectives will always see such capitulation as weakness, and thus will return to violence when it suits their goals. Noe could have been far more effective in persuasion without the foolish supposition.
The Strategic Forecasting, Inc., Terrorism Intelligence Report, dated 18.July.2007, titled: "State Sponsors of Jihadism: Learning the Hard Way" by Kamran Bokhari, asserted the Islamic revolution, or what I describe as the modern version of Islamic fascism, began "with the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan in 1979." Usually, the StratFor reports are well-researched, factual, informative and most importantly devoid of political bias. Nonetheless, in the subject report, I must quibble with Bokhari's wellspring definition. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan commenced on 24.December.1979; that action and subsequent clandestine reaction by the United States certainly contributed to the burgeoning of Islamic fascism. Yet, I contend a better marker for the initiating spark of the jihadist movement would be 16.January.1979, when the Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi went into exile, or even 1.February.1979, when Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Mustafavi Khomeini returned to Iran to form the theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran, and shortly thereafter promoted the IRI as the preeminent state sponsor of terrorism worldwide. We could also argue the genesis grew from earlier moments of distraction and complacency, but those elements remain hidden from public view in diplomatic backrooms. The facts and tone suggest Soviet instigation, rather than United States culpability.
I believe this humble Update journal serves as public testament to my criticism of George W. Bush and his administration, and I have certainly leveled my ire at Congress (of both versions) and the Press as well. Then, along comes one of those items that cause me to shake my head and mutter my disgust to no one but myself. A Friday New York Times editorial titled "Federal Hustings Administration" lambasted the administration for using the instruments of State for political gain. They conclude, "Taxpayers must wonder what happened to the notion of governance. The White House nonchalantly insists both parties have laced the duties of federal office with partisanship. Up to a point, perhaps. But the increasingly relevant question as more abuses are disclosed is just how far the Bush administration has gone in mocking the legal distinction between running government and running for office." The other guys do it is hardly a rational, logical or acceptable defense, and only serves to demonstrate the immaturity and low-road values of the speaker. However, the content and tone of this Times' editorial makes me nauseous. I condemn the President and his lackeys as well as a corrupt Congress consumed by largesse, but the Times does serious disserve to the Fourth Estate and public accountability when they pretend the problem is unique to George and his cronies. We must go after the root cause rather than waste precious time on symptomatic, misguided, shallow practitioners of the current variety. The Times editorial staff misses the point entirely.
I have tried to resist this whole Vitter thing; however, the incessant stream of journalists, pundits, columnists, and assorted talking heads spewing forth their opinions has eroded my ability to resist. I took my first shot with the Vitter kerfuffle, as a springboard, in last week's Update [292]. Two Washington Post columns proved too much to resist.
"Sex and the Conservative"
by Dana Milbank
Washington Post
Tuesday, July 17, 2007; Page A02
"Private Sin, Public Matter"
by Ruth Marcus
Washington Post
Wednesday, July 18, 2007; Page A19
Ruth's opinion pushed me to extend my argument. She wrote, "Men, at least some men, tend to think of purchased sex -- even if they would never think of purchasing sex themselves -- as less offensive. It's more transactional, less emotional, therefore -- supposedly -- less troubling." Ruth concluded her column, "You could argue that prostitution should be legal in this country, as it is in many others -- that America should get over its hang-ups about sex and that regulating prostitution would protect women from being victimized. I don't buy that, and in any event, I don't see my privacy-advocate colleagues making that case." I cannot claim colleague status with Ruth Marcus, but my argument regarding prostitution (as with other sinful activities) builds upon a citizen's fundamental right to privacy and the proper conduct of the State. Ruth does not offer up her rationale for "not buying" the regulated prostitution proposition; perhaps someday she will. She also uses an effective and common technique to blunt or thwart opinions like mine -- as a male, I cannot possibly understand; my rejection of such constraints probably has no bearing. Oh well! My opinion remains unchanged. We must get the State out of private affairs, as we must eliminate the criminal and abusive elements of sinful pursuits like prostitution. Our moral objection is hardly adequate rationale for imposing the mass of the State upon the private, non-injurious, conduct of citizens in good standing. Ruth is wrong!
New York Times Op-Ed Contributor Elizabeth Marquardt wrote "When 3 Really Is a Crowd" regarding a contemporary child custody and support case decided by the Pennsylvania Superior Court (their court of appeals). The ruling addresses two related, parallel, trial court decisions: Jodilynn Jacob v. Jennifer L. Shultz-Jacob [PA Super 1499 (2006)] and Jennifer L. Shultz-Jacob v. Jodilynn Jacob and Carl Frampton [PA Super 1527 (2006)] [J.S15032/07 & J.S15033/07; 2007 PA Super 118]. To consolidate the references, we shall use the simplified Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob to represent the Superior Court's action. As a short synopsis, Jodilynn and Jennifer entered into an extended, committed relationship, and engaged a friend, Carl, to produce two children; they decided to separate; the court affirmed Carl's interest/involvement and remanded the case back to the trial court for a calculation of custody and support that included all three parties. Marquardt used this case to raise her concern regarding the welfare of the children, and implicitly, rejected such multi-party relationships as detrimental to children. The welfare and the growth environment of the children are and must remain paramount. While the specifics associated with each adult party in the subject relationship are quite relevant to this case, what really matters is not the relationship arrangement employed by any parents, but rather the care, education, and nurturing provided to the children. We do such a magnificent job of teaching and training our children already, he said sarcastically . . . our moral revulsion and disapproval does not validate knee-jerk emotional reactions. I reject Marquardt's homophobic saber-rattling and encourage proper public intercourse regarding the State's interest in rearing children to healthy, responsible, productive adulthood. The Pennsylvania court's decision in Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob is appropriate and proper given the facts. We must resist inherent reaction due to the private choices of citizens in good-standing and concentrate on the State's true interest in such disputes. We must return to a condition of proper balance between private and public, between the citizen and the State, that recognizes the inherent freedoms endowed to us by our Creator.
In the same issue of the New York Times as the Marquardt opinion column noted above, we find an intriguing, juxtaposed, Op-Ed column by James Andrew Miller, titled: “Preparing for a Broken Home.” Miller sketches the accomplishments of friends who negotiated detailed pre-nuptial agreements, none of which included children. He suggests providing for a prior custodial agreement for any children produced by the marriage. Prima facie, such agreements take on the appearance of a negative starting point for what should be a lifetime relationship; however, Miller does make some valid points. Nonetheless, my take from his opinion column suggests that we appear to be getting married for all the wrong reasons – attraction, lust, mutual interests, love, legal consensual sex, companionship, whatever. As such, marriages fail when partners lose the connection and balance necessary for relationship stability. Centuries ago, marriages were intended for procreation, to produce another generation, to yield loyal hands to extend the family business. Offspring were the focus for marriages in the olden days. Not so, today, as we see in resplendent and dramatic color virtually everyday through a myriad of examples. If we concentrated upon and chose our life-partners for their child-bearing, child-rearing potential and ability, we might choose differently. Perhaps centuries ago, the disparity between all these various factors was minuscule; however, in our supercharged world of instant communications, global reach, and propensity for instant gratification, we have lost what should be our primary focus. We see a glimpse of the consequences in Ruth Marquardt’s column noted above, but more importantly, we see the worst of consequences in the tragedy of neglected and abused children. One day, we shall achieve a proper focus on children, when our very survival depends upon the strength of future generations.
Comments from Update no.291:
"Some insight on Libby's sentence. Actually, it was not high, but well within the new federal sentencing guidelines. Recently, a conservative, (and largely Republican) effort had focused on getting mandatory sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimums for federal and state courts. The thought was that federal judges were too lenient on criminals and federal judges needed to be given guidelines to follow. The new rules are now in place, and to be candid, Judge Walton was not overly harsh and was well within the guidelines. Add to that the fact that Libby has not confessed or stated remorse (usual requirement for lenient treatment), and Judge Walton was not harsh. True the probation report called for a much shorter term of confinement, but that is the general rule for probation reports, they call for lenience. The same conservatives who were complaining about Libby's conviction and the severity of his sentence are the same who lobbied and legislated the new federal minimums. Where is the consistency?
"Now the President may have caused more havoc than he intended or even contemplated by his unilateral action of commuting Libby's sentence for the reasons given. Already, dozens of convicted criminals are making 'Libby motions' based on the commutation and the President's expression of 'harshness.' He really opened a can of worms for the DOJ, which quite frankly, has enough problems already. Stay tuned."
My response:
Allowing politics to override principle seems much like the fiscal largesse corrupting our governance processes . . . highly unstable and fuel for revolution . . . as one party or the other see-saws back and forth promoting their interests rather than the needs of the Nation. This whole Libby kerfuffle is yet one more disgusting example.
Comments and contributions from Update no.292:
"Haig is good. He made a meteoric rise to fame a long time ago now. From semi-obscure LtCol to 4 star General in a very short time. And from there on to much bigger things. I haven't always liked what he has said, but I have always listened to him.
"My Opinion: I do not care what faction, group, individual person, etc -- If Islamic then we may well have a problem with them. Sorting out the ones we do/will have a problem with is one of OUR problems. Islam is not bad in itself -- I think. It's the interpretation of it's tenents which separates some Muslims from others.
"That is true for other religions too, including Christianity and Judaism, though we see today more radicalism in the Islamic faith. Go back several hundred years, to the Crusades, and we can see ourselves as the bad guys in some ways.
"Almost as an Aside: I find that most Military Officers who reach the highest ranks and highest positions of responsibility have been students of history, perhaps specifically Military History. Along with all the things which go very closely along with that -- GeoPolitics, Religion, The instinct of survival of the fittest, etc, etc.
"GW is struggling to maintain any semblance of a successful 2nd term. But he is too bull-headed to listen to the winds of both public and private opinion.
"Want MY opinion? Iraq is already Vietnam re-incarnated in somewhat different clothes. And that ain't going to change no matter WHAT we do.
"I am not bright enough to see what needs to be done now. I saw long ago that what was planned was VERY short of the planning needed to ensure long-term success.
"So now -- with the 2008 races beginning to heat up I can only say that as far as any candidate is concerned who says 'stick with Bush -- give it time -- make a few minor adjustments -- throw in a few more troops . . . ,' etc, etc -- I WILL NOT vote for them in 2008. Their heads are in the sand.
My reply:
[I]f you are correct in the "Vietnam incarnate" observation, then I'd say we should get out soon and take what comes . . . as it will surely come. This administration has failed. I still believe the Battle for Iraq was the right thing to do; we just tried to fight the battle on the cheap. I don't need to reiterate all that again; you know how I feel. Perhaps the battle is no longer winnable. The President has shown no action to do what really must be done, and now has no chance whatsoever for gaining the support of Congress to do what must be done. So, let's withdraw; let chaos reign; wait for the next attack and another President; and then, let’s see if we can get it right. If we do withdraw from Iraq, I believe we will have to go back for the same reasons we went into Afghanistan. The jihadistanis and al-Qaeda are not the same as the NVA in many ways; our current enemy will not confine themselves to Iraq, Afghanistan, or even the Middle East; the North Vietnamese were content with Indochina. This war is not going away.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment