Update from the Heartland
No.304
1.10.07 – 7.10.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.304
1.10.07 – 7.10.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
A good friend sent this URL link. Lest we ever forget the horrible price of war . . . .
http://www.flashdemo.net/gallery/wake/index.htm
May God bless all those who stand in harm’s way to protect the liberty we hold so precious.
This weekend, we drove to Austin to see our grandson, Judson James . . . oh yeah, and his parents. LOL Judson is five months old, now, and quite curious about his surroundings. He is smiling and laughing. Grandchildren are truly life's reward. We took many photographs, and I have inserted two of the images below. Beyond the usual family exchanges, updates and remembrances, we went to the small central Texas town of Fredericksburg for their Oktoberfest celebration. A long-term, immigrant German community share their heritage every year in the quaint little town. We were also entertained by Spike the Spider who nightly spun beautiful circular web on Melissa and Tyson’s back porch, to collect up his dinner, and then surprisingly, Spike would take down his web near dawn and retreat to his cubbyhole.
A good friend sent this URL link. Lest we ever forget the horrible price of war . . . .
http://www.flashdemo.net/gallery/wake/index.htm
May God bless all those who stand in harm’s way to protect the liberty we hold so precious.
This weekend, we drove to Austin to see our grandson, Judson James . . . oh yeah, and his parents. LOL Judson is five months old, now, and quite curious about his surroundings. He is smiling and laughing. Grandchildren are truly life's reward. We took many photographs, and I have inserted two of the images below. Beyond the usual family exchanges, updates and remembrances, we went to the small central Texas town of Fredericksburg for their Oktoberfest celebration. A long-term, immigrant German community share their heritage every year in the quaint little town. We were also entertained by Spike the Spider who nightly spun beautiful circular web on Melissa and Tyson’s back porch, to collect up his dinner, and then surprisingly, Spike would take down his web near dawn and retreat to his cubbyhole.
Judson & Dad reading the newspaper
Judson & his Poppi at Oktoberfest
Judson & his Poppi at OktoberfestThe follow-up news items:
-- The saga of the retiring senators continues. This week’s version . . . Senator Pietro Vichi "Pete" Domenici, 75, of New Mexico, announced he would not seek a 7th term, thus ending his 36 years of service in the Senate. His public statement indicated deteriorating health and his lack of confidence that he could complete another term.
-- On the opening day of the new session, the Supremes announced their refusal to hear the appeal in the case of Williams v. King [11CCA no. 06-11892] [DC Docket No. 98-01938-CV-5] [168, 285]. As you may recall, this case was the challenge to Alabama state law – the Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1998 -- by Sherri Williams, an adult entertainment store owner, regarding the sale of sex toys. The Court’s refusal effectively ends a nine-year struggle between Williams and the State of Alabama. I do not know the reasoning for the Supremes' refusal, but the decision speaks volumes about the Court’s leanings in favor of the State over the People. And, like content little sheep being lead to the slaughterhouse, we trundle along in our oblivious rapture. For what it’s worth, the Associated Press reported that Sherri Williams intends to open another challenge to the Alabama law on freedom of speech grounds rather than the due process basis of the current case. I wrote an extensive assessment of Williams v. King in Update no.285; in that discussion, I concluded: “[F]reedom is not just what touches us. Denying another citizen their freedom of choice chips away at all freedom, including those that apply to us. Let us confine our disagreements to words at Debater's Corner and use the law sparingly to impose upon the private lives and choices of citizens.” I stand by those words, and I believe the Supreme Court made a mistake. Lastly, this case does not bode well for We, the People, and I am not talking about the specific details here, but the principles beneath all the prurient façade. I am a Jeffersonian state’s rights person, but I am a People’s rights person above all else. I am not, never have been, and never will be a Federalist, at least regarding many of the social issues of our time. The failure of the Supremes to use this opportunity to accentuate the private freedom of choice of each and every citizen over the State’s intrusion into the private domain makes a strong statement – the Roberts Court apparently sees government's place in the private morality business. Scary!
I started reading a pivotal Supreme Court case last week that, as fate would have it, has special significance in the light of Williams v. King noted above. Washington v. Glucksberg [521 U.S. 702 (1997)] deals with the State of Washington's prohibition on assisting suicide [Wash Rev. Code 9A.36.060(1) (1994)]. The Supreme Court reversed the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that affirmed the law, and remanded for further proceedings. While the Court did not endorse or reject physician-assisted, end-of-life suicide, they did make a purposeful statement of their concerns for an individual’s most intimate and personal decisions versus the State’s interests. The Court expanded upon Glucksberg in Gonzales v. Oregon [546 U.S. 243 (2006)] [215] as they cautiously advanced the boundary of end-of-life decisions. All this thinking plowed up recurring thoughts about government's place in our lives. I believe that Federalism began sinking deep roots with the Supreme Court’s rulings in McCulloch v. Maryland [17 U.S. 316 (1819)] and Gibbons v. Ogden [22 U.S. 1 (1824)]. Certainly, the Civil War seriously amplified the extent to which Federalism could reach. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal legislation injected a quantum boost to the power and influence of the Federal government over our lives. Then, Tricky Dick Nixon took Federalism to unprecedented new dimensions of intrusion on the private lives of American citizens. The Court began backing away from the dominance of the State with its Brown v. Board of Education [347 U.S. 483 (1954)] decision. Then, with the Nixon appointees, the Burger and Rehnquist Courts issued a series of rulings validating the extraordinary intrusiveness of the war on drugs along with all its associated tentacles. The Court offers extraordinary weight to the historical context involved in any contest of law, and rightly so. However, as demonstrated in Glucksberg, despite the outcome, the Court gave only cursory scrutiny to the State’s interest, in that history substantiated the State’s interest. The Court has been and continues to be reluctant to strengthen individual rights, which seems to be one reason the Supremes tend to avoid the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. In the decision not to review Williams v. King, the Court chose to back away from the most fundamental of issues and challenges faced by any democracy – the boundary and sensitive balance between the individual citizen, and the pervasive and awesome power of the State. Thus, the logic heavily favors the State, especially regarding issues where the State has taken action. In this light, a sex toy case hardly seems worthy of national scrutiny and debate, but the underlying principle is vital to our future as free citizens. We are dangerously close to losing the only remaining bulwark against the State's dominance of our lives. If We, the People, do not reassert our primacy in this Grand Republic, we may well see the day when the State shall decide when we shall live, how we shall live, and when we shall die as well as how we shall die. We have already crossed the line in numerous areas, and we appear unwilling to recognize, acknowledge or resist the State's imposition upon our lives.
Some related thoughts . . .
When the Constitution was created, written and ratified, most Americans lived miles apart. The government had little interest in bothering any individual citizen for a host of reasons -- government agents lacked the capacity or inclination to involve themselves in private matters. As long as private conduct remained private, no one cared. As cities evolved, more people came into direct contact or at least awareness of those around them. Communications -- newspapers, telegraph, telephone, radio, television, satellites -- amplified the awareness of the conduct of others. The Comstock Act of 1873 opened the door to moral projection beyond the public domain and cast the Federal government in the role of moral authority. Our freedom of choice has been eroding ever since. The sad reality in this area of the law flashes to horrific brilliance when an influential segment of the citizenry deems their moral values better than the next man's and seek to use the law to impose their moral values on every citizen. We have multitudinous examples just in the span of this humble journal, so I do not need to list them. Why have we been so willing to impose our beliefs on the private conduct of other citizens? Is it because we are blind to the consequences of our actions? Do we just not care about the other person's freedom as long as it does not affect our lives? So, when one side or the other starts baying about rulings from various levels of the Judiciary as "conservative" or "liberal," "fundamental constructionist" or "judicial activist," please make your best attempt to distill out the political partisanship and think of the extraordinary changes in American society in the past 231 years and especially the consequences of our ability to "see" into other people's lives. We must find a way to reconcile the societal changes we experience with the basic principles of the Constitution. We are a nation of free citizens, not a country to be dominated by self-appointed or even elected moral judges who seek to impose their values on everyone. Once again, I offer a very simple test -- is the matter at issue private or public, and are there true, bona fide, State interests of sufficient consequence that warrant an extraordinary intrusion into the private lives of any citizen along with the concomitant abridgement of their freedom of choice? Using such a test, I think any reasonable citizen would conclude that we have many laws that do not pass the test.
In a not-so-widely publicized decision, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly determined that the National Archivist's reliance of President Bush's Executive Order 13,233 to withhold some of President Reagan's papers from public scrutiny was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law." {American Historical Association v. National Archives and Records Administration [USDC DC Civil Action No. 01-2447 (CKK) (October 1, 2007)]} The case reigns in President Bush's sense of executive privilege, and should give We, the People, greater access to presidential papers. We do not know yet whether the administration will appeal Judge Kollar-Kotelly's ruling. My interest in this case grows from a significant date in 1996, and the associated opening of the Clinton papers in 2013. I wonder if by that date, we will begin to see what happened in the White House in the aftermath of TWA Flight 800.
Comments and contributions from Update no.303:
"All ok this side except for the politicians who ignore the plight of our boys coming back from war service, a government that is running the biggest deficit in the U/Ks history and keeps putting up taxes. Today + 2 pence on diesel fuel.(Now almost £1/litre) I'll let you work that out in USA speak! We are the highest taxed nation in Europe and yet the government still rides high in the polls. How come! I'll tell you. They are ignoring the family and all it means. We have youth problems with stabbings as never before.
"Parental control and guidance is non- existence in parts of our society and yet this government sees fit to support the non family unit. Our health service is in utter ruins with abysmal morale and our troops in Iraq are running out of 'puri' tablets and getting sick. I kid you not Cap, this country is staggering towards shutdown. Big time. What's worse winter's approaching and we all get crotchety then!"
My reply:
Sounds like y’all [across the pond] are in worst shape than us colonists. How and why can the government ignore the plight of the veterans returning home? Americans are certainly not the model, but we are trying to do the right thing by our soldiers returning home – in stark contrast to what our generation experienced in the aftermath of Vietnam. Hopefully, the government can be convinced to step up for veterans.
I have never been a fan of socialized medicine, or socialized anything for that matter. The government has no incentive to perform, and invariably takes a lowest-common-denominator approach to anything and everything. And yet, I am ashamed that a civilized society cannot help our disadvantaged. The fine edge of the cutting knife has a very hard time distinguishing between those who genuinely need help and those who just want to be taken care of by the government. This issue is one of the underlying currents in my Anod novels.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
-- The saga of the retiring senators continues. This week’s version . . . Senator Pietro Vichi "Pete" Domenici, 75, of New Mexico, announced he would not seek a 7th term, thus ending his 36 years of service in the Senate. His public statement indicated deteriorating health and his lack of confidence that he could complete another term.
-- On the opening day of the new session, the Supremes announced their refusal to hear the appeal in the case of Williams v. King [11CCA no. 06-11892] [DC Docket No. 98-01938-CV-5] [168, 285]. As you may recall, this case was the challenge to Alabama state law – the Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1998 -- by Sherri Williams, an adult entertainment store owner, regarding the sale of sex toys. The Court’s refusal effectively ends a nine-year struggle between Williams and the State of Alabama. I do not know the reasoning for the Supremes' refusal, but the decision speaks volumes about the Court’s leanings in favor of the State over the People. And, like content little sheep being lead to the slaughterhouse, we trundle along in our oblivious rapture. For what it’s worth, the Associated Press reported that Sherri Williams intends to open another challenge to the Alabama law on freedom of speech grounds rather than the due process basis of the current case. I wrote an extensive assessment of Williams v. King in Update no.285; in that discussion, I concluded: “[F]reedom is not just what touches us. Denying another citizen their freedom of choice chips away at all freedom, including those that apply to us. Let us confine our disagreements to words at Debater's Corner and use the law sparingly to impose upon the private lives and choices of citizens.” I stand by those words, and I believe the Supreme Court made a mistake. Lastly, this case does not bode well for We, the People, and I am not talking about the specific details here, but the principles beneath all the prurient façade. I am a Jeffersonian state’s rights person, but I am a People’s rights person above all else. I am not, never have been, and never will be a Federalist, at least regarding many of the social issues of our time. The failure of the Supremes to use this opportunity to accentuate the private freedom of choice of each and every citizen over the State’s intrusion into the private domain makes a strong statement – the Roberts Court apparently sees government's place in the private morality business. Scary!
I started reading a pivotal Supreme Court case last week that, as fate would have it, has special significance in the light of Williams v. King noted above. Washington v. Glucksberg [521 U.S. 702 (1997)] deals with the State of Washington's prohibition on assisting suicide [Wash Rev. Code 9A.36.060(1) (1994)]. The Supreme Court reversed the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that affirmed the law, and remanded for further proceedings. While the Court did not endorse or reject physician-assisted, end-of-life suicide, they did make a purposeful statement of their concerns for an individual’s most intimate and personal decisions versus the State’s interests. The Court expanded upon Glucksberg in Gonzales v. Oregon [546 U.S. 243 (2006)] [215] as they cautiously advanced the boundary of end-of-life decisions. All this thinking plowed up recurring thoughts about government's place in our lives. I believe that Federalism began sinking deep roots with the Supreme Court’s rulings in McCulloch v. Maryland [17 U.S. 316 (1819)] and Gibbons v. Ogden [22 U.S. 1 (1824)]. Certainly, the Civil War seriously amplified the extent to which Federalism could reach. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal legislation injected a quantum boost to the power and influence of the Federal government over our lives. Then, Tricky Dick Nixon took Federalism to unprecedented new dimensions of intrusion on the private lives of American citizens. The Court began backing away from the dominance of the State with its Brown v. Board of Education [347 U.S. 483 (1954)] decision. Then, with the Nixon appointees, the Burger and Rehnquist Courts issued a series of rulings validating the extraordinary intrusiveness of the war on drugs along with all its associated tentacles. The Court offers extraordinary weight to the historical context involved in any contest of law, and rightly so. However, as demonstrated in Glucksberg, despite the outcome, the Court gave only cursory scrutiny to the State’s interest, in that history substantiated the State’s interest. The Court has been and continues to be reluctant to strengthen individual rights, which seems to be one reason the Supremes tend to avoid the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. In the decision not to review Williams v. King, the Court chose to back away from the most fundamental of issues and challenges faced by any democracy – the boundary and sensitive balance between the individual citizen, and the pervasive and awesome power of the State. Thus, the logic heavily favors the State, especially regarding issues where the State has taken action. In this light, a sex toy case hardly seems worthy of national scrutiny and debate, but the underlying principle is vital to our future as free citizens. We are dangerously close to losing the only remaining bulwark against the State's dominance of our lives. If We, the People, do not reassert our primacy in this Grand Republic, we may well see the day when the State shall decide when we shall live, how we shall live, and when we shall die as well as how we shall die. We have already crossed the line in numerous areas, and we appear unwilling to recognize, acknowledge or resist the State's imposition upon our lives.
Some related thoughts . . .
When the Constitution was created, written and ratified, most Americans lived miles apart. The government had little interest in bothering any individual citizen for a host of reasons -- government agents lacked the capacity or inclination to involve themselves in private matters. As long as private conduct remained private, no one cared. As cities evolved, more people came into direct contact or at least awareness of those around them. Communications -- newspapers, telegraph, telephone, radio, television, satellites -- amplified the awareness of the conduct of others. The Comstock Act of 1873 opened the door to moral projection beyond the public domain and cast the Federal government in the role of moral authority. Our freedom of choice has been eroding ever since. The sad reality in this area of the law flashes to horrific brilliance when an influential segment of the citizenry deems their moral values better than the next man's and seek to use the law to impose their moral values on every citizen. We have multitudinous examples just in the span of this humble journal, so I do not need to list them. Why have we been so willing to impose our beliefs on the private conduct of other citizens? Is it because we are blind to the consequences of our actions? Do we just not care about the other person's freedom as long as it does not affect our lives? So, when one side or the other starts baying about rulings from various levels of the Judiciary as "conservative" or "liberal," "fundamental constructionist" or "judicial activist," please make your best attempt to distill out the political partisanship and think of the extraordinary changes in American society in the past 231 years and especially the consequences of our ability to "see" into other people's lives. We must find a way to reconcile the societal changes we experience with the basic principles of the Constitution. We are a nation of free citizens, not a country to be dominated by self-appointed or even elected moral judges who seek to impose their values on everyone. Once again, I offer a very simple test -- is the matter at issue private or public, and are there true, bona fide, State interests of sufficient consequence that warrant an extraordinary intrusion into the private lives of any citizen along with the concomitant abridgement of their freedom of choice? Using such a test, I think any reasonable citizen would conclude that we have many laws that do not pass the test.
In a not-so-widely publicized decision, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly determined that the National Archivist's reliance of President Bush's Executive Order 13,233 to withhold some of President Reagan's papers from public scrutiny was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law." {American Historical Association v. National Archives and Records Administration [USDC DC Civil Action No. 01-2447 (CKK) (October 1, 2007)]} The case reigns in President Bush's sense of executive privilege, and should give We, the People, greater access to presidential papers. We do not know yet whether the administration will appeal Judge Kollar-Kotelly's ruling. My interest in this case grows from a significant date in 1996, and the associated opening of the Clinton papers in 2013. I wonder if by that date, we will begin to see what happened in the White House in the aftermath of TWA Flight 800.
Comments and contributions from Update no.303:
"All ok this side except for the politicians who ignore the plight of our boys coming back from war service, a government that is running the biggest deficit in the U/Ks history and keeps putting up taxes. Today + 2 pence on diesel fuel.(Now almost £1/litre) I'll let you work that out in USA speak! We are the highest taxed nation in Europe and yet the government still rides high in the polls. How come! I'll tell you. They are ignoring the family and all it means. We have youth problems with stabbings as never before.
"Parental control and guidance is non- existence in parts of our society and yet this government sees fit to support the non family unit. Our health service is in utter ruins with abysmal morale and our troops in Iraq are running out of 'puri' tablets and getting sick. I kid you not Cap, this country is staggering towards shutdown. Big time. What's worse winter's approaching and we all get crotchety then!"
My reply:
Sounds like y’all [across the pond] are in worst shape than us colonists. How and why can the government ignore the plight of the veterans returning home? Americans are certainly not the model, but we are trying to do the right thing by our soldiers returning home – in stark contrast to what our generation experienced in the aftermath of Vietnam. Hopefully, the government can be convinced to step up for veterans.
I have never been a fan of socialized medicine, or socialized anything for that matter. The government has no incentive to perform, and invariably takes a lowest-common-denominator approach to anything and everything. And yet, I am ashamed that a civilized society cannot help our disadvantaged. The fine edge of the cutting knife has a very hard time distinguishing between those who genuinely need help and those who just want to be taken care of by the government. This issue is one of the underlying currents in my Anod novels.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment