26 November 2007

Update no.311

Update from the Heartland
No.311
19.11.07 – 25.11.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Various news sources reported recent laudable advances in stem cell research and genetic manipulation. In one report, British scientists achieved positive results in treating Parkinson’s disease with manipulated genetic material. In a separate report, scientists in Japan and the United States have apparently developed a another genetic manipulation technique to coax mature skin cells into acting like embryonic stem cells, meaning the resultant cells can potentially be directed to produce any specialized cells in the body. While these announcements are encouraging, I urge caution. Depending upon the age of the root mature cells, progressive mutations have occurred, and it is not clear to me how those mutations can be corrected. Nonetheless, we have positive signs.

If you want to see some really incredible and very personal flying, try this link:
http://www.biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=4262

A key to reading and understanding judicial pronouncements from the Supreme Court to local civil judges, or interpretations by the Press or politicians, seems to be directly dependent upon our perception of primacy – individual, state or federal. I have always taken the Preamble to the Constitution quite seriously –
We, the People, of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The meaning is quite clear – fine, crystal clear – We, the People, granted certain authority to the Federal government, to act on our behalf in specific activities. The 9th and 10th Amendments reinforce the fact that all powers of government are derived from the governed – We, the People. At test, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of a private citizen regarding the constitutionality of a highly restrictive, District of Columbia, handgun law that verges upon prohibition. This case will be the first test of the 2nd Amendment by the Supremes since 1939, and may well illuminate brightly the persuasions of the current members of the Court. So, let us review . . . the 2nd Amendment states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The Federalists and gun control advocates focus upon the phrase “well regulated Militia,” meaning gun possession should only be protected for organized, State-sanctioned organizations intended for the collective security and defense. For the individual rights folks, the dominant words are “the right of the people,” which exceeds all others. To add further emphasis, the use of the word ‘infringed’ has only one relevant meaning – the right bear arms existed and exists outside the Constitution and shall not be imposed upon by government. Since I am of the latter group, I shall offer this additional view, the opening two phrases are background intended to establish the foundation or general purpose rather than provide a limitation upon the right of the People. To the Federalists, the opening phrase allows the Federal or any government to restrict the private ownership of firearms not directly associated with a State-sanctioned group; thus, the State is dominant, not the individual. The case before today’s Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller [docket no. 07-290]) grows from the denial of a private-possession, gun permit request by Dick Anthony Heller. He joined a challenge to the DC handgun control measure that was eventually heard by the Circuit Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. The three-judge panel in the case of Shelly Parker v. District of Columbia [DC CCA No. 04-7041 (2007)] reversed the district court judgment, finding the DC law was an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd Amendment. Senior Circuit Judge Laurence Hirsch Silberman, writing for the majority, said, “The provision’s second comma divides the Amendment into two clauses; the first is prefatory, and the second operative. Appellants’ (Parker, Heller, et al) argument is focused on their reading of the Second Amendment’s operative clause.” Also at issue is the last, Supreme Court, 2nd Amendment ruling nearly 70 years ago {United States v. Miller [307 U.S. 174 (1939)]}. The Miller ruling validated the National Firearms Act of 1934 [PL no. 73-474; 48 Stat. 1236, 26 U.S.C. §§ 1132] – a New Deal, Federalist, legislative reaction to the rampant gun crime of the Prohibition era. Fortunately, the current Supremes apparently feel that leaving Miller as their last definitive statement on the 2nd Amendment is not an adequate jurisprudence condition, given the sensitivity of the right to bear arms within this Grand Republic. Without boring into the details, let it suffice to say this case is another individual versus the State question. Heller was not a felon or a criminal in any form; in fact, he was an auxiliary police officer. His case represents the worst of an intrusive government . . . imposing upon and penalizing law-abiding citizens without cause. If I was going to predict the outcome, I think the Supremes will uphold the DC Circuit’s ruling and accentuate Judge Silberman’s English dissection of the 2nd Amendment. Whatever the outcome, I suspect the Supreme Court’s decision will be an illuminating read. The Court’s ruling in this case will be quite interesting; namely, will the so-called strict constructionists (Scalia & Thomas) associate ‘militia’ and ‘bear Arms’ as written, or see the words in the larger context of the whole document? We shall see . . . probably by late winter, early spring . . . just in time to be a major issue in the election. Lastly, as we await the Court’s decision, I must say, most, if not all, gun control measures treat the symptom rather than the root cause, like so many of our silly laws. When will we ever learn?

The 2nd Amendment discussion above is one of many reasons I get so wrapped up about the judicial interpretation of the Constitution. Another reason is the lightning rod decision Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)]. The strict constructionist like Bork [307], Scalia and Thomas opine about the lack of any reference to abortion or privacy in the Constitution, and thus Roe being a case of judicial fiat and a prime example of excessively liberal Court rulings. To those of us who take a larger view of the Constitution, Roe was meticulously consistent – the fundament right of every individual to protection of his private Pursuit of Happiness. Of course, some of the anti-abortion folks go absolutely spastic freaky at the notion that a individual citizen might actually have a fundamental right to privacy and the concomitant freedom of choice to decide what is best for them. Without diverting this dialogue any more than I already have, we cannot have it both ways depending upon our degree of sensitivity or offended morals. Justice Blackmun said it quite eloquently. Just as guys like Bork say the Constitution offers no guidance and thus offers no restriction on the State’s ability to regulate abortion or anything else not expressly discussed in the Constitution, I argue that the paucity of any restrictions means precisely that the individual retains those rights, and as such, the individual citizen must be protected from intrusion into his private affairs by the State. The interpretation of the self-anointed, strict constructionists simply states that the Federal government has no authority to sanction or restrict abortion as a medical procedure, and as such the states individually do have that right; thus, by their interpretation, the individual does not have the right under the Constitution to protection from governmental intrusion into their private affairs and choices. To me, there are not many things scarier than a judge who can rationalize State dominance over the individual (of course, there are constrains like bona fide, public, State interests; thus, how we define 'bona fide' becomes the salient debate in this question and so many others). Freedom cannot be parsed; either we are free, or we are not.

As reported in this humble journal, I received the last of the congressional replies to my Open Letter regarding the pending Employment Non-Discrimination Act [306], (Roberts [309] and Brownback [310]). Here is the reply of Representative Todd Tiahrt.
November 15, 2007
Dear Cap:
Thank you for contacting me in support of Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007, H.R. 2015 and H.R. 3685. I greatly appreciate knowing your thoughts on this important issue.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act was introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) on April 24th. This bill would ban “employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” Like you, I abhor bigotry and discrimination; however, I am concerned that this vaguely-constructed overhaul of labor law is inconsistent with the free exercise of religion and will weaken traditional marriage.
Free exercise of religion as found in the Constitution and as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) must be firmly upheld. It is a cornerstone of our nation's founding and our future. America's churches, synagogues, mosques, and religious non¬profits must maintain the right to employ those that share their particular religious or moral worldview. Unfortunately, ENDA would impede on these fundamental rights.
ENDA would also weaken the landmark Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by giving Federal statutory significance to same-sex marriage rights. DOMA is the federal law that declares marriage is between one man and one woman. Maintaining DOMA is essential in defending the sanctity of marriage. However, passage of ENDA will provide activist judges around the country the legal ammunition to undermine state and federal marriage laws. Courts in New Jersey, Vermont and Massachusetts have all used state legislation similar to ENDA as a springboard for mandating same-sex marriage or civil unions. In 2005 Kansas overwhelmingly passed the Marriage Amendment by 70 percent. The people of Kansas have spoken. With the path is so clearly defined in history, it would be irresponsible for Congress to pass ENDA.
Upon introduction, H.R. 3685 was referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the House Committee on the Judiciary, and the House Committee on Administration. It was passed out of the Committee on Education and Labor on October 22nd by a vote of 27-21. ENDA was considered on the House Floor on November 7th and passed by a vote of 235-184. The bill now moves to the U.S. Senate for consideration.
Again, thank you sharing your thoughts with me regarding ENDA. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me or my labor policy aide, Jim Richardson. It is an honor to serve you in the United States Congress.
Best regards,
Todd Tiahrt
Member of Congress
. . . to which, I replied:
Todd,
Thank you for your reply.
As you note, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 (ENDA) [H.R.3685] was passed by the House and is before the Senate. I have written and continue to write to Senators Roberts and Brownback on this issue.
Since ENDA is no longer before the House, I could let your letter be the closing of our communications regarding the question of equal rights for all citizens. However, your raising of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 [PL103-141; H.R.1308; S.578; 42 U.S.C. §2000bb], the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 [PL104-199; H.R.3396; 110 Stat. 2419; 1 U.S.C. §7 and 28 U.S.C. §1738C], and the Kansas Marriage Amendment (Article 15, §16) broadens the horizon of this exchange.
Former Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor so succinctly and eloquently wrote in her concurring opinion for Lawrence v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003)], “A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the State's moral disapproval of that class and the conduct associated with that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, under any standard of review.” I recognize and acknowledge that we are not talking about criminal rights here, but rather civil rights and equality under the law. Yet, her words offer profound wisdom regarding the nature of our Liberty, and the proper relationship between an individual citizen and the State.
A willful majority has the power to impose upon any minority it so chooses, as it has done numerous times in the history of this Nation. And yet, that reality does not make it correct or even honorable. We are not talking about a bona fide State interest in public conduct or even the safety of private conduct. Discrimination, persecution, intimidation and oppression with respect to any of the social factors (age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, sexual orientation, or disability) is just flat wrong, and contrary to the very essence of the founding principles of this Grand Republic – that each and every citizen is endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among those are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Each of us may believe as we wish that private, non-heterosexual conduct is a lifestyle choice or a genetic predisposition – that is our right. Regardless, to deny any citizen their unalienable right to pursue their happiness as they choose simply because a willful majority disapproves of that citizen’s choices is a despicable aberration of our time comparable to the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford [60 U.S. 393 (1856)] and Plessy v. Ferguson [163 U.S. 537 (1896)] decisions of our past.
As such, I beseech you to find the courage to stand up for the equal rights of ALL citizens and resist the seductive, Sirens’ song of a willful, moral projectionist majority. Let us do what is correct, even if it is not very popular.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Cap Parlier

If you would like to know just a little more about the dark art of hatred and intimidation faced everyday by those who do not conform and ascribe to moral majority's definition of normal, I suggest this article:
"The Geography of Hate"
by Mark Potok, Luke Visconti, Barbara Frankel and Nigel Holmes
New York Times
Published: November 25, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/opinion/25potok.html?th&emc=th

I also read this interesting article:
"West Wing: How Dangerous Is America?"
by Gabor Steingart in Washington, D.C.
Der Spiegel
Compiled on November 20, 2007, 05:44 PM CET
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,518399,00.html
It seems some Europeans cannot see the forest through the trees. Apparently, Americans are the problem; we are more dangerous to world peace than Russia, or Iran, or China, or even al-Qaeda. Well, ain’t that sumpin’! I suppose one hell-been-for-leather President determined to eradicate our enemies, who inflicted grievous injury upon our innocent citizens, can erase a century of defending freedom. Furthermore, the current President will peacefully relinquish power to his successor on 20.January.2009, and another person will occupy that position and undoubtedly exercise power in a different manner. Lastly, I have stated more than a few times in this humble journal, I have no interest in making nice with those who threaten us. This too shall pass.

Comments and contributions from Update no.310:
"Prohibition of tools like waterboarding smells of Bush-hating to a degree those doing so are glad to see us lose, so Bush loses. That prohibition is a much bigger crime than scaring a war combatant to get information to save our lives, which is no crime at all. It is a dark time these days for military warriors if they are not allowed to win. And, failure win will be our undoing."
My reply:
Yea verily!
The uber-Left is trying mightily to make war gentlemanly, unstained, and pretty. By doing so, if they are successful, we will be unable to fight and win future wars, and potentially this war. War is killing and destruction – no if’s, and’s or but’s. The side that does the best job of it usually wins. I’m sorry this is so blunt and grotesque for some of our citizens, but that is the way it is . . . or at least should be. The question remains, will the uber-Left be successful?
. . . with this follow-up:
"Success for the left is failure for the USA. Let's hope our survival urge wins over bad judgment. War is hell and should be conducted that way. Win is the only option for survival."
. . . and my follow-up reply:
Indeed!
Related side note: Interesting that Bill Richardson stated in the latest Democratic national debate that he believed human rights should supersede national security. In general, I am an admirer of Bill Richardson, but when he said that, we had proof positive that parochial political pandering trumps logic and reason. For someone as experienced as him, the naiveté was astounding. While he is not likely to gain the party nomination, hearing such pronouncements from party luminaries does not bode well for our choices in the next election or the future of this Grand Republic.
I was torn in the last presidential election; I did not want Bush’s social conservatism and mishandling of the Battle for Iraq, but in the end, I knew we could not afford the Pollyanna approach to international relations and national defense espoused by John Kerry. I do not want to face those dreadful choices again.

Another contribution:
"Right on point on GWB being a divider. He never really tried to reach out to the other side--either within his party or the Democrats. I recently heard a commentary on the differences between GWB and FDR. FDR did reach out across the aisle during the war and thereby made a more united front. He could have gone the GWB route, but didn't. I would also criticize GWB and his administration for lack of leadership-- as opposed to his father for example, who took the time and effort to garner a coalition to go into Iraq. It was always 'my way or the highway' with both domestic and foreign leaders – which has brought us to the situation we are now in.
"And as far as his vetoes are concerned, they all aren't for 'Democratic causes'--some have been bi-partisan and have been done because the country needs them. That makes it even worse."
My response:
The contrast between FDR and GWB as wartime presidents is as stark and bipolar as such comparisons can get. FDR had his flaws too, some of them serious, but in the main, he was able to forge a unity government at a critical time in the history of this Grand Republic and the World. While I laud GWB’s decisiveness, like you, I must strongly criticize his insular form of leadership; seeking counsel only from those who agree with you is hardly a path to a sense of inclusion and respect necessary for a unity government. No, as I’ve said many times, history will not likely be kind to GWB.
My point on the spending vetoes was one of perception rather than specific content, as the President does not have line item veto authority. And, I’m not sure I really care why he vetoed a particular bill, the impression left with me was as I stated in the Update. If he had been vetoing these obscene spending bills throughout his presidency, I would be kinder to W., but alas that is NOT the case.

And another contribution:
"Just read G[eorge] Washington's proclamation on thanksgiving of 1789. Confess I didn't really know what you guys get up to on that day except eat turkey. Do you also remember your veteran dead on that day our November 11th?"
My reply:
The poignancy of Washington’s 1789 proclamation reflects the significance of that time – the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation, the debates on government of the People, the Constitution, and the well-spring of this Grand Republic. We don’t often remember the essence of that truly thanksgiving time in our history. For my family, and I believe most American families, Thanksgiving is that one holiday of the year devoted just to family – no other purpose – a family gathering.
Americans celebrate two significant veteran remembrance days – Memorial Day (it was May 30th, but then they changed it to the last Monday in May) to remember our war dead, and Veterans’ Day (the 11th of November) to remember all those who have served and continue to serve. Of course, we, Marines, celebrate the day the Continental Congress ordered the formation of two battalions of Continental Marines (10.November.1775); Marines have been serving this Grand Republic every day since that auspicious day.
. . . with this follow-up:
"Our nations are miles apart but linked so closely in our joint history. Our remembrance day this year has been marked by a greater number of people than I can recall. Our Poppy Appeal (I'm certain you'll know the origins) looks like being a record breaker. I tasked my team of county zealots to raise £500,000 this year and it looks as though we might get there. We are however aware of what is being known as 'The Afghan' effect. But no matter the money will be used wisely on those in need and there are many. Good to correspond with you Cap.
"Enjoy your turkey! Oh we have 'bird flu' here, from the continent and by Christmas we may well have culled all our Turkeys."
. . . any my follow-up reply:
The ‘bird flu’ situation in the United Kingdom has and continues to make the news in the Colonies. We can only hope the government handles the precautions well, and God protects those infected.
I’m quite aware of the Poppy Appeal [I’ll add an explanation for the Update, since I doubt most Americans recognize the process or its origins]. Hopefully, this year’s fundraising campaign was successful beyond expectations.
[PS: the Poppy Appeal is a public, charitable endeavor to render assistance and offer recognition to those injured in battle and has been associated with Remembrance Day (Veterans’ Day in the U.S.) since 1921. The artificial poppies worn by so many at that time each year was inspired by John McCrae's 1915 poem “In Flanders’ Fields,” which captured the human tragedy of war. May God bless all those who serve the cause of Freedom.]

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

19 November 2007

Update no.310

Update from the Heartland
No.310
12.11.07 – 18.11.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
To the Americans among us:
Please have a most enjoyable Thanksgiving holiday with family and friends.
May peace be with you all.

The follow-up news items:
-- Just as the new Airbus A380 enters commercial service [307], the Associated Press reported the purchase of a private A380 on behalf of Saudi Prince al-Walid bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud. The 6,000 square feet of usable floor space on the double-decker, A380 super-jumbo-jet will be outfitted as his “flying palace.” This aircraft will join a private Boeing 747 already in his fleet of personal aircraft. Just the A380 aircraft itself is in the neighborhood of US$300M+. Talk about . . . ostentatious, conspicuous consumption . . . to say the least.
-- From everything I have seen, I would say the following report is a fair and reasonable, neutral assessment of the Battle for Iraq.
“Iraq: Positive Signs”
by George Friedman
November 13, 2007; 20:36 GMT
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Geopolitical Intelligence Report
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/gir.php?utm_source=071113-GIR&utm_medium=email-strat-html&utm_content=071113-GIR-header-read&utm_campaign=GIR
After reading such an analysis, I wonder what the John Murtha’s of Congress must be thinking. They have been powerfully quiet and unseen in the last few months. Oh wait, I just figured it out . . . they are too busy doing business with earmarks to be criticizing the President’s positive achievement so far in recovering the battle.

The January-June 2007 issue of Cockpit – the journal of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots– published a technical paper titled, “Autonomous Airborne Refueling Demonstration Program,” by Dick Ewers, et al. The cover of that issue shows a two-seat, NASA, F-18 aircraft plugged into a refueling drogue. Both the pilot and flight test engineer are holding their hands up. Presumably, the still image captured a snapshot of what was a continuous, hands-off, aerial refueling event. The paper describes the details of how the system was developed and performed this complex, difficult task. Like many automated systems, especially those performing tasks in close proximity to anything, pilots are reluctant to trust the system or allow the system to do what it was designed to do – close clearance terrain following, carrier landing, the shuttle landing system, et cetera. In the 1980’s, Chan Morse and I helped develop and fly what we called the Advanced Digital Flight Control System (ADFCS). We used a prototype AH-64 (AV05, to be precise) configured with a full-authority, high-gain, fly-by-wire, ADFCS system in the front seat, including a short-compliant, 4-axis, side stick controller. I won’t bore everyone with anymore technical details, but let it suffice to say, the system performed complex, difficult, helicopter flight tasks with extraordinary precision. I left the cockpit in 1988, and entered management. Chan went on to do exemplary work on follow-on, advanced flight control, development programs; and, I am certain I only know a sliver of what has been accomplished since those early pioneer days. Please pardon the reminiscence of an aging aviator.

Nada Nadim Prouty – I ask everyone to remember that name. We have only seen the tip of the iceberg, it seems to me. So far, the only public issue is her fraudulent attainment of U.S. citizenship via a monetarily-compensated marriage to an American citizen. Her employment in sensitive positions at both the FBI and CIA gives me a chill. She allegedly accessed classified intelligence information related to Hezbollah that was not part of her job assignments. This case may well explode. She is not likely to be at the infamous, treasonous level of Robert Hanssen, Aldridge Ames, Jonathan Pollard, John Walker, et al, but I smell a stinking rat.

I am not embarrassed to admit my admiration of George W. Bush regarding some elements of his leadership style and his presidency, his sense of humor and his courage. As our duly elected President and Commander-in-Chief, regardless of the whiners still trying to relive the 2000 election, I try mightily to support his decisions especially with respect to the War on Islamic Fascism (even though he is reluctant to use the proper term). However, in the main, I cannot deny or ignore the deep, bone-gnawing disgust I hold of no.43 and his administration. The list of my objections, condemnations, disagreements, and revulsions is far larger than my admirations list. The latest among many triggers is this ridiculous spate of vetoes. The dichotomy that churns my stomach springs from my agreement with his vetoes, but for all the wrong reasons. During the entire first six (6) years of his tenure as president, Bush (43) vetoed only one bill -- the embryonic stem cell research bill [201, 241]. Then, once the Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress . . . bang, bang, bang, we have a cacophony of veto stamps and associated rhetoric. There is only one conclusion; W. does not mind obscene pork barrel spending as long as it is for Republican pork projects, what he really objects to is spending for Democrat causes. Now that Democrats have their hands in the cookie jar instead of Republicans, he says no way, you're spending too much. W. lost me a long time ago, and there is no recovery regardless of how much he exercises his ludicrous, partisan, parochial, political veto. And yet, the truly sad and sordid aspect of W. the man . . . I suspect he truly wonders why people despise him so much or why the fractious, political chasm is so broad and deep between the political extremes. In his original campaign rhetoric, he proclaimed, he was “a uniter, not a divider;” and yet, he has done more to divide the citizens of this Grand Republic than any President since Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter. During wartime, division is the President's failure to unify and mobilize the Nation to "wage war successfully." Slick Willy Clinton had his flaws and failures, but we must give him credit for reaching out to the opposition and trying to find points of mutually acceptable compromise on many issues. My gosh, what got me all fired up? My answer is quite simple . . . the continuing insanity of the divisive, corrosive, partisan politics of this President and the current crop in Congress. When will just a few – a happy few – of our political leaders rise above the sloppy, odiferous muck and reach out to both sides for a unity government until the War on Islamic Fascism is won? Once we have attained peace, then they can go back to the hog trough from whence they came.

I wrote an Open Letter to each of my Federal representatives regarding passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 [306]. I received a reply from Senator Pat Roberts [309], and now, I received a snailMail letter from Senator Sam Brownback. I share his reply and my response.
October 22, 2007
Dear Mr. Parlier:
“Thank you for your correspondence regarding hate crimes. There is no better guide for making tough decisions than hearing from the people whom I serve.
“As a nation, we will not tolerate violent crime. I am appalled by news stories of individuals being assaulted, or even killed, because of their ethnicity. I am equally appalled by violence done to those who choose to live alternative lifestyles. We must send a strong message through our law enforcement and judicial system that such attacks will bring the full force of the law upon those who commit such terrible acts.
“I appreciate the good will and sincerity of those who wish to expand hate crime laws. However, I do not believe such legislation is the answer. The severity of a crime should be based upon actions committed. If a violent crime is committed, then the perpetrator should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Every violent crime ought to be treated as severe, regardless of why it was committed. Life is precious -- and every murder is an equally egregious crime.
“When hate crime legislation was offered in the Senate in the past, I voted against it because I strongly felt it would usurp the power and jurisdiction of the states. I believe our law enforcement and judicial system should be focused upon holding individuals accountable for what they do, not what they think. Rest assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind if hate crime legislation comes before the Senate in the future.
“Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me about this important issue. You are the reason that I am here, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.”
Sincerely,
Sam Brownback
United States Senator
. . . my response:
Senator Brownback,
Thank you for your reply.
In the 1960’s as I reached adulthood, I watched and lived the violence of Americans who were outraged at the many generations of discrimination, persecution, intimidation, and un-prosecuted violent crimes against other citizens, simply and solely because of the skin pigmentation they inherited from their parents. I look back on those years, and I regret that I did not do more to help those who suffered, to help them cast off their chains and realize the “equal protection under the law” and the freedom of choice I enjoy in my Pursuit of Happiness. I cannot stand and watch today.
Non-heterosexual citizens have reached a similar point in our societal evolution. You said, “Every violent crime ought to be treated as severe, regardless of why it was committed. Life is precious -- and every murder is an equally egregious crime.” I could not agree more. However, the salient word in your statement is ‘ought.’ The sad reality for non-heterosexual citizens in many parts of this Nation is their reality does not even closely resemble your notion. Freedom cannot be parsed. Non-heterosexual citizens live in mortal fear of exposure. Is that the American dream? Matthew Wayne Shepard’s brutal murder may well become the same watershed precipitant event for non-heterosexual equal rights as the lynching of Emmett Louis Till (1955) was for racial equal rights.
My original communications (21.October.2007) dealt with the pending legislation of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 (ENDA) [H.R. 3685, as before the Senate Judiciary Committee]. For the record, I believe the inclusion of “gender identity,” as in the language of H.R. 2015, is more appropriate and should be seriously considered during your deliberations. Nonetheless, I strongly urge you to support and pass H.R. 3685.
Since you raised the additional question of hate crimes legislation, I shall offer some additional thoughts for your consideration. In a general sense, I must agree with the essence of your position – murder and other violent crimes are all reprehensible and properly the jurisdiction of the states; as such, Federal supersedence is not consistent with the Constitution. However, what your argument misses is the conflict between elements of the Constitution – individual rights versus state’s rights – and a failure to recognize the harsh reality of our contemporary society. Non-heterosexual citizens have not and still do not enjoy “equal protection under the law” – in principle, yes, in practice, no. State and local jurisdictions do not prosecute crimes against homosexuals with the same vigor they do with conforming, heterosexual citizens. Until non-heterosexual citizens can enjoy the full “rights and privileges” of citizenship, special protection by the Federal government is required.
Senator Roberts informed me that the language of S. 1105 has been inserted into the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 [H.R. 1585]. Although neither you nor Pat Roberts were selected for the conference committee to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions, I strongly urge you to work with the conferees to ensure that Title X; Subtitle C; Sec. 1023, of H.R. 1585, now titled as the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, remains in the final version of the bill, to be passed by Congress.
Whether any of us wishes to admit it, racism still exists as evidenced by the Jena 6 episode, despite the 14th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the original 1969 hate crimes law, and a host of Supreme Court decisions. A rope noose is an article of intimidation with profound symbolic weight, and is far beyond a simple juvenile prank. Denial of the fear homosexuals live under is quite easy when you do not experience such discrimination and persecution. Let us not stand by and watch as some citizens are denied their Pursuit of Happiness by the fear of a vindictive portion of our society.
Please reconsider your position regarding equal rights for all citizens, not just the chosen majority. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Cap Parlier
[PS: I should have added . . . we are all entitled by the Constitution to our bigotry; it does not make it right, but we are guaranteed our choices. However, when thoughts become actions or the incitement of others to action, the line is crossed.]
[NOTE: FYI, an Open Letter is just that an open letter. If any or all of my words are useful to anyone, please feel free to use them as you wish.]

For those of us who remain apprehensive about and vigilant of the Judiciary, this article will add knowledge and disquiet to our vigil.
“Justice for Sale – How special-interest money threatens the integrity of our courts”
by Sandra Day O'Connor
Wall Street Journal
Published: Thursday, November 15, 2007; 00:01 EST
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010864
Spot on, Sandra!

Comments and contributions from Update no.309:
"I read the whole thing and agree with at least most of your comments on various subjects, but for me it is too long to wade through to maybe make comments."
My response:
I know the long ones are not to your liking, but sometimes the words just flow. At least you read the whole thing. Comment, argue, chastise or pass as you wish. Most folks choose not to comment, but presumably, they do read the Update.

Another contribution:
"So let me see if I've got this straight. The Congress wants to tell soldiers they can't get nudie mags and download porn and whatnot? Look, porno really isn't my thing, but if some grunt who's been on some harrowing patrols shooting it out with terrorist scumbags wants to kick back with a Hustler back at base camp then enjoy. So long as it ain't kiddie porn, I don't care. We have more important issues with our soldiers than whether or not they're perusing adult entertainment videos and magazines. What's next? Does Congress go the Tipper Gore route and say soldiers can't listen to music with explicit lyrics. Keep your damn hands off my heavy metal, I say.
"And . . . happy to hear about the Phelps nuts coming out on the losing end of that lawsuit. Talk about people who deserve a five-knuckle shuffle if you know what I mean. I actually saw one of their spokeswomen on Hannity and Colmes a couple times. What a wide-eyed whackjob who looks like she combs her hair with a rabid alley cat and does nothing but scream . . . a lot. Amazing what happens when one is consumed by hate.
"And lest I forget, this civilian wishes to thank all the vets out there for protecting my life and liberty."
My reply:
You got it right. That is the law. I have voiced my opinion, but I don't carry any weight. For those of us who care, we must do what we can to reverse the moral projection and imposition of the self-professed, moral majority, and get the government out of the private affairs of citizens in good standing. And, I must add, get the government out of those activities that do not involve a proper, bona fide, interest of the State, rather than the moral projection that drives a willful and powerful minority in our society.
I've seen enough of the psychotic hatred of the Phelps clan. The sooner they disappear, the better, in my book.

A different contribution:
"Regarding waterboarding, last week a former SERE instructor and an Air Force interrogator both said it was essentially useless for obtaining information. Indeed, subsequently, the intel community repudiated SKM's info he gave during the sessions. Apparently he confessed to a lot of improbable things. Professional interrogators don't want to use it--they strongly feel that it doesn't give useful information. I don't have it at hand, but Col Kleinman's testimony was particularly interesting. Also a Marine Lt Col was forbidden by Pentagon leadership from testifying. He was a prosecutor who declined to bring charges against a detainee when he found how the 'confession' was obtained- through torture and deemed it unreliable. The Marine Corps was informed and had no problem with him testifying--at the last minute, the Pentagon told him not to testify- on pretty weak grounds.
"Also remember Teddy Roosevelt strongly denouncing waterboarding during the Philippine Insurrection several were court-martialed for doing just that."
My response:
I would prefer that we all lived in peace and respected the differences we all have in common. Alas, some folks still hold onto the notion of dominating other people. As long as megalomania exists, we shall have war. If we have war, then I am for winning, however ugly it might be.
I shall respectfully disagree. My definition of torture is anything that causes permanent injury; the threat of bodily harm does not qualify. I am not advocating for the use of waterboarding or any other radical inducement technique; yet, at the end of the day, I prefer to put my trust in the professionals; they are perfectly capable and positioned far better to judge what works and what does not. Having spent some time on the dark side, all intelligence is (or should be) evaluated for accuracy and reliability (of the source(s)). Further, convincing a determined enemy to relinquish any information he possesses is not an easy task, and occasionally the requisite time for more pleasant methods does not exist. Bottom line: I care far more about the safety and well-being of our troops (including the collectors), our citizens, our allies, and other innocent people than I do about the “feelings” of captured, battlefield combatant, which includes the planners like SKM. These guys are not criminals. There is no chain of evidence. They are not entitled to due process. Judicial prosecution is irrelevant and ludicrous. So, by my definition, waterboarding does not qualify as torture. I will agree that induced divulgence of information is automatically suspect and must be corroborated, but that is standard intelligence analysis.
War is hell. War is an ugly, nasty, disgusting business. Trying to put lipstick on a pig does not alter that pig. And, I have no interest in making nice with the bad guys; I’d just as soon kill them . . . but, others seek the information they possess. I say, let the professionals do what must be done; they know far better than us what works. Adjudicating this so-called torture issue in the press and/or Congress is farcical.
Sorry to be so crude and blunt, but that is the nature of the beast. I call ‘em as I see ‘em.

A continuing contribution:
“Concur in that the professionals should decide--and not be pressured by political appointees whose experience in these matters is limited by watching "24" and reading Tom Clancy. Unfortunately, that is what has appeared to have happened in some cases-- when interrogations didn't get what certain people wanted, they ordered 'the gloves taken off', but according to IC interrogation veterans, they didn't know what they were doing. If waterboarding is still being conducted, it is being done very discretely and highly-supervised by people who are not military. However, there is deep skepticism in the IC about the technique in getting useable intel. Remember, the KGB/NKVD/OGPY used it to get confessions, not intel. You may have read of Oberst Hans Scharff, the Luftwaffe's master interrogator. He eschewed torture of any kind, and was so skilled that he was able to get information out of captured Allied pilots, without them even realizing it. We brought him over after the war to talk to our government interrogators, and he later became a U.S. citizen. Also, the top Marine interrogator in the Pacific during WWII was of the same mind. Can't recall his name, but his story is the same.
“Last week the Army issued this "strategic communication hot topic" to all commands.
“The U.S. Army strictly prohibits the use of waterboarding during intelligence investigations by any of its members. It is specifically prohibited by Field Manual 2-22.3 and is not a sanctioned interrogation technique in any training manual or any instructions to soldiers in the field," the statement says.”
My response:
Good points all. I have not been on the inside for a very long time. And, I certainly have never been involved with or even close to an interrogation unit of any kind. Thus, I do not have any first-hand, factual basis for my opinions. That said, I strongly suspect waterboarding specifically and torture in general are a contemporary cause c̩l̬bre with nearly pure, parochial, political purposes. I doubt very much that waterboarding as we know it, is used very much, if at all, for the reasons you have given. Yet, I refuse to deny that tool or other extreme measures to the professionals in the field who are dealing with the realities of modern warfare on a daily basis. Once again, I must say, these bad guys are battlefield combatants, NOT criminals. The FBI conducting a criminal investigation is a war zone is a joke. Criminal standards on combat actions are a terrible joke. To me, the current public / Press / political debate revolving around waterboarding is directly akin to the insane prohibitions in our war Рnot bombing the fighter bases, not shooting first, not bombing the dikes, not mining Haiphong harbor, not sinking every ship and destroying every train trying to enter North Vietnam, ad infinitum. I say the things I do because I want the politicians OUT of the warfighting task. Let the professionals use the tools that work; I trust them . . . FAR more than I do any politician or arm-chair quarterback 8,000 miles from the combat zone.
These are the reasons I get so huffy about the political abuse of Blackwater and the other contractors. They simply cannot afford to wait to be fired on first, period.

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

12 November 2007

Update no.309

Update from the Heartland
No.309
5.11.07 – 11.11.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Please join me in celebrating the 232nd anniversary of our glorious Corps of Marines – 10.November.1775. Semper Fidelis, Marines!
On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, we remember all our veterans who have served the United Kingdom, the Republic of France, and the United States of America. May God bless and comfortable all those who have served the purpose of freedom and especially those who stand in harm’s way in the current war.

The follow-up news items:
-- The chief of MI5 – the British domestic intelligence agency – offered a sobering assessment of the challenges we face in the War on Islamic Fascism. Director-General Jonathan Evans reported that al-Qaeda’s recruiting efforts in Great Britain have doubled the number of terrorist watch targets, which compounds the difficulty and complexity of MI5’s efforts to thwart the radicals. I suspect Evans’ candor can be easily translated into the threat faced by the United States and stands in stark contrast to the activities of the uber-Left as they continue their efforts to blunt the sword. [307]
-- The Navy/Notre Dame football game a week ago [307] sparked quite a few comments. NPR commentator John Feinstein captured the essence of what to most folks was an obscure little sports event.
“Power of Ending a Streak”
by John Feinstein
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, November 5, 2007; 11:43 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/05/AR2007110500481.html
-- Well, I’ll be . . . Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, one time presidential candidate [267] announced his endorsement of Senator John McCain of Arizona. And, evangelical Christian activist Pat Robertson endorsed former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. I would have never guessed either one.
-- The U.S. Senate confirmed Judge Michael Bernard Mukasey [302] to be the Attorney General of the United States, replacing Alberto Gonzales [vote no.407: 53-40-7].
-- With W. finding his latent courage so late in his presidency to veto [201] a few of this continuous stream of obscene spending bills coming from Congress, we find another historic event in the same vein. The President vetoed a US$23B water resources bill. For the first time in the tenure of the Bush (43) administration, Congress voted to override the President’s veto and the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 [H.R.1495; PL no: 110-114] became law. [override vote: House: 361-54-0-17, Senate: 79–14-7] If W. had been vetoing these pork bills over the course of his administration, I would give him more credit; now, it is just partisan politics rather than fiscal discipline, and makes this whole sordid process all the more disgusting.

We all need feel-good stories amid the tragedy of war and the turmoil of modern politics. Here is a link to a video of an HBO Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel report – the story of 5-year-old Kyle Lograsso. Please take the time to watch this video story.
http://www.sonnyradio.com/kylelograsso.html
You will not be disappointed.

Pakistan’s President General Pervez Musharraf declared a national state of emergency this week, suspended the constitution, dismissed the supreme court, and aggressively arrested thousands of lawyers in an action he claims will aid his contributions to the War on Islamic Fascism. I find the argument quite shallow and hard to swallow. The move, given his recent, futile efforts to maintain some modicum of legitimacy, smacks of desperation rather than patriotism. However, there is a sliver of reality that offers pause to see how this plays out. My rationale . . . remember all the baying by the naysayers late last year into early this year about the President’s surge effort; well, General Petraeus delivered. Perhaps we should keep our powder dry to see how this plays out, before we throw the baby out with the bath water. Before we jump too fast, please read:
“Pakistan and its Army”
by George Friedman
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: November 06, 2007; 14:08 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/gir.php?utm_source=071106-GIR&utm_medium=email-strat-html&utm_content=071106-GIR-header-read&utm_campaign=GIR

Two Wall Street Journal opinion columns challenge us to reconsider bombing cities or other civilian targets, torture (a term I continue to debate), and the politics of war. For your consideration:
“Waterboarding and Hiroshima – Did the Allies in World War II ‘lower themselves to the level of their enemies’?”
by Bret Stephens
Wall Street Journal
Published: Tuesday, November 6, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010827
and,
"Democrats and Waterboarding"
by Alan Dershowitz
Wall Street Journal
Published: November 7, 2007; Page A23
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119439827396084663.html
I shall offer a contrarian opinion. I want war to be as nasty, ugly, violent, and revolting as possible, to ensure such human actions remain the choice of last resort for conflict resolution. As I have written many times, I have no interest in making nice with our enemies, who seek to harm our citizens or contaminate our society. If our enemies mobilize civilians for their purposes, then civilians become proper targets. The same argument applies to what the Press and politicians have label as torture. Inducing an enemy combatant to relinquish information regarding his actions and other related activities is just another element of war and “waging war successfully.” So, please read the opinions of Stephens and Dershowitz, and then, let us engage in a vigorous debate.

The growing rumble from evangelical Christian talking heads conveys dissatisfaction with the available candidates and their attempts at moderation. They rattle the saber for a third-party, anti-choice, candidate who will promote their socially conservative agenda. I doubt they truly seek a third party candidate, as that potential would most likely be a guarantee of failure. The current public dissonance reflects their perceived failure to move the leading candidates far enough to the right, so they have chosen to take their discontent public.

In Update no.308, I shared a comment I submitted to the Patriot Post. I received this response:
"We have never advocated denying rights to homosexuals. We do believe, however, that as thousands of years of human history attest, marriage is ONLY between one man and one woman. A homosexual man may still marry, just not as he may choose to redefine it."
. . . to which I replied:
What is missing from your argument is the historic denial of “equal protection” to non-heterosexual citizens, i.e., there is no need to advocate for denial since discrimination has existed longer than this Grand Republic. While we cannot and should not cavalierly set aside historical precedent, we must view all societal decisions in a logical, reasonable context of our time.
I find no qualifiers to such foundational phrases as “all men are created equal,” “We, the People,” and “nor deny to any person.”
All of us can and should respect your beliefs; I most assuredly do. After all, you are entitled by our heritage to your freedom to seek your path toward “Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness,” without intrusion by anyone else including the government. How is it that we can expect society to respect our freedom of choice, and in the same breath, constrain another citizen’s freedom of choice?
I suspect you misspoke in your last sentence. A homosexual citizen (man or woman) cannot marry or enjoy the “rights and privileges” of marriage.
As with most freedoms, each of us chooses our friends and decides with whom we seek common assembly. That is our right. And concomitantly, I respectfully submit, we do not have the right to impose our beliefs upon other citizens. The government should be a neutral, un-biased, protector of the public good as well as the rights of each and every citizen, not just those with whom the majority agrees . . . except where the interests of the State demand intrusion upon our fundamental right to privacy. The State’s interest in private, relationship contracts has not been demonstrated.
Thank you for the courtesy of your reply.
Respectfully,
Cap Parlier

From my open letter to my Federal representatives regarding the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 [306], I received only one reply to date, from Senator Pat Roberts.
November 2, 2007
"Dear Mr. Parlier:
"Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding federal hate crimes. I appreciate your insight into this complex legal issue.
"In April, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) introduced S. 1105, the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This legislation imposes criminal penalties for willful bodily harm motived by race, religion, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation. It also authorizes the U.S. Attorney General to provide assistance to state and local governments for the prosecution of crimes motivated by race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. S. 1105 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it awaits consideration.
"Recently, the Senate passed H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act. During consideration of this bill, Senator Kennedy introduced an amendment similar to S. 1105. I voted against the amendment. However, it was approved by the Senate. I had several concerns with this amendment. We must be cautious in giving preferential treatment to select classes of victims. Every American is entitled to equal justice regardless of personal characteristics.
"However, I voted for an amendment offered by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) to authorize $5 million in funding to assist states and local governments in prosecuting hate crimes. The amendment also requires a federal study of the prevalence of hate crimes. At this point the Senate bill will be referred to a conference committee where conferees will resolve the differences between the Senate and House versions of the Defense Authorization Act.
"Again thank you for taking the time to contact me."
With every best wish,
Sincerely,
Pat Roberts
. . . to which I submitted this follow-up query:
Senator Roberts,
Thank you for your prompt reply.
In your reply, you stated, "Every American is entitled to equal justice regardless of personal characteristics." Indeed! That is the essence of the current struggle. Not all Americans enjoy "equal protection under the law." I do agree that establishing special protection for a segment of our society should be approached with caution. However, discrimination and in some cases persecution of a segment of our society simply because of the perception of their private conduct or their chosen Pursuit of Happiness is wrong in the worst, most corrosive way.
I have been unable to locate the specific, employment, non-discrimination language to which you refer in H.R. 1585. Would you be so kind to give me a clue? Until then and once again, I strongly urge you to vote for language equivalent to that contained in H.R. 2015.
Until ALL citizens in good standing enjoy the same "rights and privileges" as other citizens, they deserve the protection of the State. Please do your part to protect ALL citizens, not just the popular majority.
Respectfully,
Cap Parlier

Representative John Shadegg of Arizona has introduced the same bill in each Congress since 1995 -- the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 1359). The text of HR 1359 is enlightening. "Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. The availability of this point of order does not affect any other available relief." What a refreshing notion! They might have to actually reference their authority to propose every bill, and every earmark to every bill. Sad part, such logical legislation has about as much chance of passage with our clearly self-serving, politically ego-centric, senators and representatives as hell freezing over. Nonetheless, it is nice to dream.

Widely variant sources and media often trigger my curiosity. A fraction of those adventures make it to this humble journal. Occasionally, I am presented with a challenge on one of these quests of curiosity satiation that becomes a test of will. Herein lies one of tests. American Family Association founder Reverend David Wildmon recently protested reports that the Department of Defense was ignoring the law regarding the sale or distribution of sexually explicit material. With soldiers enduring the rigors of combat against an honor-less enemy, I wondered how such a law came into existence; thus began a rare and frustrating journey. At this juncture, I must confess that the research for this issue became the most difficult such exercise in my life to date; and yet, I was spurred on by that specific difficulty, and so I begin. On 24.April.1996, Representative Christopher Henry Smith of New Jersey introduced a bill onto the floor of the House of Representatives; the bill was designated H.R.3300 and provisionally titled, the Military Honor and Decency Act of 1996 (MHDA). The bill stalled in committee. Undeterred, as the Defense appropriations bill began to solidify late in the 104th Congress, the language of the MHDA made its way into the joint conference committee text intended to reconcile the disparate provisions of the versions from the two chambers. Congress passed the bill with the late inserted MHDA text. President Clinton signed the National Defense Appropriations Act of 1997 [H.R.3230; PL no. 104-201] into law, and by that law, the MHDA became effective 90 days later (22.December.1996). The sequence of events regarding how the MHDA made it into the final text of the massive Defense Department appropriations bill is beyond my reach, and my guess is, it is probably not part of the public record. The MHDA was immediately challenged in court. U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York found the MHDA unconstitutional. The government’s appeal was heard by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals {General Media Communications, Inc. v Cohen [CCA NYSD docket no. 97-6029 (1997)]}, which reversed Judge Scheindlin’s decision, ruling that, despite the Supreme Court’s statement that constitutional protections do not cease at the gates of a military base, the military is a unique subset within American society and the government had the right to regulate private conduct within that subset. The Supreme Court chose not to hear the subsequent appeal, thus validating the 2nd Circuit’s ruling. It is the alleged violation of the MHDA that Wildmon protests today. Why do I bring up all this legislative and judicial trivial minutiae? Well, as might be imagined from my political writings, I am personally and deeply offended by the imposition by the so-called moral majority of a more restrictive standard upon those who stand in harm’s way for our freedom. My rule is quite simple . . . if a citizen is old enough to die for his country, then he is old enough to enjoy the full “rights and privileges” of the citizenship he defends, however immoral some among us may feel about some activities. In fact, my socially liberal opinion goes far beyond that point. Yet, with all that said, I am compelled to acknowledge the authority of the Congress to impose such restrictions upon the military; the military is indeed a unique subset of American society; the 2nd Circuit and the Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion. In closing, I must say that I am disappointed that such restrictions upon our soldiers exist at all, and I am truly disgusted that some Members of Congress resort to such deceptive means to impose their will upon our honorable military service personnel – moral projection at its worst.

Comments and contributions from Update no.308:
“I saw a short memorial on TV about Gen Tibbets, including some interviews with him. I’m with you.
“I watched a good part of the Navy/Notre Dame Game. Great game. It was about time!!
“Not familiar with the Snyder case.
“I agree with your thoughts on the Wilson case as far as how intrusion by the state into private matters which should be left to families/parents to work out. The State has no business legislating in the area of consensual sex, period.
“Good old Teddy Roosevelt. He hit the nail squarely on the head.”
My reply:
The Snyder case was actually the first major suit against the Phelps clan – the fanatics who protest at military funerals. Very bad people. Snyder’s victory was well deserved.
Unfortunately, there are far too many people who think it is their right, responsibility, mission, and divine commandment to dictate how everybody else should live their lives. The Wilson case is a prime example of how good intentions can go so terribly wrong when we try to live other people’s lives.
Teddy got it right . . . on that and many other things.

Another contribution:
"The death of BG Paul Warfield Tibbets Jr was reported this side too. He must have suffered emotions far beyond any we can have experienced and yet remained stoical to the end. I wondered if he and his crew were ever given 'counselling'?
"Your case Snyder v. Phelps, $10.9M damages... isn't that an extraordinary amount can anyone manage to pay that sort of money? Is Phelps that religious individual I've heard you talk of before? De-crying the efforts of the military and interrupting military funerals."
My response:
Tibbets never even hinted at any psychological consequence of commanding the first atomic strike; to him, it was just another bombing mission, albeit with a special weapon. Some of his crew did suffer psychological effects, and to my knowledge, they did not have counseling services like we do today.
Re: the Snyder v. Phelps case. Yes, the Phelps clan, of which Fred Phelps is the patriarch, is the group I’ve discussed many times before; they protest against homosexuality at military funerals with the most disgusting signs and shouts. Yes, it is an extraordinary compensatory judgment, but it is also against the Phelps church – the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. Synder’s intention is to dissolve the church and seek all available assets including personal assets of those family members involved. I hope he is successful, but alas, as our ponderous legal system works, undoubtedly, there will be appeals upon appeals, and I suspect Synder may not see a dime of the damages. However, I think he would feel satisfied if the Phelps clan disappeared into the sludge from whence they came.
. . . with this follow-up:
"Keep up your work. We run into our remembrance tide here in U/K. The media have been very kind this year. It's the government that don't give two hoots for the boys and girls coming home. But we will keep on at them.
We have a campaign called the 'broken covenant' I'll give you a briefing on it during the week.
"Our Poppy Appeal is underway and we hope to raise £26,000,000 this year from the public. We spend £75M."
. . . to which I responded:
We can only hope the government soon realizes its obligation to those citizens who freely choose to stand in harm’s way to protect our freedom. Good luck for bountiful success on your annual Poppy Appeal. May God bless all our veterans.

A different contribution:
"I actually had the honor of meeting and interviewing Col. Tibbets a few years ago when he gave a talk at xxxxx. Quite frankly I was in awe that a lowly little reporter from Jersey was standing next to a man who was part of one of the biggest events in the history of the world. Yet he remained rather humble about his role in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Basically, he seemed to regard it as 'just another mission.' The people who rail against the atomic bombings of Japan make me roll my eyes. First, I believe a two-night firebombing of Tokyo in Feb. of '45 killed just as many people, perhaps even more than were killed when we nuked both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And, judging from a very good documentary I saw on how the invasion of Japan would have gone down, way, way, way more people (Both Japanese and Allies) would have died if we had gone ahead with Operations: Olympic & Cornet. While he may never have called himself one, Tibbetts is a hero and it was my distinct privilege to talk with him even for just a few minutes.
"Thanks for including the quote from Teddy Roosevelt. He is one of my all-time favorite historical figures. God, but we need someone like him today . . . of course our 'esteemed' mainstream press would probably rip him apart, but frankly TR would have the big swinging brass ones to tell them to go to hell before slamming down a shot of whiskey in front of them all."
My response:
Fantastic . . . that you got to interview Paul Tibbets; great man. What that generation did -- the scientists of the Manhattan Project along with the flight crews of the “Enola Gay” and “Bockscar,” and all the support personnel including the ill-fated crew of the U.S.S. Indianapolis -- saved vastly more lives, both Japanese and Allied, than they took, on those two days in August 1945.
Teddy was a flawed man, as we all are, but he was an amazing leader.

And yet another contribution:
"Although not a Naval Academy grad, but a former Navy Midshipman, my accolades as well to good ol' Annapolis. I cringe every year with my sister whose kids are ND grads but, as a Husker myself, I do not gloat in other's mire. But it was nice to see the Midshipmen persevere. As for the Huskers....not much to say other than the game???? Was in Lawrence and it was nice to see that their stadium was a significant blue vs. red after all of these years.
"A side note:
"Why is it that we continue to either ignore or fail to recognize what history has taught us? Do we always have to go back centuries to learn that the demise or fall of most great entities comes from within. President Theodore Roosevelt was truly ahead of his time for this generation, but was quite succinct and accurate. How do we get the public, as well as the politicians, to see the forest from the trees (immigrants from the foreigners) and take action to re-enforce what has been known and very well documented by our forefathers? Let's not re-invent the wheel, let's just go to the tire store and do a little maintenance."
My reply:
The best I can say on repeating history is to keep reminding our families, our friends, or anyone who will listen. We will find a way.

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

05 November 2007

Update no.308

Update from the Heartland
No.308
29.10.07 – 4.11.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Brigadier General Paul Warfield Tibbets Jr., USAF (Ret.), pilot-in-command of the U.S. Army Air Corps/Boeing B-29 Super-Fortress, serial number 44-86292, AKA “Enola Gay,” that dropped the first atomic weapon on Hiroshima, Japan [235], passed away at age 92. He remained proud to the end of his contribution to ending World War II. I, for one, am extraordinarily thankful Paul had the courage, confidence, and strength of convictions to do what had to be done. He is in God's hands now.
-- I simply cannot pass this up. Navy beat Notre Dame, 46-44, in triple overtime, in South Bend no less, ending a 43-year drought. Hellava game to watch! The last time Navy beat the Irish, Roger Staubach was the quarterback, and I was two years from entering the Naval Academy. Congratulations to the midshipmen and my alma mater. And, being a Kansan, I am thrilled to report that Kansas beat Nebraska, 76-39, in Lincoln, again, no less. Wow, what a weekend of football!
-- On Tuesday, the jury in the case of Albert Snyder v. Fred W. Phelps, Sr. [DCMD civil action no. RDB-06-1389 (2007)] [235, 307] rendered its judgment, and awarded Snyder -- father of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, USMC (KIA Iraq) -- $2.9 million in compensatory damages, $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy, and $2 million for causing emotional distress. I offer my gratitude to Albert Snyder for doing what many of us have wanted to do. If only Snyder's win was enough to make the Phelps' clan disappear, life would be a little better.
-- An opinion of experts regarding the surveillance immunity issue [211, 232, 307, et al]:
"Surveillance Sanity"
by Benjamin Civiletti, Dick Thornburgh and William Webster
Wall Street Journal
Published: October 31, 2007; page A21
http://www.wsj.com/wsjgate?source=jopinaowsj&URI=/article/0,,SB119379463805177092,00.html%3Fmod%3Dopinion%26ojcontent%3Dotep
You may recognize that all three authors are former attorneys general of the United States, and they have an appropriate and relevant opinion.
-- As the Islamic Republic of Iran continues their brinksmanship gambit and the United States continues its saber-rattling, I note two Strategic Forecasting, Inc. reports that offer illumination.
"War Plans: United States and Iran"
by George Friedman
posted: October 30, 2007; 15:03 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/gir.php?utm_source=071030-GIR&utm_medium=email-strat-html&utm_content=071030-GIR-header-read&utm_campaign=GIR
"Iran's Hezbollah Card"
by Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
posted: October 31, 2007; 19:03 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/tir.php?utm_source=071031-TIR&utm_medium=email-strat-html&utm_content=071031-TIR-header-read&utm_campaign=TIR

The Genarlow Wilson case highlights a common failure in our construction of the law as well as its application. As you will recall from last week [307], Genarlow was convicted of aggravated child molestation for having consensual oral intercourse with a girl two years younger than him; both were minors at the time and the girl was below the age of consent in Georgia (16 years). He was sentenced to 10 years in prison and served two years before the Georgia Supreme Court vacated his sentence {Genarlow Wilson v. State of Georgia [SCGA S07A1606 (2007)]}, as excessive and a violation of the 8th Amendment. The prosecutors and the lower courts stood behind the prosecution, conviction and sentencing, since they were just following the law as written. Juvenile sex crimes, of which this was one, are a prime example of well-intentioned legislatures making laws, executives enforcing the laws, and the courts dispensing justice to the violators. This is also fertile ground for the continuing debate regarding the citizen versus the State, private versus public, and the proper interests of the State. I respectfully submit to a discerning readership, juvenile sex crime laws are just bad law – plain and simple. First, juveniles are minors, not adults, and thus the responsibility of their parents. Second, as such, juvenile conduct is the responsibility of the parents – NOT the State. Third, there was no complaint filed by the 15 year-old girl or her parents [NOTE: there was a rape allegation by another girl (17-year-old) at the same party that was never prosecuted.] Fourth, the conduct in question occurred in a hotel room (presumably paid for by one of the parents), and was not carried out in a public park, street or other public venue.) Lastly, neither of the two participants indicated any harm or injury. Given the above, the State should have had no interest in this case, beyond perhaps an admonishment to the parents regarding proper conduct of their children. But, the Georgia law at the time demanded action. Too many times, our sensitivities are offended; each of us has our beliefs regarding the proper threshold for the sexual awakening and conduct of our children. Instinctively, we demand a law to protect our children, but those laws are invariably indiscriminate – a blunderbuss to swat a gnat – when in fact, the issue is clearly a parental supervision issue, and a matter of private family morals and discipline. The sex education of our children is our responsibility as parents, not that of the State or the law. The sad commentary floats out of the Wilson case documents – none of the parents were even mentioned, not in the background, not in the analysis, and certainly not in the conclusion. We can add in the King Middle School, Portland, Maine, school board decision to offer birth control to students as young as 11 years old; some parents were outraged, and yet they have only themselves to blame. The schools are caught between their bona fide concern for the welfare of the children and complacent, apathetic, disinterested parents. We have allowed, albeit encouraged, the State to supplant proper parental supervision, education and accountability; then, we wonder what happened to our children. Once the State entered that hotel room, that bedroom, there were few limits remaining. We can decry the loose morals of those families involved, but at the end of the day, they are not matters of law – well, at least they should not be concerns of the State. We must hold parents accountable for the conduct of their children until they reach the age of majority.

A contributor sent along this quotation. While it is clearly an American perspective, any nationality could be substituted and the thought remains valid.
“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American . . . . There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag . . . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language . . . and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
-- President Theodore Roosevelt, 1907
Teddy was not speaking in parochial, nationalistic terms to encourage insular patriotism, but to caution the People of this Grand Republic to avoid dilution and dissolution while assimilating a broad spectrum of immigrant cultures. Diversity is part of our strength, like alloyed steel or grafted fruit trees. Yet, we are not a conglomeration; we share common values, common attitudes and characteristics. We are not a quilt with no threads binding us together. Politicians in Washington hold party affinity and affiliation, and parochial political interests above the welfare of this Grand Republic. They seek compromise and conciliation that they perceive garners them the most constituency votes. While they play their little games, the states and the People bear the very real, near-infinite, and onerous burden de facto imposed by a dysfunctional Federal government. Solving the alien invasion crisis is not easy, and there are hard choices that must be made. I condemn both extreme poles on this question, and I condemn those who disparage the moderates seeking a working compromise that gets us something rather than nothing. It is embarrassing that we must erect a massive border wall, but it will buy time, although it is a grotesque affront to local residents and landowners who must suffer because of the failures of the Federal government. As much as I argue against Federalism, here is a task like the national defense, that solely and completely rests upon the Federal government. Teddy Roosevelt was a flawed man, like Winston Churchill, but he was an exceptional American; and, I say, he was spot on a century ago and still valid today.

I submitted the following comment to a recent Patriot Post article.
Re: Patriot Vol. 07, No. 44; dated: 2.November.2007
“Liberal infighting in the Obama camp”
You stated, “Homosexual activists’ ceaseless battle to impose their ‘standards’ on the public . . . .” Would you be so kind to offer a few examples? I suspect if you examine the so-called “homosexual agenda,” as the debate is occasionally labeled, you will find that the only folks trying to impose their standards on the public are those citizens seeking to deny a small portion of our citizens their constitutional “Equal Protection” under the law, and their “Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.” I think you will also find that homosexuals only seek to be treated with dignity and respect, and to be left alone in their Pursuit of Happiness. You referred to Donnie McClurkin’s view that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that can be changed; his notion is all well and good, and I respect Donnie’s opinion. Where we go crosswise occurs when he tries to impose his beliefs on other free, law-abiding, adult citizens. A lifestyle choice is a very personal, private, intimate choice available to every citizen, except when the law condemns one class of citizens for their choices. Homosexuality may be “unacceptable” to 80-90% of all adult Americans, but by what right do they have to impose their will upon the fundamental privacy of every citizen? The courts have struggled to define the State’s interest in deny equal rights to homosexuals; perhaps you would like to take a shot at illuminating the State’s interest in the private choices of an individual citizen that causes no harm or injury. Each and every one of us is guaranteed by the Constitution the right to speak our minds on homosexuality or any other topic; and yet, we have no right to violate another citizen’s equally valid rights. Perhaps we can reach a day where we can respect the freedom of choice of every citizen, not just those we agree with.
Respectfully,
Cap Parlier

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, now that he has abandoned his presidential bid and returned to work in the Senate, withdrew his amendment to the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, attempting to increase funding for the Title V Abstinence-Only Education block grant program (AKA Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)). We have schools trying to dispense condoms and birth control pills to middle school students, juveniles being prosecuted for sex crimes when discovered in experimentation events, and conservative politicians insisting abstinence until marriage is the answer. I have absolutely no problem with abstinence as a personal choice or family practice. Where I get crosswise with these socially conservative programs springs from the lack of informed balance. First, and in my most humble opinion, the sex education of our children belongs within families. However, when so many parents abdicate to the government, our children face a Catch-22 dilemma that leaves them vulnerable. Abstinence is not the answer, something like trying to build a dyke in the middle of a flood. Yet, we are so sexually repressed as a society we cannot debate such sensitive topics as the sex education of our children. Such topics are all wrapped up in the political conflict between extremes that seek to impose their beliefs, their values, and their opinions upon all citizens. Leaving our children vulnerable to the whims of peer pressure, and the progeny of complacent parents is hardly a stable condition.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the appeal of United States v. Williams [11CCA no. 04-15128 (2006); D. C. Docket No. 04-20299-CR-DMM] – a 1st Amendment, child pornography case. Under challenge is the constitutionality of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act) [PL no: 108-21] – the latest attempt by Congress to protect children from pornographic exploitation. Prurient details of this case are nauseating and not worthy of recitation. The salient portion of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision vacated Williams’ conviction for pandering under the PROTECT Act, ruling that the law was too broad and overreaching. I could offer a number of debate topics from the Williams ruling, but I shall confine my argument to the recurring topic of the State versus the citizen. Let it suffice to say, Williams is a slime-ball who deserves to be in prison for a very long time, and in my mind, I can only hope he becomes some big, hairy lifer’s love-buddy; however, our freedom of speech is not to protect speech we agree with, but to protect speech with which we disagree – perhaps even strongly. Men like Williams are clear, proper targets of the PROTECT Act; however, as with so many well-intentioned laws, the potential collateral damage and unintended consequences of such laws are serious threats to our freedom. The difficulty in constructing laws like the PROTECT Act rests on setting our emotions aside and narrowing the focus of the law on the truly aberrant among us. Child pornography is an incendiary topic, far more so than pornography in general, that demands a clear, concise definition of the threshold to protect innocent families from the genuine abusers of children like Williams. I suspect the Supreme Court will find the same ambiguity as illuminated by the 11th Circuit judges. The State’s interest in child pornography rests with the children who are often innocent objects of the material. The difficulty in this highly charged and sensitive area grows from the challenge of determining injury or harm to those who have not reached the age of consent. Further complicating the task is parental involvement as in the Williams case. What is pornographic and obscene to one person is an innocent family photograph to another. So much of this debate and other related debates are deeply entangled by our private views, attitudes and beliefs regarding sexuality and our societal inability to discuss sex in a rational, unemotional, logical manner amongst ourselves or with our children. Is it any surprise that cases like Williams slam us in the gut and stimulate us to lash out at anyone and anything beyond private, monogamous, heterosexual, procreation-only sex within a consenting, married couple?
Odd vicious cycle . . .
We hide sex from our children. We pretend sex does not exist. We refuse to talk to our children or teach them about healthy sex. We are shocked when we learn our children are exploring sex, or God forbid, they are subjected to abuse. (NOTE: by abuse, I mean unwanted, injurious, or harmful.) Ignorance often fosters fear. We set them up for bad situations. Abstinence is perfectly acceptable as family and personal choice, but it is an unstable default state. Then, we pass laws in a desperate attempt to control nature. The sexual education of our children belongs in the home within a family, not in the schools that are often driven by the lowest common denominator. We need to respect the family choices of other citizens, even and perhaps especially when they differ from our choices. Freedom is freedom . . . not some narrow sub-set, in some futile attempt to please everyone. And, most importantly, we must not be passing laws that dictate the moral values and family choices of a segment and impose them upon the whole, and makes adolescent children criminals. Mike Williams belongs in prison; Genarlow Wilson does not.

Comments and contributions from Update no.307:
“Interesting but long 307!
“Let me just respond to your invitation (I would like to hear more about your objection to ‘hate crimes’ laws.)
“The main objection is constitutionally based. I object to the creation, or more accurately, the official recognition of special classes that are self-identified and seeking increased recognition or even advantage. I think garbage men (oops, I mean sanitation engineers of all sexes) are discriminated against, but I do not think a criminal action against one of them is any more or any less of a crime just because it was motivated by the criminal's loathing of garb..., I mean, sanitation engineers. I think the logic is straightforward: a crime is a crime regardless of the victim. Hate is hate, and it is a constitutional right, if not a privilege, to hate or be hated because hatred is a moral issue. Crime is crime, and laws defining it are constitutional if they do not single out certain citizens over others (Hate crime laws do just that). The logic behind hate crime definitions is against the constitutional principles of equal protection, etc., etc. And we know one thing for sure: no such law will ever be repealed. They will just serve as encouragement for more, in a doomed effort to legislate morality. Anti=Latino (oops, do I mean Latin-American or some other hyphenated label) crime will be next. Hey, someday maybe we will be a small enough minority that a crime against a white male will be considered a hate crime. Daddy, are we there yet?
“Maybe it will all even out in the end, but as you say, I could be wrong.”
My response:
I fully acknowledge there are some topics few people have interest in, and there are some topics that really set me off – the State poking its nose into private affairs is one of those topics. Another of those topics is equal treatment under the law for ALL citizens, not just the chosen majority. Sorry that I go on at times.
You are precisely correct. Crime is crime, period. There is nothing about classes of citizens in the Constitution, just like there is nothing about privacy. Where I struggle in this debate rests in reality and the application of state law. I have not heard of any garbage men being beaten to death, or chained behind a pickup truck and dragged to death, just because of someone’s perception of that they did for a living or in the privacy of their bedroom. We could argue . . . murder is murder, plain and simple. However, when states choose not to prosecute some murders as vigorously as other murders because of those same perceptions, then those disadvantaged victims/families/friends do NOT enjoy equal protection under the law. I am not in favor of racial quotes or federal hate crimes laws, but I will argue that homosexuals, or rather non-heterosexuals to be more inclusive, do NOT enjoy equal protection under the law. Hell, we have state constitutional amendments making active, legal, discrimination against some citizens the law. Until they do enjoy equal protection, I shall advocate for them to be a protected class and force the states to treat them with dignity and respect due any citizen in good standing. Theory is great; reality is pain. Neither State law nor Federal law trump a citizen’s fundamental right to Life, Liberty and his Pursuit of happiness. That is my point.

Some follow-up comments regarding Blackwater from previous Updates:
"Looks like some issues have been solved. According to the latest, DoD will take control over State security convoys (see below). In addition, the immunity of the contractors is being reviewed. There appears to be a concerted effort to get a better handle on things, something that should have been done long ago.
"FYI - Blackwater is apparently in hot water over a number of things, including failure to pay taxes on SS, Medicare and other things that employers are supposed to do. Apparently they are claiming that their people are "private contractors" and therefore, they don't have to pay those things. No other security firm does this and it is really dodgy. For one thing if that is the case, then why is Blackwater getting such a high % of overhead for each hour each worker works? I did contract law for the Marine Corps and this is really off the wall. Blackwater leadership has really gotten themselves into a mess on this in actions could be characterized as evasion. Not only may the firm be liable for tens of millions in back taxes, but a criminal case may ensue. Stay tuned."
My response:
I offer no excuses for Blackwater’s administration. I certainly agree. Employment law is there for a reason. If they violated the law, then they should suffer the consequences of their actions.
As I have tried to say previously, I believe the military should have control of all security in a combat zone including border guards and personal security. Where my beef gets rubbed is this something-for-nothing, war on the cheap, attitude and approach that created the conditions that Blackwater et al tried to fill. Placing Blackwater under military RoE without the requested support is just going to get good men killed.
No wonder we have State Dept. employees railing at the prospect of being involuntarily deployed to Iraq.

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