Update from the Heartland
No.308
29.10.07 – 4.11.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
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 :-)
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 :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment