Update from the Heartland
No.327
10.3.08 – 16.3.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.327
10.3.08 – 16.3.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- On 11.March, just a year after assuming command, Admiral William Joseph "Fox" Fallon, USN, Commander-in-Chief Central Command (CinC CentCom), abruptly resigned and retired. I have not read his interview in Esquire magazine. According to Press reports, Fallon was critical of the President's hard stance toward the Islamic Republic of Iran, against the surge in Iraq, and otherwise not particularly aligned with the Commander-in-Chief. Military commanders have a responsibility to speak out on conditions as they see them, within the confines of the chain of command, not in public. Fallon committed a cardinal sin of professional military officers -- public pronouncements. My military network has not been kind to Fallon.
-- Governor Eliot Laurence Spitzer of New York resigned, effective Monday, 17.March.2008, at which time Lieutenant Governor David Alexander Paterson will be sworn in as governor – more on the Spitzer affair below. Eliot was accused, tried, condemned and executed by the Press in the court of public opinion. Americans just love to drool on themselves with a good sex scandal. The hypocrisy of this sordid episode is mind-numbing and nauseating. And, once again we prove, sex sells. The imaginings of the Press and the blogosphere absolutely saturated and over-powered all other topics – the War of Islamic Fascism, Iraq, the presidential primaries, the economy, everything. I guess we can all tell precisely where our priorities lay.
-- The House failed to override the President's veto of the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008 [H.R. 2082; S 1538] [House veto override vote: 225-188-0-17 (290 needed to override)]. The Press reported the offending portion of the bill was:
Title III: General Intelligence Community Matters --
Subtitle C: Other Matters --
(Sec. 327) -- "Prohibits any individual under the custody or control of an IC element, regardless of nationality or physical location, from being subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by the U.S. Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations."
The President did what had to be done. Levying military standards and methods on the Intelligence Community (IC) is naive foolishness. The IC works in an entire different environment and dimension than the professional line military. The IC operatives must have the freedom to use the tools necessary to achieve our national objectives -- it is a secret, nasty business. Let us not try to put lipstick on the pig.
-- Congress seems to have developed a penchant for acronym laws, the latest attempt being the Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007 (RESTORE Act of 2007) [H.R.3773] -- the most recent version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2007 [323]. The House passed the bill [vote: 213-197-1-20 (4)] without the provision for limited immunity for telecommunications companies assisting the war effort; the House vote was not sufficient to overcome the threatened presidential veto.
-- In the continuing saga swirling around the religious-based hatred of the Fred Phelps clan and the Topeka Westboro Baptist Church [190, 262, et al], the State of Kansas took its attempt at condemnation. Kansas passed the Funeral Privacy Act of 2007 [§ 21-4015] and directed the Attorney General to immediately test the new law before the State Supreme Court. The Morrison v. Sebelius ruling [KSSC no. 98,691 (2008)] came on Tuesday, and invalidated a portion of the new law, largely on a procedural separation of powers basis but enough to return the law to the Legislature. My opinion of the anti-Phelps funeral protest laws remains unchanged.
A Wall Street Journal editorial sparked me to return to a Supreme Court case.
"Islam and Its Critics"
Wall Street Journal
Published: March 5, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120467956360312007.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
The applicable and relevant case of interest was Whitney v. California [274 U.S. 357 (1927)] -- a significant First Amendment ruling. The editorial reminded of the wisdom of Associate Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis, from his concurring opinion in the Whitney case.
"The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury to the State. Among free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law, not abridgment of the rights of free speech and assembly."
I started to write about the influence of radical Islamic clerics on the failure of assimilation integration in the Western democracies. The erupting conflagration surrounding the sermons of Reverend Doctor Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago, Illinois, overshadowed the contributions of radical Islamic clerics to world violence. The clips of Wright's sermonic rhetoric are disturbing and disgusting, but it is the identity of one of Wright's parishioners that has drawn the brilliantly intense illumination -- Senator Barack Hussein Obama, junior senator from Illinois and presidential candidate. To my knowledge, Wright has not advocated for violence, but the line seems very close in Wright's inflammatory rhetoric. Yet, Wright has not flirted with the line articulated by Justice Brandeis. So, as we assess and criticize the inflammatory sermonic rhetoric of Islamic and Christian clerics, let us keep the wisdom of Justice Brandeis in our hearts.
Where do I begin? The Press has reported the identification of Client no.9 in a Federal money-laundering and/or tax evasion investigation as none other than Governor Eliot Laurence Spitzer of New York. An entity involved in the investigation was something called the Emperor Club VIP – allegedly a front for a high-end, sophisticated, prostitution ring. The truly sad and tragic part of the Spitzer case, like so many others that have private affairs thrust into the brilliant public spotlight, We, the People, have created an almost un-human environment and unrealistic expectations. We are collectively offended because a political, religious, business or military leader has a normal, healthy libido, and they need and seek satisfaction of that hedonistic aspect of being human. To have their private family affairs put before the public is wrong in the worst, most disgusting manner. If he violated money-laundering laws (the purpose of the original investigation), then prosecute him for his crimes . . . but a customer of prostitution . . . plaaaeeese! There are rumblings that Spitzer may have violated the Mann Act. The lawyers among us know what the Mann Act is, but I suspect many of us do not. What the Press refers to as the Mann Act is actually the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 [PL 61-702], originally enacted to make criminal interstate transportation of women for the purpose of prostitution. The Mann Act has been tested before the Supreme Court and actually expanded by the Court to include non-commercial, immoral acts that enveloped extramarital sex as well {Caminetti v. United States [242 U.S. 470 (1917)]}. Under the Caminetti definition, I suspect we have millions of sinful violators, only prosecuted if they are famous or reach public illumination. I shall resist the urge to launch into another diatribe about the absolute foolishness of attempting to legislate and/or criminalize private conduct including prostitution. Regrettably, Spitzer will soon join a long list of public figures to be bloodied, humiliated and sacrificed at the altar of sanctimonious, hypocritical Puritanism. Before I continue, I must state that there are elements of the Mann Act that are appropriate, reasonable, logical and consistent with the defense of public safety; however, in the main, the Mann Act is just another ludicrous morality law that ruins good lives and families to affirm our sense of moral propriety. Some of the most famous Mann Act convicts were the rock & roll singer Chuck Berry (1959) and heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson (1920). Once again, I state my opinion . . . prostitution should be legalized and regulated for the public good, for a host of reasons – primarily to protect workers and customers, and especially to eliminate the criminal sub-culture. The divine right of Kings no longer entitles royalty to ‘take’ women at their whim. Women and children are no longer chattel of the patriarch. We have matured (a little) as a society and culture to the point that we are moving toward the true vision of the Founders of this Grand Republic that “. . . all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Founders may have thought equality and those unalienable rights only belonged to Caucasian, male, property owners, but they meant that they applied to all human beings. While we continue on the Founders’ journey, we have progressed far beyond 1873, 1896, 1910 and 1920 (although we took a huge step backward in 1970). As a banal metric, the erotic (some will say pornographic) movie “Deep Throat” premiered in mainstream theaters in 1972, and thrust sexually explicit cinema into the public domain; and yet, we survived. The Wild, Wild Web has made pornography available to anyone and everyone who seeks it, and yet we have not morally decayed to a primordial mush. Now, for the record, I am not a fan or advocate for Eliot Spitzer, and if he committed a proper public crime, then he must be held accountable. Yet, to be ruined publicly for being human, I raise my voice in objection. Lastly, there is a huge difference between Spitzer’s transgressions and Slick Willy Clinton’s ‘mistake(s).’ Spitzer reportedly paid his partner for services rendered, while Clinton took abusive advantage of a young woman in his employ and at his mercy. It may not sound like much of a difference to anyone else, but it is to me. When will we ever learn?
What is it about sex and drugs that we get our panties in a knot? We manage, regulate, de-criminalize, and eliminate the criminal sub-culture associated with some other immoral or sinful pursuits. Tobacco delivers one of the most addictive substances known to man; and yet, tobacco has been in popular use for centuries and remains so today, albeit regulated and restricted from minors. Today, sexually explicit pornographic images are just a few mouse-clicks away, and our societal fabric has not been torn. Gambling has become far more accessible today, even right here in the conservative Heartland, far beyond Sin City; and, scads of citizens enjoy the thrill of gambling without destroying their lives. Alcohol has been in use and abused for millennia; it has ruin its fair share of lives and families; we endured and survived an attempt at general prohibition. Tobacco, pornography, gambling and alcohol are readily available virtually anytime, anywhere, and yet, the vast majority of our society abides proper public conduct despite the free availability, and they are not subverted by these readily available sinful pursuits. I recognize and acknowledge the moralistic forces within our society who disapprove of and condemn any usage of tobacco, pornography or alcohol, or participation in gambling. Let them speak their condemnation without using the instruments of State to bludgeon our entire citizenry. All that aside, only a fraction of us allow the sinful pursuits to affect our lives or public safety, and only a mere fraction of that fraction transgress the public – private boundary. Sex and psychotropic substances are not fundamentally different. When we legalize and regulate the sex and drug trade, like we do alcohol and tobacco, we will eliminate the criminal sub-culture that actually causes the majority of societal problems, and we will certainly make it much safer for those who seek or deliver such pleasures. And, I respectfully submit, the legalization of sex and drugs will not produce the ruination of our society or this Grand Republic. Like so many of our citizens who do not use or abuse alcohol or tobacco, most citizens will not use sex or drugs, even if they were readily, freely and openly available. From my biased and opinionated perspective, our society would be richer and safer with legalized and regulated sex and drug trades. Yet, like Dennis Miller so eloquently says, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) aired a 20/20 program titled: "Sex and the Age of Consent," on Friday evening -- an interesting and thought-provoking news program. I will not rehash the Genarlow Wilson case [288, 307], however the 20/20 program illuminates the far broader consequences of how well-meaning morality laws become indiscriminate bludgeons that destroy young lives in a vastly disproportionate manner. Instead of proactively teaching our children early in their lives the healthy place sex should occupy in our lives, we allow them to blindly fumble their way through secretive experiences and sometimes find themselves branded for life -- devastating punishment for a natural and normal human physiological process. I will say that in some of these youthful sex cases the monstrous power of the State inflicts "cruel and unusual punishment" for what should be a private matter and a failure of parenting. Yet, that said, morality crimes should have an added dimension of an aggrieved party to significantly reduce the frequency and disproportional punishment; in the instance of a minor child, the offended party may well and properly should be the parent(s). What bothers me so much about our legal and societal punishment of youthful sex, like drug experimentation, et cetera, comes when we lump youthful sex offenders with real child abusers.
Comments and contributions from Update no.326:
"My appreciation of your purpose and effort grows. I find no significant flaw in your presentation on the issues of this No. 326.
"I do think that those who do become deeply involved in 'grass root' political process, that is local politics, continually, at the pre-primary point then have the opportunity to have their voice (S) heard at the Primary and Final election point. Because most of us simply will not become responsibly involve early on, you are right, we then have virtually no impact on the final election outcome: we in fact become the WHINERS, THE LOSERS, not the WINNERS. As I have previously commented on this early participation is the point that the Democratic Nature of our Governmental process is at work, yet most of us simply do not participate. (After Barack Obama's speech at the 2004 DNC convention, I had decided to support him and actually spent time handing out flyers on the passenger loading platforms on his behalf, for his run for the Senate. The local politics in Illinois were so totally corrupt that the republicans imported Alan Keyes as their candidate to oppose Obama. But as Obama's lack of any depth of understanding or any positive alternatives have became evident in his performance as a Senator, I have come to thoroughly regret my decision. I am disappointed that Mike Huckabee dropped out of the current race; I would like to see him become the V.P. choice; don't think he has had time to evolve to be a good choice for President yet, but think he will if he stays in the process. It appears to me that he has such clear sound thinking; and the capacity to maintain his own faith and conviction/principals without being overbearing about it - he understands and maintains a proper separation of 'State' and Theology. What I have found disturbing is that early on the evangelical community first endorsed Mitt Romney, which I think is a horrible choice, and only after Romney dropped out did they begrudgingly finally endorse Huckabee, but much to late to have any impact on the outcome. I do admire McCain and think he is 'not a bad choice' for President, but think he would be strengthened by having Huckabee on the ticket with him. Though I do see that, like, as I see it, yourself, McCain is more of a 'Neutralist', and the Anti-Christian elements in our population would oppose the ticket with Huckabee on it; so at this point that might not be a winning ticket. The supporters of either or both Clinton or Obama would probably vehemently oppose a ticket with Huckabee on it. That may change though.
"So, the disappointment that I have with the thoughts you expressed in #326 is that because you will not participate in the election of 'Party' candidates then you deny yourself the right to be heard in the Primary elections; does that mean you will also not vote in the Presidential elections?
"A point often left out of discussions of Winners and Losers is what happens to the losers: Even in the 'democratic' process there is for every 'Winner' one or more Losers. What do you see for the lot of the Losers: do they all become spoil sports and simply drop out of the process; do they have a positive place in their respective futures?"
My response:
A couple of clarifications, if you will permit me.
First, the primaries and caucuses are not elections. They are part of an internal, political party, candidate nominating process.
Second, I am an avowed independent or non-partisan. That does not mean I am not paying attention to the nominating process – quite the contrary.
Third, I find little affinity with any of the political parties. As has been demonstrated in graphic terms, political parties simply provide slightly different colors of the same old tripe – big government, largesse, corruption, parochial self-interest, power, imposition upon our freedom. Sorry for such a cynical view, but that is my opinion.
Fourth, I can find good elements in virtually every candidate, and yet none have all positive attributes. After all, they are flawed human beings like us all.
Lastly, just a simple historical reminder . . . Ronald Reagan and John McCain lost their first bids for the presidency; they persevered.
Another comment in a continuing thread:
"Al-Quaeda is not state sponsored. How do you gage state sponsored terrorism? By the statements and actions of a few radicals? Or the result of the actions of the state?
"Foreign Affairs is hardly naive. Extremism is another thing entirely, no matter where it comes from. How do you discount the killing of 100s of thousands of civilians because of the actions of a state which acted under false pretenses? You claim I hate America. You are wrong. I have a problem with the leadership and the followers who condone and then ignore indiscriminate killing.
"On a lighter note, isn't it odd that a famous and powerful politician who was trying to do some good also has a big sex drive? Especially when compared to chickenhawks who get off on bombing third world countries. Talkin’ ‘bout Bush, Cheney, Feith, Rumsfeld, Addington, Wolfowitz, Kristol, Perle, et al. Never catch any of those guys with a call girl, I'll bet."
My reply:
The listing in my 2nd sentence was not meant to be a string of qualifiers linked by an article; the list is separated by commas. You are, of course, precisely correct. Al-Qaeda has absolutely no affiliation with any State, however, they are a terrorist organization like other state-sponsored terrorist organizations, e.g., Hezbollah, Hamas, et cetera. They all advocate for and use violence against innocent civilians to achieve their objectives.
If Foreign Affairs or any organization believes al-Qaeda is more dangerous today, then we are back into an argument of semantics, or they are naïve. Is al-Qaeda dangerous? Yes, absolutely. Yet, the level of awareness, vigilance, and posture of the United States and our Allies is orders of magnitude greater today than seven years ago. They were far more dangerous ten years ago, when they operated virtually without resistance. The implied or presumptive object of the statement was warning of our vulnerability. That is the basis of my objection. We should look at war in balance rather than unilaterally.
I do not believe I ever stated, claimed, or even suggested that you “hate America.” For the record, I make no such claim. I did ask why you feel the United States is the aggressor, the oppressor, the villain on the world stage? That is certainly the impression you have left with me. You have made numerous suggestive claims that the United States has killed 1.5M innocent Iraqis by our alleged illegal battle. I am just trying to understand why you believe that to be so. I do not accuse you of being a liar, or a hate-monger, or any of those other silly labels. I just want to understand.
You shall read of my opinion re: the Spitzer situation in this week’s Update. At a personal level, I agree with you . . . although Wolfie did get caught pretty damn close to having his pants down. Frankly, I’d be happy to contribute taxes for prostitutes to service all our leaders, but I doubt that would be a popular or well-received suggestion.
From a different venue, we have this relevant exchange:
“Unless Spitzer used tax dollars to pay for this stuff he’s not a ‘criminal.’ And to compare him with all the corporate fraudsters is outrageous (those are very REAL criminals). He's got marriage problems. Likely BOTH he and his wife have contributing issues to this reality.”
My response:
If Spitzer used public money, then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The Mann Act is an offense to our freedom, and should be repealed or seriously constricted to apply to only the original intent -- sex slavery; that is clearly not involved in this instance. The money-laundering laws were intended to catch drug dealers, part of another offense upon our freedom -- the Controlled Substances Act of 1970; and once again, clearly not involved here. He may have violated money-laundering law(s) by trying to follow a payment path intended to avoid U.S. banking laws, but only because prostitution is a crime, i.e., we created this crime on fallacious grounds. Hell, the guy was just trying to pay for a good time with a young woman; let's get real.
Second, this is the worst of Puritanistic, moral projectionist, prudish America paralyzed by its own history. Our laws were created by seriously repressed men, who made a moral statement, and none of the other men at the time or since have had the [chutzpah] to stand up and say, no. Virtually all of our sex laws should be repealed. And, prostitution should be legalized, regulated and elevated to a noble professional like doctors and lawyers . . . oh wait, maybe not the latter . . . not so noble.
Third, the sooner we can learn to confine government to the public domain and further only to the proper conduct of government (public safety and fair practices), the sooner we can get passed all these damnable "morality" laws. We have allowed government to penetrate far too deeply into our private affairs, and now that the freakin' camel is IN the tent, we'll have hell to pay getting him out.
Fourth, sex, like so many other "sinful" pursuits, is largely a victimless crime. It is a crime because we made it a crime. But, in today's world and especially in this instance, there were no victims; both participants were adults exercising their pursuit of Happiness and freedom of choice.
Lastly, we have no idea what arrangement or agreement the Spitzer's may have had. Sex is and should be a private matter between the contractual or consenting partners. The government and the public have no business intruding upon our private sexual affairs. So many of these "morality" laws impose criminal sanctions to "protect" the wife and children. The damage to the family, at least from what I've seen so far, rests in the conduct of the government in disclosing this conduct and especially with the Press who sensationalized this private matter.
This offense upon us all by the government should anger us all.
A query:
“Would you agree the Spitzer thing opens up a can of worms in regard to government surveillance of bank records and taping conversations, all due to 9/11, which I think we should be seriously questioning?”
My reply:
The Spitzer affair opened quite a few societal questions, some of which I discuss in this week’s Update. Yes, the Spitzer affair raises the question of government surveillance. At the outset of this discussion, I admit my apprehension regarding the FBI’s use of money-laundering laws to prosecute a prostitution case. Money-laundering laws came into pervasive prominence as a consequence of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 – a genuine and truly oppressive abuse of our freedom. The PATRIOT Act of 2001 sharpened the point and expanded the reach of the blade. The reality is, the Federal government has been watching bank transactions for three plus decades; this is not new. To my knowledge, the FBI did not seek a criminal wiretap warrant until earlier this year or late last year, when the one or more money-laundering flags were tripped. Again, to my knowledge, no intelligence means were involved.
That said, and in an attempt to succinctly state my outrage in this event . . . Someone in the FBI and/or Department of Justice chose to disclose the investigation to the New York Times. Spitzer has been accused, tried, convicted and executed in the court of public opinion by a salacious Press. If he violated money-laundering or corruption laws, let him be charged with those crimes and stand before the bar. Prostitution, the Mann Act of 1910 . . . I am so bloody, freakin’ angry I can hardly see straight. To me, this is the worst of American society . . . our sanctimonious, pseudo-self-righteous, hypocritically moralistic, duplicitous voyeurism is truly nauseating, disgusting and contemptible . . . and besides that I’m really incensed.
I think I can understand why Spitzer chose to resign, however, in deference to the good citizens of New York and Spitzer’s family, I wish he had used his legal prowess to confront all these antiquated, foolish laws that have been and are a grave offense to our liberty and freedom. I want to see more about where the money came from; we may never see the money source. Beyond that, the circular argument the FBI used to ferret out Eliot and the disgusting betrayal of our justice system is the source of my outrage. We have created crimes upon crimes upon crimes to prosecute what should be a private matter . . . but that is who we are. I continue to pray that one day we shall grow up to realize the majesty of our Founding principles. I am an eternal optimist and I have hope.
And, a comment from this article:
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=12526
"This is a piece by Ron Paul that I think, or hope, that you might agree with- and it is the main reason I am so upset about it -- I don't really give a r__'s ass about the sex stuff -- it's the Constitution! and what we've done to it after 9/11."
"Living by the Sword"
by Representative Ron Paul (of Texas)
March 15, 2008
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=12526
My reply:
We seem to use the term "illegal" quite a bit regarding laws we do not like the Mann Act, the Authorization(s) to Use Force, the Controlled Substances Act, and so many others. Yet, in every case I am aware, they are indeed legal. We can argue the constitutionality . . . depending upon our perspective -- fundamental constructionist to living constitutionalist, Federalist to Libertarian.
Paul does have a point. What happened to Spitzer may have been legal, but it was wrong; as he says, "No matter how morally justified his comeuppance may be, his downfall demonstrates the worst of our society." I certainly agree as I have written.
I can also say I agree with his conclusion -- "What we need is more government transparency and more privacy for the individual!" Yet, I summarily reject his path to the objective.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The follow-up news items:
-- On 11.March, just a year after assuming command, Admiral William Joseph "Fox" Fallon, USN, Commander-in-Chief Central Command (CinC CentCom), abruptly resigned and retired. I have not read his interview in Esquire magazine. According to Press reports, Fallon was critical of the President's hard stance toward the Islamic Republic of Iran, against the surge in Iraq, and otherwise not particularly aligned with the Commander-in-Chief. Military commanders have a responsibility to speak out on conditions as they see them, within the confines of the chain of command, not in public. Fallon committed a cardinal sin of professional military officers -- public pronouncements. My military network has not been kind to Fallon.
-- Governor Eliot Laurence Spitzer of New York resigned, effective Monday, 17.March.2008, at which time Lieutenant Governor David Alexander Paterson will be sworn in as governor – more on the Spitzer affair below. Eliot was accused, tried, condemned and executed by the Press in the court of public opinion. Americans just love to drool on themselves with a good sex scandal. The hypocrisy of this sordid episode is mind-numbing and nauseating. And, once again we prove, sex sells. The imaginings of the Press and the blogosphere absolutely saturated and over-powered all other topics – the War of Islamic Fascism, Iraq, the presidential primaries, the economy, everything. I guess we can all tell precisely where our priorities lay.
-- The House failed to override the President's veto of the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008 [H.R. 2082; S 1538] [House veto override vote: 225-188-0-17 (290 needed to override)]. The Press reported the offending portion of the bill was:
Title III: General Intelligence Community Matters --
Subtitle C: Other Matters --
(Sec. 327) -- "Prohibits any individual under the custody or control of an IC element, regardless of nationality or physical location, from being subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by the U.S. Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations."
The President did what had to be done. Levying military standards and methods on the Intelligence Community (IC) is naive foolishness. The IC works in an entire different environment and dimension than the professional line military. The IC operatives must have the freedom to use the tools necessary to achieve our national objectives -- it is a secret, nasty business. Let us not try to put lipstick on the pig.
-- Congress seems to have developed a penchant for acronym laws, the latest attempt being the Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007 (RESTORE Act of 2007) [H.R.3773] -- the most recent version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2007 [323]. The House passed the bill [vote: 213-197-1-20 (4)] without the provision for limited immunity for telecommunications companies assisting the war effort; the House vote was not sufficient to overcome the threatened presidential veto.
-- In the continuing saga swirling around the religious-based hatred of the Fred Phelps clan and the Topeka Westboro Baptist Church [190, 262, et al], the State of Kansas took its attempt at condemnation. Kansas passed the Funeral Privacy Act of 2007 [§ 21-4015] and directed the Attorney General to immediately test the new law before the State Supreme Court. The Morrison v. Sebelius ruling [KSSC no. 98,691 (2008)] came on Tuesday, and invalidated a portion of the new law, largely on a procedural separation of powers basis but enough to return the law to the Legislature. My opinion of the anti-Phelps funeral protest laws remains unchanged.
A Wall Street Journal editorial sparked me to return to a Supreme Court case.
"Islam and Its Critics"
Wall Street Journal
Published: March 5, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120467956360312007.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
The applicable and relevant case of interest was Whitney v. California [274 U.S. 357 (1927)] -- a significant First Amendment ruling. The editorial reminded of the wisdom of Associate Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis, from his concurring opinion in the Whitney case.
"The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury to the State. Among free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law, not abridgment of the rights of free speech and assembly."
I started to write about the influence of radical Islamic clerics on the failure of assimilation integration in the Western democracies. The erupting conflagration surrounding the sermons of Reverend Doctor Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago, Illinois, overshadowed the contributions of radical Islamic clerics to world violence. The clips of Wright's sermonic rhetoric are disturbing and disgusting, but it is the identity of one of Wright's parishioners that has drawn the brilliantly intense illumination -- Senator Barack Hussein Obama, junior senator from Illinois and presidential candidate. To my knowledge, Wright has not advocated for violence, but the line seems very close in Wright's inflammatory rhetoric. Yet, Wright has not flirted with the line articulated by Justice Brandeis. So, as we assess and criticize the inflammatory sermonic rhetoric of Islamic and Christian clerics, let us keep the wisdom of Justice Brandeis in our hearts.
Where do I begin? The Press has reported the identification of Client no.9 in a Federal money-laundering and/or tax evasion investigation as none other than Governor Eliot Laurence Spitzer of New York. An entity involved in the investigation was something called the Emperor Club VIP – allegedly a front for a high-end, sophisticated, prostitution ring. The truly sad and tragic part of the Spitzer case, like so many others that have private affairs thrust into the brilliant public spotlight, We, the People, have created an almost un-human environment and unrealistic expectations. We are collectively offended because a political, religious, business or military leader has a normal, healthy libido, and they need and seek satisfaction of that hedonistic aspect of being human. To have their private family affairs put before the public is wrong in the worst, most disgusting manner. If he violated money-laundering laws (the purpose of the original investigation), then prosecute him for his crimes . . . but a customer of prostitution . . . plaaaeeese! There are rumblings that Spitzer may have violated the Mann Act. The lawyers among us know what the Mann Act is, but I suspect many of us do not. What the Press refers to as the Mann Act is actually the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 [PL 61-702], originally enacted to make criminal interstate transportation of women for the purpose of prostitution. The Mann Act has been tested before the Supreme Court and actually expanded by the Court to include non-commercial, immoral acts that enveloped extramarital sex as well {Caminetti v. United States [242 U.S. 470 (1917)]}. Under the Caminetti definition, I suspect we have millions of sinful violators, only prosecuted if they are famous or reach public illumination. I shall resist the urge to launch into another diatribe about the absolute foolishness of attempting to legislate and/or criminalize private conduct including prostitution. Regrettably, Spitzer will soon join a long list of public figures to be bloodied, humiliated and sacrificed at the altar of sanctimonious, hypocritical Puritanism. Before I continue, I must state that there are elements of the Mann Act that are appropriate, reasonable, logical and consistent with the defense of public safety; however, in the main, the Mann Act is just another ludicrous morality law that ruins good lives and families to affirm our sense of moral propriety. Some of the most famous Mann Act convicts were the rock & roll singer Chuck Berry (1959) and heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson (1920). Once again, I state my opinion . . . prostitution should be legalized and regulated for the public good, for a host of reasons – primarily to protect workers and customers, and especially to eliminate the criminal sub-culture. The divine right of Kings no longer entitles royalty to ‘take’ women at their whim. Women and children are no longer chattel of the patriarch. We have matured (a little) as a society and culture to the point that we are moving toward the true vision of the Founders of this Grand Republic that “. . . all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Founders may have thought equality and those unalienable rights only belonged to Caucasian, male, property owners, but they meant that they applied to all human beings. While we continue on the Founders’ journey, we have progressed far beyond 1873, 1896, 1910 and 1920 (although we took a huge step backward in 1970). As a banal metric, the erotic (some will say pornographic) movie “Deep Throat” premiered in mainstream theaters in 1972, and thrust sexually explicit cinema into the public domain; and yet, we survived. The Wild, Wild Web has made pornography available to anyone and everyone who seeks it, and yet we have not morally decayed to a primordial mush. Now, for the record, I am not a fan or advocate for Eliot Spitzer, and if he committed a proper public crime, then he must be held accountable. Yet, to be ruined publicly for being human, I raise my voice in objection. Lastly, there is a huge difference between Spitzer’s transgressions and Slick Willy Clinton’s ‘mistake(s).’ Spitzer reportedly paid his partner for services rendered, while Clinton took abusive advantage of a young woman in his employ and at his mercy. It may not sound like much of a difference to anyone else, but it is to me. When will we ever learn?
What is it about sex and drugs that we get our panties in a knot? We manage, regulate, de-criminalize, and eliminate the criminal sub-culture associated with some other immoral or sinful pursuits. Tobacco delivers one of the most addictive substances known to man; and yet, tobacco has been in popular use for centuries and remains so today, albeit regulated and restricted from minors. Today, sexually explicit pornographic images are just a few mouse-clicks away, and our societal fabric has not been torn. Gambling has become far more accessible today, even right here in the conservative Heartland, far beyond Sin City; and, scads of citizens enjoy the thrill of gambling without destroying their lives. Alcohol has been in use and abused for millennia; it has ruin its fair share of lives and families; we endured and survived an attempt at general prohibition. Tobacco, pornography, gambling and alcohol are readily available virtually anytime, anywhere, and yet, the vast majority of our society abides proper public conduct despite the free availability, and they are not subverted by these readily available sinful pursuits. I recognize and acknowledge the moralistic forces within our society who disapprove of and condemn any usage of tobacco, pornography or alcohol, or participation in gambling. Let them speak their condemnation without using the instruments of State to bludgeon our entire citizenry. All that aside, only a fraction of us allow the sinful pursuits to affect our lives or public safety, and only a mere fraction of that fraction transgress the public – private boundary. Sex and psychotropic substances are not fundamentally different. When we legalize and regulate the sex and drug trade, like we do alcohol and tobacco, we will eliminate the criminal sub-culture that actually causes the majority of societal problems, and we will certainly make it much safer for those who seek or deliver such pleasures. And, I respectfully submit, the legalization of sex and drugs will not produce the ruination of our society or this Grand Republic. Like so many of our citizens who do not use or abuse alcohol or tobacco, most citizens will not use sex or drugs, even if they were readily, freely and openly available. From my biased and opinionated perspective, our society would be richer and safer with legalized and regulated sex and drug trades. Yet, like Dennis Miller so eloquently says, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) aired a 20/20 program titled: "Sex and the Age of Consent," on Friday evening -- an interesting and thought-provoking news program. I will not rehash the Genarlow Wilson case [288, 307], however the 20/20 program illuminates the far broader consequences of how well-meaning morality laws become indiscriminate bludgeons that destroy young lives in a vastly disproportionate manner. Instead of proactively teaching our children early in their lives the healthy place sex should occupy in our lives, we allow them to blindly fumble their way through secretive experiences and sometimes find themselves branded for life -- devastating punishment for a natural and normal human physiological process. I will say that in some of these youthful sex cases the monstrous power of the State inflicts "cruel and unusual punishment" for what should be a private matter and a failure of parenting. Yet, that said, morality crimes should have an added dimension of an aggrieved party to significantly reduce the frequency and disproportional punishment; in the instance of a minor child, the offended party may well and properly should be the parent(s). What bothers me so much about our legal and societal punishment of youthful sex, like drug experimentation, et cetera, comes when we lump youthful sex offenders with real child abusers.
Comments and contributions from Update no.326:
"My appreciation of your purpose and effort grows. I find no significant flaw in your presentation on the issues of this No. 326.
"I do think that those who do become deeply involved in 'grass root' political process, that is local politics, continually, at the pre-primary point then have the opportunity to have their voice (S) heard at the Primary and Final election point. Because most of us simply will not become responsibly involve early on, you are right, we then have virtually no impact on the final election outcome: we in fact become the WHINERS, THE LOSERS, not the WINNERS. As I have previously commented on this early participation is the point that the Democratic Nature of our Governmental process is at work, yet most of us simply do not participate. (After Barack Obama's speech at the 2004 DNC convention, I had decided to support him and actually spent time handing out flyers on the passenger loading platforms on his behalf, for his run for the Senate. The local politics in Illinois were so totally corrupt that the republicans imported Alan Keyes as their candidate to oppose Obama. But as Obama's lack of any depth of understanding or any positive alternatives have became evident in his performance as a Senator, I have come to thoroughly regret my decision. I am disappointed that Mike Huckabee dropped out of the current race; I would like to see him become the V.P. choice; don't think he has had time to evolve to be a good choice for President yet, but think he will if he stays in the process. It appears to me that he has such clear sound thinking; and the capacity to maintain his own faith and conviction/principals without being overbearing about it - he understands and maintains a proper separation of 'State' and Theology. What I have found disturbing is that early on the evangelical community first endorsed Mitt Romney, which I think is a horrible choice, and only after Romney dropped out did they begrudgingly finally endorse Huckabee, but much to late to have any impact on the outcome. I do admire McCain and think he is 'not a bad choice' for President, but think he would be strengthened by having Huckabee on the ticket with him. Though I do see that, like, as I see it, yourself, McCain is more of a 'Neutralist', and the Anti-Christian elements in our population would oppose the ticket with Huckabee on it; so at this point that might not be a winning ticket. The supporters of either or both Clinton or Obama would probably vehemently oppose a ticket with Huckabee on it. That may change though.
"So, the disappointment that I have with the thoughts you expressed in #326 is that because you will not participate in the election of 'Party' candidates then you deny yourself the right to be heard in the Primary elections; does that mean you will also not vote in the Presidential elections?
"A point often left out of discussions of Winners and Losers is what happens to the losers: Even in the 'democratic' process there is for every 'Winner' one or more Losers. What do you see for the lot of the Losers: do they all become spoil sports and simply drop out of the process; do they have a positive place in their respective futures?"
My response:
A couple of clarifications, if you will permit me.
First, the primaries and caucuses are not elections. They are part of an internal, political party, candidate nominating process.
Second, I am an avowed independent or non-partisan. That does not mean I am not paying attention to the nominating process – quite the contrary.
Third, I find little affinity with any of the political parties. As has been demonstrated in graphic terms, political parties simply provide slightly different colors of the same old tripe – big government, largesse, corruption, parochial self-interest, power, imposition upon our freedom. Sorry for such a cynical view, but that is my opinion.
Fourth, I can find good elements in virtually every candidate, and yet none have all positive attributes. After all, they are flawed human beings like us all.
Lastly, just a simple historical reminder . . . Ronald Reagan and John McCain lost their first bids for the presidency; they persevered.
Another comment in a continuing thread:
"Al-Quaeda is not state sponsored. How do you gage state sponsored terrorism? By the statements and actions of a few radicals? Or the result of the actions of the state?
"Foreign Affairs is hardly naive. Extremism is another thing entirely, no matter where it comes from. How do you discount the killing of 100s of thousands of civilians because of the actions of a state which acted under false pretenses? You claim I hate America. You are wrong. I have a problem with the leadership and the followers who condone and then ignore indiscriminate killing.
"On a lighter note, isn't it odd that a famous and powerful politician who was trying to do some good also has a big sex drive? Especially when compared to chickenhawks who get off on bombing third world countries. Talkin’ ‘bout Bush, Cheney, Feith, Rumsfeld, Addington, Wolfowitz, Kristol, Perle, et al. Never catch any of those guys with a call girl, I'll bet."
My reply:
The listing in my 2nd sentence was not meant to be a string of qualifiers linked by an article; the list is separated by commas. You are, of course, precisely correct. Al-Qaeda has absolutely no affiliation with any State, however, they are a terrorist organization like other state-sponsored terrorist organizations, e.g., Hezbollah, Hamas, et cetera. They all advocate for and use violence against innocent civilians to achieve their objectives.
If Foreign Affairs or any organization believes al-Qaeda is more dangerous today, then we are back into an argument of semantics, or they are naïve. Is al-Qaeda dangerous? Yes, absolutely. Yet, the level of awareness, vigilance, and posture of the United States and our Allies is orders of magnitude greater today than seven years ago. They were far more dangerous ten years ago, when they operated virtually without resistance. The implied or presumptive object of the statement was warning of our vulnerability. That is the basis of my objection. We should look at war in balance rather than unilaterally.
I do not believe I ever stated, claimed, or even suggested that you “hate America.” For the record, I make no such claim. I did ask why you feel the United States is the aggressor, the oppressor, the villain on the world stage? That is certainly the impression you have left with me. You have made numerous suggestive claims that the United States has killed 1.5M innocent Iraqis by our alleged illegal battle. I am just trying to understand why you believe that to be so. I do not accuse you of being a liar, or a hate-monger, or any of those other silly labels. I just want to understand.
You shall read of my opinion re: the Spitzer situation in this week’s Update. At a personal level, I agree with you . . . although Wolfie did get caught pretty damn close to having his pants down. Frankly, I’d be happy to contribute taxes for prostitutes to service all our leaders, but I doubt that would be a popular or well-received suggestion.
From a different venue, we have this relevant exchange:
“Unless Spitzer used tax dollars to pay for this stuff he’s not a ‘criminal.’ And to compare him with all the corporate fraudsters is outrageous (those are very REAL criminals). He's got marriage problems. Likely BOTH he and his wife have contributing issues to this reality.”
My response:
If Spitzer used public money, then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The Mann Act is an offense to our freedom, and should be repealed or seriously constricted to apply to only the original intent -- sex slavery; that is clearly not involved in this instance. The money-laundering laws were intended to catch drug dealers, part of another offense upon our freedom -- the Controlled Substances Act of 1970; and once again, clearly not involved here. He may have violated money-laundering law(s) by trying to follow a payment path intended to avoid U.S. banking laws, but only because prostitution is a crime, i.e., we created this crime on fallacious grounds. Hell, the guy was just trying to pay for a good time with a young woman; let's get real.
Second, this is the worst of Puritanistic, moral projectionist, prudish America paralyzed by its own history. Our laws were created by seriously repressed men, who made a moral statement, and none of the other men at the time or since have had the [chutzpah] to stand up and say, no. Virtually all of our sex laws should be repealed. And, prostitution should be legalized, regulated and elevated to a noble professional like doctors and lawyers . . . oh wait, maybe not the latter . . . not so noble.
Third, the sooner we can learn to confine government to the public domain and further only to the proper conduct of government (public safety and fair practices), the sooner we can get passed all these damnable "morality" laws. We have allowed government to penetrate far too deeply into our private affairs, and now that the freakin' camel is IN the tent, we'll have hell to pay getting him out.
Fourth, sex, like so many other "sinful" pursuits, is largely a victimless crime. It is a crime because we made it a crime. But, in today's world and especially in this instance, there were no victims; both participants were adults exercising their pursuit of Happiness and freedom of choice.
Lastly, we have no idea what arrangement or agreement the Spitzer's may have had. Sex is and should be a private matter between the contractual or consenting partners. The government and the public have no business intruding upon our private sexual affairs. So many of these "morality" laws impose criminal sanctions to "protect" the wife and children. The damage to the family, at least from what I've seen so far, rests in the conduct of the government in disclosing this conduct and especially with the Press who sensationalized this private matter.
This offense upon us all by the government should anger us all.
A query:
“Would you agree the Spitzer thing opens up a can of worms in regard to government surveillance of bank records and taping conversations, all due to 9/11, which I think we should be seriously questioning?”
My reply:
The Spitzer affair opened quite a few societal questions, some of which I discuss in this week’s Update. Yes, the Spitzer affair raises the question of government surveillance. At the outset of this discussion, I admit my apprehension regarding the FBI’s use of money-laundering laws to prosecute a prostitution case. Money-laundering laws came into pervasive prominence as a consequence of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 – a genuine and truly oppressive abuse of our freedom. The PATRIOT Act of 2001 sharpened the point and expanded the reach of the blade. The reality is, the Federal government has been watching bank transactions for three plus decades; this is not new. To my knowledge, the FBI did not seek a criminal wiretap warrant until earlier this year or late last year, when the one or more money-laundering flags were tripped. Again, to my knowledge, no intelligence means were involved.
That said, and in an attempt to succinctly state my outrage in this event . . . Someone in the FBI and/or Department of Justice chose to disclose the investigation to the New York Times. Spitzer has been accused, tried, convicted and executed in the court of public opinion by a salacious Press. If he violated money-laundering or corruption laws, let him be charged with those crimes and stand before the bar. Prostitution, the Mann Act of 1910 . . . I am so bloody, freakin’ angry I can hardly see straight. To me, this is the worst of American society . . . our sanctimonious, pseudo-self-righteous, hypocritically moralistic, duplicitous voyeurism is truly nauseating, disgusting and contemptible . . . and besides that I’m really incensed.
I think I can understand why Spitzer chose to resign, however, in deference to the good citizens of New York and Spitzer’s family, I wish he had used his legal prowess to confront all these antiquated, foolish laws that have been and are a grave offense to our liberty and freedom. I want to see more about where the money came from; we may never see the money source. Beyond that, the circular argument the FBI used to ferret out Eliot and the disgusting betrayal of our justice system is the source of my outrage. We have created crimes upon crimes upon crimes to prosecute what should be a private matter . . . but that is who we are. I continue to pray that one day we shall grow up to realize the majesty of our Founding principles. I am an eternal optimist and I have hope.
And, a comment from this article:
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=12526
"This is a piece by Ron Paul that I think, or hope, that you might agree with- and it is the main reason I am so upset about it -- I don't really give a r__'s ass about the sex stuff -- it's the Constitution! and what we've done to it after 9/11."
"Living by the Sword"
by Representative Ron Paul (of Texas)
March 15, 2008
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=12526
My reply:
We seem to use the term "illegal" quite a bit regarding laws we do not like the Mann Act, the Authorization(s) to Use Force, the Controlled Substances Act, and so many others. Yet, in every case I am aware, they are indeed legal. We can argue the constitutionality . . . depending upon our perspective -- fundamental constructionist to living constitutionalist, Federalist to Libertarian.
Paul does have a point. What happened to Spitzer may have been legal, but it was wrong; as he says, "No matter how morally justified his comeuppance may be, his downfall demonstrates the worst of our society." I certainly agree as I have written.
I can also say I agree with his conclusion -- "What we need is more government transparency and more privacy for the individual!" Yet, I summarily reject his path to the objective.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment