Update from the Heartland
No.338
26.5.08 – 1.6.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.338
26.5.08 – 1.6.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
A number of folks requested a picture of our newest dog, Abby Rose. Here ya go. She is 10 weeks old this weekend. Abby is blending in with our other animals quite nicely.
A number of folks requested a picture of our newest dog, Abby Rose. Here ya go. She is 10 weeks old this weekend. Abby is blending in with our other animals quite nicely.
Our Newest Addition
[Abby Rose 080531.jpg]
[Abby Rose 080531.jpg]
The follow-up news items:
-- Former Representative Bob Barr [336] received the nomination of the Libertarian Party for the presidency of the United States, last Sunday. He joins the group in this year's silly season.
-- I am afraid I must conclude that Pat Buchanan has lost his freakin’ mind. He publicly stated, “If there had been no war, there would have been no Holocaust.” Pat, a history lesson perhaps . . . The Holocaust began in 1933 – six months after Hitler became chancellor – with the unanimous passage of the “The Law for the Protection of Hereditary Health” – the first of the so-called Nürnberg Laws. Shortly thereafter, Nazi SS goons began killing Jews and other ‘undesirables.’ The war in Europe began in 1939, or we might argue it became inevitable in 1938. Nonetheless, the last time I considered numbers, 1933 came well before 1939. I can respect Pat being against war as an instrument of statehood, but he cannot rewrite history.
-- The Texas Supreme Court rendered swift judgment in the polygamy child-abuse case [332] – In re Texas Department of Family and Protective Services [TX SC no. 08-0391 (2008)] – the State’s appeal of the In re Sara Steed [TX 3CA, no. 03-08-00235-CV (2008)] ruling [337]. The Texas high court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision and vacated the district court ruling. I doubt the State will attempt to make a constitutional case for appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but considering the emotions involved in this case, I would not be surprised.
Late last Sunday evening, 25.May.2008, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory successfully descended the Phoenix Mars Lander to the surface of 4th rock from the Sun, near the northern ice cap at about 68 degrees latitude (I actually thought it would be spotted at a little higher latitude). Within hours of landing, the remote geological and meteorological station began transmitting signals and images from the surface. Another stunning success for NASA, it seems. I eagerly await the big news.
On Saturday, the Space Shuttle Discovery successfully launched into orbit enroute to the International Space Station with a Japanese science module and a plunger for the toilet. Even high tech needs a plumber from time to time.
The House passed the Farm Bill Extension Act of 2007 last July [231-191-0-10 (3)]. The Senate passed the bill with amendments in December [79-14-7], putting the bill into conference committee for reconciliation. The President threatened to veto the bill because of excessive spending. Then, the House passed the reconciled bill [318-106-0-10 (1)], and the Senate passed the bill against the President's threat [81-15-4]. The President did indeed veto the bill as too expensive and pork-laded, and had to force Congress, despite the obvious margins, to go on the record as overriding his veto. Congress promptly passed the morphed and reinforced version of the bill -- Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 -- into public law [PL 110-234], overriding the President’s veto [House: 316-108-0-11 (0); Senate: 82-13-1-4 (0)]. Despite all the public attention on out-of-control spending, the obscene largess of Congress continues. I imagine there are valuable and necessary elements of the Farm Bill, but my impression from the text and the unseen earmarks is the vast majority are handouts from the public Treasury to rich farmers and pseudo-farmers, who hardly need the assistance.
It took two months to render an opinion in the case of United States v. Ressam [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 07-455] – a comparatively short time for Supreme Court decisions. This was the final appeal of Algerian Ahmed Ressam, AKA faux-Canadian Benni Noris, the terrorist intent upon bombing Los Angeles International Airport. Ahmed was arrested at the Customs Checkpoint, Port Angeles, Washington, on 14.December.1999. Although not factually relevant to the government’s prosecution, Ahmed planned his attack to coincide with the millennium celebration. The Court’s unusually brief ruling is best summarized by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas’ entire concurring opinion; “Because the plain language of the statute squarely answers the question presented in this case, I join only Part I of the Court's opinion.” The foundation of the Court’s reversal of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling rested upon the meaning of the word ‘during,’ as in ‘at the same time.’ Ressam was arrested for a felony charge of false customs declaration, and agents found in his car at the time of his arrest a large amount of explosive materials along with timer and detonator devices, thus he had explosives in his possession at the time he committed a felony in violation of the law. As with many court decisions, the true understanding of judicial proclamations often comes to us in the dissenting opinion(s). In Ressam, the sole dissenter was Associate Justice Stephen Gerald Breyer, who wrote, “My problem with the Court's interpretation is that it would permit conviction of any individual who legally carries explosives at the time that he engages in a totally unrelated felony.” In light of the recent Virginia v. Moore [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-1082] [334], it appears the Court is heading down the path of strengthening the government’s search and seizure powers, further constraining the 4th Amendment’s protections for citizens. Ahmed Ressam deserved the full weight of the law. My worry remains rogue prosecutors who use terrorism laws in vindictive, abusive ways for political purposes.
Last October [308], I reviewed an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding an unusually sensitive Freedom of Speech case – United States v. Williams [11CCA no. 04-15128 (2006); D.C. Docket no. 04-20299-CR-DMM] – as the Supreme Court heard the final appeal. Under challenge was the constitutionality of the Federal Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act) [PL no: 108-21]. The Court rendered their opinion on May 19th -- United States v. Williams [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-694] -- and reversed the 11th Circuit's decision, thus upholding the constitutionality of the PROTECT Act, and de facto negating the Court’s earlier ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition [535 U.S. 234 (2002)] [308]. The law under which Michael Williams was tried, convicted and sentenced was Title 18 USC §2252A(a)(3)(B) that reads in part: “distributes . . . any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains . . .” Associate Justice David Souter, in his dissenting opinion, said, “We should hold that a transaction in what turns out to be fake pornography is better understood, not as an incomplete attempt to commit a crime, but as a completed series of intended acts that simply do not add up to a crime, owing to the privileged character of the material the parties were in fact about to deal in.” Further, he said, “When, as here, a protected category of expression would inevitably be suppressed and its First Amendment safeguard left pointless, the Government has the burden to justify this damage to free speech.” Souter concluded, referring to Brandenburg v. Ohio [395 U.S. 444 (1969)], “Brandenburg unmistakably insists that any limit on speech be grounded in a realistic, factual assessment of harm. This is a far cry from the Act before us now, which rests criminal prosecution for proposing transactions in expressive material on nothing more than a speaker's statement about the material itself, a statement that may disclose no more than his own belief about the subjects represented or his desire to foster belief in another. This should weigh heavily in the overbreadth balance, because ‘First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.’ {Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition [535 U.S. 234 (2002)]}” It is extraordinarily easy for most of us to embrace laws like the PROTECT Act and judicial pronouncements like Williams, after all, hey, none of this nastiness involves me. And, I respectfully submit to a reasoning audience, such judgment is analogous to the sheep being led to slaughter . . . by the time he figures it out, it is too late. I doubt anyone would fail or hesitate to condemn Michael Williams for his abusive and contemptible conduct, but the evil of men like Williams does not justify the extraordinarily intrusive nature and potential of the sweeping Williams affirmation of the PROTECT Act. The Court fails to recognize or even acknowledge (nor can they) the extraordinary damage that can be done by just the public accusation alone, not to mention the stigma attached to going to trial before a jury on such charges. The Court verges upon cavalier when it says, regarding potential capricious accusations, “The prosecutions would be thrown out at the threshold,” as if charges and trial for pandering in child pornography is no big deal. The Federalist vision of Antonin the Impaler, and in this case the majority of the Court, chills me to the bone. Add this ruling to others:
Hudson v. Michigan [547 U.S. 586 (2006); no. 04-1360] [236], and
Virginia v. Moore [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-1082] [334], among others,
we see a Court quite comfortable with enormous, virtually unchecked power in the hands of the Executive. Given a moralist administration equally comfortable wielding the massive instruments of State, I find little comfort in the Williams ruling. With the judgment or testimony of any, individual, police officer, probable cause becomes the door opener as in Moore, then the State obtains broad latitude, not unlimited, to search for and apply laws that further their objectives for whatever reason they may have from personal vendetta to political suppression. As with so many well-intentioned laws like the PROTECT Act, the Law of Unintended Consequences is often in full bloom, in that we don’t mind ruining hundreds of lives to nab each Michael Williams. The struggle the law has in this arena rests in the quasi-public nature of the Internet. In fact, the Internet by its very definition is considered part of the public domain. While the initial transmission of a message or image may be point-to-point, and not quite as public as a shout across the street, Internet traffic is easily intercepted, and messages are subject to unbounded retransmission. The fluid, open nature of the Internet makes the specter of Federal “Thought Police” particularly ominous. The PROTECT Act makes criminal and the Court has affirmed the very notion, which allows very broad latitude for police and prosecutors to reach deeply into the recesses of the Wild, Wild Web. Oceania cannot be far behind! That said, please do not misinterpret my words . . . what Michael Williams did was disgusting, vile, odious, and deserved the full condemnation of society; he deserves to be lock away for a very long time or as long as he lives as some yard goon’s love-buddy. The difficult part of our deliberations in the context of such despicable individuals remains finding a balance between the reach of the instruments of State versus the rights and freedom of all citizens. We could easily trivialize this case, id est, Williams was a bad man and the law caught him, but in so doing, we seriously diminish our precious freedom of speech. Further, in the face of the massive weight of the State, the threshold of legal defense affordability moves farther away and “equal justice under the law” a more distant ideal. Once again, we have the Court sanctioning the use of a thermonuclear device when a hammer would be quite sufficient for the task.
Comments and contributions from Update no.337:
"Rottweilers are great dogs regardless of how THE OMEN portrayed them, like Damien. My ex-girlfriend had two rotts (that I raised and cared for), and my aunt had one. They are wonderful dogs and usually very protective of children. In fact, they seem to like children more than many breeds, able to handle the things kids will do like loud noises, accidentally steeping on their paws, pulling on ears, etc. If they engage a true threat, they have biting PSI power similar to pit bulls (maybe a little less). They also don’t bark a whole lot prior to an attack, thus why many police agencies do not use them for K-9 services. The original German Shepard works well because s/he will bark up a storm which often is enough to get the foe to show hands or stop running.
"I was rather dismayed with Sharon Stone . She is probably more New Age than traditional Christian. Yet what it is purported that she said is outrageous. She said the Chinese probably had that earthquake coming out of 'karma' because of how they treat the Tibetans. I cannot believe she said that. While I agree that the Tibetans have suffered from the Chinese, I do not believe Karma, God, Christ, Allah, Jehovah, or the gods, would be so silly like us humans, to do those kinds of things to the Chinese. I hope Sharon Stone has some kind of reply to the thousands of parents, if not tens of thousands, "And I am glad to read you did not rush to conclusions like our media did before the children were being removed. And even CNN’s Nancy Grace who I don’t care for, was already denouncing/deploring the Texas 3rd District Appellate Court for their decision/opinion.
"I know many people in my town, some family, who voted for Bush-II both times!!!!!! On the basis they think he is good because he is 'Christian.'
"I had someone write me and say 'why are you so quiet about the same-sex marriage decision in California, why are you not sending out your dissent or getting materials to oppose the homosexuals?' Well, while I have mixed feelings about same-sex marriage, I believe we have much greater threats and issues in America. And if this topic is elevated to a polarized point for the next president, we will thus miss addressing much more important issues.
"As I grow and get older, I try with an open heart to understand Christ’s core teachings. I have a harder time interpreting this from the traditional Christian platform where if anything, many of the messages seem almost contrary to Christ.
"I believe a majority vote, in California, could get a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Eventually, the hot potato, will go through lawsuit to the U.S. Supreme Court, and there they will be required to finally rule. On the merits of the 14th Amendment, I believe they will decide very similar to your description above.
"Or worse, Pat Robertson dictating the definition, conduct, content, behavior, rules, of all our marriages.
"John McCain went onto the Ellen Show on last Thursday. While he is entitled to his opinion, he said he was against same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, back to the power of media, one of my relatives switched her mind on McCain from that one simple statement. She did not really care for him, but since she is a Christian who attends a fundamentalist church, she thought that was just apple pie with McCain that he would be so bold. I might ask her to look into the Keating Five and many other vague or reversals in positions and platforms by McCain, but I don’t want to rain on the parade. I love my aunt, but get sad to see people make decisions on the most important issues of our day, from a simple 5-10 minute interview on a popular TV program.
"Great way with words of seeing this differently than it is typically portrayed, that is of a bipolar-only or binary (0/1) interpretation of our Constitution.
"Thank you Cap for your open minded analysis of so many issues. And citing your sources (on those court opinions/cases) is helpful, along with URL references, I know that takes time to gather the trail-backs (thank God for the ‘Net though!)."
My response:
Good points on Rottweilers. Often maligned and misunderstood. We’ve had great fortune with the breed. And, we’ve found, if you give any dog lots of love from the first moments to the last, they respond multifold. Although I was against getting another dog and especially a puppy, Jeanne does a remarkable job finding dogs with exceptional personalities. Abby Rose fits into that mold nicely.
I had not heard Sharon Stone’s pronouncement, but hers was comparable to so many celebrities . . . lacking logic and reason, hardly cerebral.
One of a myriad of public benefits to the Internet . . . instant access to judicial decisions from the Supreme Court down to the district courts, and in some case even down to state and local courts. The Judiciary has a profound and prolonged impact on our lives, and it is important to understand the meaning – disastrous case in point, the Controlled Substances Act and the Court’s abuse of the Commerce Clause to amplify the intrusiveness of government. So much happened beyond public scrutiny prior to the Internet. Now, we can keep a closer eye on things.
On the FLDS case, I’ve written more this week, so rather than repeat it here, I’ll leave it for this week’s Update.
Voting for or against someone based on religion is just as bad as voting for anyone based on their attractive appearance, or gender, or any of the other social factors, for that matter.
McCain has his flaws, just as we all do. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate, just as there is no perfect person. I see goodness and bad in all of them without exception. I rarely decide who will get my vote until the night before an election. I suspect it will be that way this time as well. While I have professed my praise for George where appropriate, in the main, he has been a HUGE disappointment. I eagerly await the end of his administration. And, I am sad to say, almost anything will surely be better.
I understand your reticence regarding same-sex marriage; you are in the majority. As you have read, I am not so reserved. For many years, I have used a surgical scalpel to understand the relationship between government and citizen, between public and private, between proper and improper. I also see homosexuals, or rather non-heterosexuals, as a seriously abused class, perennially denied “equal justice under the law.” As I have written, I did not raise my voice against racial inequality, injustice and bigotry in the 50’s & 60’s; I vowed to not fail that test again. Sexual orientation is a private, personal matter – at worst, one of the social factors – and not a proper topic of public or governmental concern. I speak out at every opportunity for homosexual rights because they deserve my activism, and we must get government out of our private lives. Again, as I have written, I have seen little effort expended to define the State’s interest to justify the extraordinary intrusion into the private lives of citizens in such issues as marriage. As I write this week, just because the majority votes it, does not make it right or constitutional. There is a very real, palpable reason why amending the Federal Constitution is so difficult; simple majority rule can so easily become mob rule. This Grand Republic has and will continue to stand for individual freedom – NOT majority freedom.
I share your view on the often simplistic, superficial reasons for which we vote for one candidate over another. Another factor is how we frame the question. If we have a ballot question that says, do you believe marriage should be between a man and a woman? We know how the majority will vote. If the same question is asked in a different manner like, do you think equal rights should be denied to certain citizens based on their private choices for a marriage partner? I would hope the majority would see the issue in a different light. I could be disappointed, but I have hope.
A good friend on mine has consistently claimed that a candidate’s choices for the Supreme Court are vastly more important than the temporal issues of the moment . . . by far. I have been and continue to be the most critical of Antonin Scalia, and yet he is a person I would love to have dinner and a nice long chat with because he is so clear in his writing. Yet, the thought of another Antonin or Clarence on the Court sends a bone-chilling cold throughout my body and soul. That is why I pay attention to what these particular men and women say, write and think.
Another contribution:
"The 'Obama is a Muslim' meme is indeed odious for a number of reasons. For one thing, it is reminiscent of the Nazis campaign against the Jews. Obama's father and grandfather were Muslims-- ergo, he is a Muslim, even if he has been a practicing Christian for decades. This is akin to the Nazis considering a person with any Jewish ancestry a Jew, even if he/she was an active Christian. One could be a Lutheran minister (priest) or a devout Catholic, and have had ancestors who had served loyally in the Kaiser's military, but nonetheless still be considered- and treated as- a 'Jew.' Not a good precedent to follow, and something these people should be reminded of.
"Also, regarding McCain being called 'McBush' or 'Bush III' - some of that can be traced to what he himself has said in a number of political statements-- notably so about Iraq and the future judiciary. It is a bit confusing, since on one hand he portrays himself as a 'maverick' and his own man, and other hand, he has tied himself seamlessly to policies of the incumbent, and has promised to follow them in his own administration. In trying to lock in a faction of his party, he is putting himself in the position of being called 'McBush' - by members of even his own party, who are unhappy with their situation."
My reply:
Well said, and spot on . . . concur without qualification to the first part.
However, on the second part . . . McCain is and will be walking a fine line in trying to hold a dysfunctional Republican Party together for the election, but he is hardly a Bush clone. John resisted the rush to war before the trigger pull on IRAQI FREEDOM, as you recall, but once committed, he moved to wage war successfully. He also criticized the conduct of the administration, especially with regard to insufficient troops for the operation. John has defied the administration on numerous issues. He is one of a handful of senators who consistently crosses the aisle to find solutions. W. has talked the talk, but certainly has NOT walked the walk – therein lies the difference and why I object to the McBush political rhetoric.
. . . a follow-up comment:
"The problem is that he has appeared to have morphed from a critic and 'maverick' to a strong supporter of the Administration. It is a bit surprising and disappointing, but according to CQ (Congressional Quarterly), McCain has voted with the President 100% in 2008 and 95% in 2007. The totals are below. He was indeed a 'maverick' in 2005, voting against the President 77% of the time, which is pretty significant. When you add the recent revelation that his main economic advisor is Phil Gramm, who spearheaded the deregulation when he was in the Senate that lead to Enron and the present mortgage crisis (and the fact that he was lobbying for UBS at the same time he was advising McCain), you have to wonder how much he really represents change. This aspect also brings up McCain's part in the Keating Five. McCain may have been critical at times, but he has too often fallen back in line when it comes time to vote. I am not so certain about his being bipartisan, especially in the last few years. Just my opinion, and to be frank, a disappointing one.
"Support Oppose
2008 (through May 15, 2008) 100% 0%
2007 95% 5%
2006 89% 11%
2005 77% 23%
2004 92% 8%
2003 91% 9%
2002 90% 10%
2001 91% 9%
"Good luck on the new puppy. We just inherited another cat from one of our kids and are integrating him into our herd."
. . . and my follow-up comment:
I’m not quite sure how such statistics are determined. Regardless, I do not see voting with the President as a bad thing; the President has not been wrong on everything . . . some things, yes, but not all. So, from a committed independent, it is hard to judge the pro’s & con’s. John argued against invading Iraq, but in the end, he voted for the Use of Force Authorization, just as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry did. To my, albeit limited, knowledge, John continued to argue against the publicly disclosed plan, saying, as General Shinseki said, the allocated forces were insufficient. But, once the trigger was pulled, he kept his public words in support of the President, while he argued for more troops. Even when the surge was being discussed in late 2006, he argued that we needed more troops than the administration was planning to allocate. John has not shied away from those areas where he has agreed with the President and supported the administration, but I think we can all see he intends to take a fundamentally different path to governance than W. took. And, I truly believe he will do what he has done in the Senate . . . try to find bipartisan solutions to difficult problems, rather than W’s ‘damn the torpedoes’ approach. The Keating Five fiasco was the closest McCain came to a political death sentence and not undeservedly . . . if you will allow the double negative. But, he also learned and became a better legislator as a result. I admire McCain’s efforts to put things before the public, e.g., campaign-spending, earmarks, etc. As I’ve said, he is not perfect, but painting him as McBush or Bush III is just flat wrong, and just as silly as attempting to paint Hillary as Slick Willy Jr. That said, the part that remains the most worrisome to me is his potential selling of his soul to the uber-Right and evangelicals regarding Supreme Court nominations. While I admire the writing of Roberts, Scalia and such, I often disagree strongly with their interpretation of the law and the Constitution. Putting more of like-minded jurists on the Court would not bode well for many elements of our lives we take for granted today. I do worry about the War, the economy, security, the largess with the Treasury, political ethics, governance, et al, but it is the evolving Federalist bent of the blooming Roberts’ Court that has been, is and will remain issue no.1 for me.
Another contribution:
"I'm looking forward to the next Update from the Heartland. I'm interested to hear your comments on the McClellan book.
"For my part it's a validation from an insider of what I always knew to be true about the Bush White House. Bush's vision of himself as a transformer of the Middle East rings true. To bad he didn't think things through a bit instead of going with his gut."
My response:
I have not read McClellan's book, and I probably won't, just as I've not read the Sanchez' book, or the plethora of other kiss & tell books from insiders. I usually turn to a historian's perspective at least one or preferably more steps removed from the subject. Those who are immersed are generally far from objective and driven by understandable self-interest.
Given that preface and my admission of having read nary a word, I do have an opinion. Surprise, surprise! My opinion to date is based on the myriad of Press reports and several interviews with McCellan. My take . . .
Last time I checked, the Press Secretary is not even an ex officio member of the National Security Council or the Cabinet. I do not doubt the veracity of McClellan's statements of fact. Yet, as with all points of history, so much depends upon perspective. We read the exact words of the Constitution, and we get diametrically opposed outcomes -- the beauty and curse of the English language. So part of the story goes, McClellan's manuscript submittal was uninspiring and editors coaxed him to sex it up; the editors knew precisely what would sell books.
That said, I am not a fan of George W. Bush -- never have been, never will be. And yet, he is President of the United States of America, and I respect that office and his position in that office. We have discussed the positives and negatives of his presidency, and there will be more of both before it's over.
. . . a follow-up comment:
"In listening to the interviews with him (and I've seen most of them) you can get some insight into the prism through which he views events. Taking that into account, I believe it's possible to gain a closer glimpse into the internal workings than ever before. In terms of the impact of the publisher, while probably not zero, his adamacy that he wrote what he believes, leads me to think that the meaning of the book was unaltered. I do think that he is representative of the kind of people Bush hired. People over their heads and incapable of confronting him on issues where they disagreed... ideologically compatible and loyal rather than experienced, self-confident professionals. I think that is a key flaw in this President and ultimately his undoing.
"Actually, the desire on the part of Bush to transform the Middle East and the assertion that he was maneuvered by others in the White House (deliberately or not) makes him seem somewhat less malevolent. I still look forward to having a Commander-in-Chief that is worthy of the nobility of the troops."
. . . and my follow-up response:
Certainly, McClellan gives us a view, and that is valuable.
George has many flaws, as we all do. He also has his admirable attributes, as at least a few of us have. When I reflect upon the last seven years and anticipate the remainder of his administration, the negatives exceed the positives. There are perhaps many reasons for his failures, but at the end of the day, it comes down to his leadership and management style. He is accountable.
Another contribution:
"The beauty though for the Brits, is they typically have short commute lengths, and drive small cars.
"My friend and his wife, just bought a Toyota car that looks like it came from London. It starts with an 'L' and they call it a Euro car class car. The problem with these very small but economical cars, is safety, if one were unfortunate enough to come up against a truck or SUV. Many people just look at the size of a car and think about the safety issues, but in addition to that one must consider weight and weight differences with between colliding vehicles. I'm sure you have seen the tragic pictures of a fully loaded tractor-trailer that has come up again a small car, it is not a pretty sight, and you can look at the grill of the tractor and it looks like small damage.
"But back on the fuel issue, it is one of the biggest levers on our economy besides inflation and taxation. The current or next president's administration better work on the true economic stimulus, which is to get the fuel prices down. A few days ago the price of crude dropped a bit, and our own market (DOW) went up that day. We need a 'recovery' and I believe the first step would be to get the fuel prices back down, while concurrently working on the 10 other most important items affecting the biggest cross section of producers in our economy, their spending, their investments, their outlook, and thus our economy. Then work on the next 10 problems, next 10, and on and on. With a rising unemployment rate, depreciating home values, increasing delinquencies on mortgage, car and credit card debt, lowering savings/investment values, and rising overall costs, obviously they better get busy.
"Back on oil though, if this is a global supply & demand issue, along with global speculative investors producing a bubble effect, we could be in for some rough air. In all honesty, I believe there is too many variables with uncertainty, so even experts are arguing about the true influencers to the cost of oil/fuel."
My reply:
More significantly, for the Brits, they have a good mass transit infrastructure. We lived in Hatfield, north of London, and we always too the Rail and Underground into London, and then walked wherever we needed to go. I typically took the Rail north as well. I only drove from Hatfield to Chester once, when there was a Rail strike, as I recall.
The diminutive Smart Car has reportedly done quite well in crash tests, which is contrary to an intuitive assessment. Innovative engineering can make the small cars even safer.
I am not so sure reducing fuel prices is a good thing. This economic shock, along with the potential of global warming, has forced us to look at more durable alternatives. Sure, I would like the government to investigate the possible abusive influence of the speculators and traders, but frankly I would prefer to hold our fossil rule reserves, while we execute a national, Manhattan-Project-like, Energy Project, to develop renewable, durable, clean energy sources. I have begun writing my opinion for next week’s Update.
We have endured difficult economic times before – the Great Depression (before my time), the 1973 Oil Crisis, the 1988 Savings-and-Loan Crisis, the 9/11 aftermath. We will survive the current rendition.
A different contribution:
"While I generally believe the military should not recruit anyone with a felony record, I do think some public discourse is required on the class of felon and stigma attached. With military though, the history/character/conduct of both enlisted and officer is integral to their respect and integration into a system that is centered on trust and judgment. Plus if word gets out to let's say the Iraqi public, that we have past criminals in the armed forces, just think how that will influence their respect for the difficult mission there, perhaps working house-to-house or walking patrol on a busy street.
"A felony that involves threat of, or actual violence against others, or sex crimes, seems to me to be the felons I am referring to. Repeat offenders too.
"However, felons convicted of drug charges, especially in possession cases, I believe should have some kind of opportunity to reform and clean up their record. In our times of databases, data warehousing, information availability and technology, anyone with a felony record is quickly discovered whether an prospective employee, house sitter, renter, debtor, insurance customer, bank customer, or romantic interest. And because of this, these individuals often cannot get a break in life, even after serving prison time.
"A gal I knew had this uncle, he was convicted for drug possession and felony class. He cleaned up his act, went through rehab., and became a much more productive citizen. His felony was in another state some 20 years ago. She told me he went to Home Depot to apply for a job, honestly answered their question about the felony, and was immediately denied any further processing as a potential new hire. So the uncle went to K-Mart, was not as honest as he should have been, marked 'no' on the felony history, got interviewed and hired, and was enjoying his minimum wage work, but 5 months into the job, his manager called him in and said 'we have to fire you, we like you and your work, but you lied on your application and our corporate office caught up with your history when they finally did a background check.' He said to the manager 'what would have happened if I said yes on the felony 5 months ago?' and the manager said, 'we would not have hired you.'
"My ex-girlfriend is a probation officer (had another one who is a patrol officer). I've never been arrested or in jail, but we spent much time talking about whether the correction system really reforms or equips prisoners for when they are released. I'm sure many learn from the experience and never want to go back, but then when they get out, they are penalized by our system and cannot find good jobs, cannot find a home, cannot open bank accounts. And then some end up down and out and resort back to crimes. Obviously the guys that are going to get out and repeat their crimes, especially involving violence, need to be kept away from civilized society. Another area where some probationers or parolees get themselves in trouble are something like not reporting an address change, can get them hooked back up. Leaving the state for let's say a nice little Las Vegas weekend, can get them arrested and re-jailed. So what I am saying is that it seems the judicial-corrections system almost provides no incentive for reform with a fresh start and opportunity, while having too much potential to be caught back into the system. State governors are now discussing pre-releasing thousands of felons back into the general population because of the excessive cost of housing prisoners. But were they reformed? Admittedly I don't think some criminals can ever be reformed, they will resort to their criminal and/or violent tendencies regardless. I suppose with fair application, the California 3-Strikes Law has helped to incarcerate those that find normalcy in crime.
"So if the military is taking in some limited felony-record recruits, but K-Mart and Home Depot will not hire those people, that is an interesting situation.
"I believe many people in life deserve a reboot or fresh start. While some people have abused the bankruptcy code, others have resorted to it in distress and repaid an agreed debt, reorganized and rebuilt. Why keep penalizing some felons after they have served time, paid restitution, reformed, and proven to parole and/or probation officials that they are no longer involved in any of the activities that got them down the prior path? These same individuals might likely be fit and also able to benefit from let's say a military path, but I am not sure how others in military would view that."
-- Former Representative Bob Barr [336] received the nomination of the Libertarian Party for the presidency of the United States, last Sunday. He joins the group in this year's silly season.
-- I am afraid I must conclude that Pat Buchanan has lost his freakin’ mind. He publicly stated, “If there had been no war, there would have been no Holocaust.” Pat, a history lesson perhaps . . . The Holocaust began in 1933 – six months after Hitler became chancellor – with the unanimous passage of the “The Law for the Protection of Hereditary Health” – the first of the so-called Nürnberg Laws. Shortly thereafter, Nazi SS goons began killing Jews and other ‘undesirables.’ The war in Europe began in 1939, or we might argue it became inevitable in 1938. Nonetheless, the last time I considered numbers, 1933 came well before 1939. I can respect Pat being against war as an instrument of statehood, but he cannot rewrite history.
-- The Texas Supreme Court rendered swift judgment in the polygamy child-abuse case [332] – In re Texas Department of Family and Protective Services [TX SC no. 08-0391 (2008)] – the State’s appeal of the In re Sara Steed [TX 3CA, no. 03-08-00235-CV (2008)] ruling [337]. The Texas high court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision and vacated the district court ruling. I doubt the State will attempt to make a constitutional case for appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but considering the emotions involved in this case, I would not be surprised.
Late last Sunday evening, 25.May.2008, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory successfully descended the Phoenix Mars Lander to the surface of 4th rock from the Sun, near the northern ice cap at about 68 degrees latitude (I actually thought it would be spotted at a little higher latitude). Within hours of landing, the remote geological and meteorological station began transmitting signals and images from the surface. Another stunning success for NASA, it seems. I eagerly await the big news.
On Saturday, the Space Shuttle Discovery successfully launched into orbit enroute to the International Space Station with a Japanese science module and a plunger for the toilet. Even high tech needs a plumber from time to time.
The House passed the Farm Bill Extension Act of 2007 last July [231-191-0-10 (3)]. The Senate passed the bill with amendments in December [79-14-7], putting the bill into conference committee for reconciliation. The President threatened to veto the bill because of excessive spending. Then, the House passed the reconciled bill [318-106-0-10 (1)], and the Senate passed the bill against the President's threat [81-15-4]. The President did indeed veto the bill as too expensive and pork-laded, and had to force Congress, despite the obvious margins, to go on the record as overriding his veto. Congress promptly passed the morphed and reinforced version of the bill -- Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 -- into public law [PL 110-234], overriding the President’s veto [House: 316-108-0-11 (0); Senate: 82-13-1-4 (0)]. Despite all the public attention on out-of-control spending, the obscene largess of Congress continues. I imagine there are valuable and necessary elements of the Farm Bill, but my impression from the text and the unseen earmarks is the vast majority are handouts from the public Treasury to rich farmers and pseudo-farmers, who hardly need the assistance.
It took two months to render an opinion in the case of United States v. Ressam [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 07-455] – a comparatively short time for Supreme Court decisions. This was the final appeal of Algerian Ahmed Ressam, AKA faux-Canadian Benni Noris, the terrorist intent upon bombing Los Angeles International Airport. Ahmed was arrested at the Customs Checkpoint, Port Angeles, Washington, on 14.December.1999. Although not factually relevant to the government’s prosecution, Ahmed planned his attack to coincide with the millennium celebration. The Court’s unusually brief ruling is best summarized by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas’ entire concurring opinion; “Because the plain language of the statute squarely answers the question presented in this case, I join only Part I of the Court's opinion.” The foundation of the Court’s reversal of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling rested upon the meaning of the word ‘during,’ as in ‘at the same time.’ Ressam was arrested for a felony charge of false customs declaration, and agents found in his car at the time of his arrest a large amount of explosive materials along with timer and detonator devices, thus he had explosives in his possession at the time he committed a felony in violation of the law. As with many court decisions, the true understanding of judicial proclamations often comes to us in the dissenting opinion(s). In Ressam, the sole dissenter was Associate Justice Stephen Gerald Breyer, who wrote, “My problem with the Court's interpretation is that it would permit conviction of any individual who legally carries explosives at the time that he engages in a totally unrelated felony.” In light of the recent Virginia v. Moore [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-1082] [334], it appears the Court is heading down the path of strengthening the government’s search and seizure powers, further constraining the 4th Amendment’s protections for citizens. Ahmed Ressam deserved the full weight of the law. My worry remains rogue prosecutors who use terrorism laws in vindictive, abusive ways for political purposes.
Last October [308], I reviewed an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding an unusually sensitive Freedom of Speech case – United States v. Williams [11CCA no. 04-15128 (2006); D.C. Docket no. 04-20299-CR-DMM] – as the Supreme Court heard the final appeal. Under challenge was the constitutionality of the Federal Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act) [PL no: 108-21]. The Court rendered their opinion on May 19th -- United States v. Williams [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-694] -- and reversed the 11th Circuit's decision, thus upholding the constitutionality of the PROTECT Act, and de facto negating the Court’s earlier ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition [535 U.S. 234 (2002)] [308]. The law under which Michael Williams was tried, convicted and sentenced was Title 18 USC §2252A(a)(3)(B) that reads in part: “distributes . . . any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains . . .” Associate Justice David Souter, in his dissenting opinion, said, “We should hold that a transaction in what turns out to be fake pornography is better understood, not as an incomplete attempt to commit a crime, but as a completed series of intended acts that simply do not add up to a crime, owing to the privileged character of the material the parties were in fact about to deal in.” Further, he said, “When, as here, a protected category of expression would inevitably be suppressed and its First Amendment safeguard left pointless, the Government has the burden to justify this damage to free speech.” Souter concluded, referring to Brandenburg v. Ohio [395 U.S. 444 (1969)], “Brandenburg unmistakably insists that any limit on speech be grounded in a realistic, factual assessment of harm. This is a far cry from the Act before us now, which rests criminal prosecution for proposing transactions in expressive material on nothing more than a speaker's statement about the material itself, a statement that may disclose no more than his own belief about the subjects represented or his desire to foster belief in another. This should weigh heavily in the overbreadth balance, because ‘First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.’ {Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition [535 U.S. 234 (2002)]}” It is extraordinarily easy for most of us to embrace laws like the PROTECT Act and judicial pronouncements like Williams, after all, hey, none of this nastiness involves me. And, I respectfully submit to a reasoning audience, such judgment is analogous to the sheep being led to slaughter . . . by the time he figures it out, it is too late. I doubt anyone would fail or hesitate to condemn Michael Williams for his abusive and contemptible conduct, but the evil of men like Williams does not justify the extraordinarily intrusive nature and potential of the sweeping Williams affirmation of the PROTECT Act. The Court fails to recognize or even acknowledge (nor can they) the extraordinary damage that can be done by just the public accusation alone, not to mention the stigma attached to going to trial before a jury on such charges. The Court verges upon cavalier when it says, regarding potential capricious accusations, “The prosecutions would be thrown out at the threshold,” as if charges and trial for pandering in child pornography is no big deal. The Federalist vision of Antonin the Impaler, and in this case the majority of the Court, chills me to the bone. Add this ruling to others:
Hudson v. Michigan [547 U.S. 586 (2006); no. 04-1360] [236], and
Virginia v. Moore [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-1082] [334], among others,
we see a Court quite comfortable with enormous, virtually unchecked power in the hands of the Executive. Given a moralist administration equally comfortable wielding the massive instruments of State, I find little comfort in the Williams ruling. With the judgment or testimony of any, individual, police officer, probable cause becomes the door opener as in Moore, then the State obtains broad latitude, not unlimited, to search for and apply laws that further their objectives for whatever reason they may have from personal vendetta to political suppression. As with so many well-intentioned laws like the PROTECT Act, the Law of Unintended Consequences is often in full bloom, in that we don’t mind ruining hundreds of lives to nab each Michael Williams. The struggle the law has in this arena rests in the quasi-public nature of the Internet. In fact, the Internet by its very definition is considered part of the public domain. While the initial transmission of a message or image may be point-to-point, and not quite as public as a shout across the street, Internet traffic is easily intercepted, and messages are subject to unbounded retransmission. The fluid, open nature of the Internet makes the specter of Federal “Thought Police” particularly ominous. The PROTECT Act makes criminal and the Court has affirmed the very notion, which allows very broad latitude for police and prosecutors to reach deeply into the recesses of the Wild, Wild Web. Oceania cannot be far behind! That said, please do not misinterpret my words . . . what Michael Williams did was disgusting, vile, odious, and deserved the full condemnation of society; he deserves to be lock away for a very long time or as long as he lives as some yard goon’s love-buddy. The difficult part of our deliberations in the context of such despicable individuals remains finding a balance between the reach of the instruments of State versus the rights and freedom of all citizens. We could easily trivialize this case, id est, Williams was a bad man and the law caught him, but in so doing, we seriously diminish our precious freedom of speech. Further, in the face of the massive weight of the State, the threshold of legal defense affordability moves farther away and “equal justice under the law” a more distant ideal. Once again, we have the Court sanctioning the use of a thermonuclear device when a hammer would be quite sufficient for the task.
Comments and contributions from Update no.337:
"Rottweilers are great dogs regardless of how THE OMEN portrayed them, like Damien. My ex-girlfriend had two rotts (that I raised and cared for), and my aunt had one. They are wonderful dogs and usually very protective of children. In fact, they seem to like children more than many breeds, able to handle the things kids will do like loud noises, accidentally steeping on their paws, pulling on ears, etc. If they engage a true threat, they have biting PSI power similar to pit bulls (maybe a little less). They also don’t bark a whole lot prior to an attack, thus why many police agencies do not use them for K-9 services. The original German Shepard works well because s/he will bark up a storm which often is enough to get the foe to show hands or stop running.
"I was rather dismayed with Sharon Stone . She is probably more New Age than traditional Christian. Yet what it is purported that she said is outrageous. She said the Chinese probably had that earthquake coming out of 'karma' because of how they treat the Tibetans. I cannot believe she said that. While I agree that the Tibetans have suffered from the Chinese, I do not believe Karma, God, Christ, Allah, Jehovah, or the gods, would be so silly like us humans, to do those kinds of things to the Chinese. I hope Sharon Stone has some kind of reply to the thousands of parents, if not tens of thousands, "And I am glad to read you did not rush to conclusions like our media did before the children were being removed. And even CNN’s Nancy Grace who I don’t care for, was already denouncing/deploring the Texas 3rd District Appellate Court for their decision/opinion.
"I know many people in my town, some family, who voted for Bush-II both times!!!!!! On the basis they think he is good because he is 'Christian.'
"I had someone write me and say 'why are you so quiet about the same-sex marriage decision in California, why are you not sending out your dissent or getting materials to oppose the homosexuals?' Well, while I have mixed feelings about same-sex marriage, I believe we have much greater threats and issues in America. And if this topic is elevated to a polarized point for the next president, we will thus miss addressing much more important issues.
"As I grow and get older, I try with an open heart to understand Christ’s core teachings. I have a harder time interpreting this from the traditional Christian platform where if anything, many of the messages seem almost contrary to Christ.
"I believe a majority vote, in California, could get a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Eventually, the hot potato, will go through lawsuit to the U.S. Supreme Court, and there they will be required to finally rule. On the merits of the 14th Amendment, I believe they will decide very similar to your description above.
"Or worse, Pat Robertson dictating the definition, conduct, content, behavior, rules, of all our marriages.
"John McCain went onto the Ellen Show on last Thursday. While he is entitled to his opinion, he said he was against same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, back to the power of media, one of my relatives switched her mind on McCain from that one simple statement. She did not really care for him, but since she is a Christian who attends a fundamentalist church, she thought that was just apple pie with McCain that he would be so bold. I might ask her to look into the Keating Five and many other vague or reversals in positions and platforms by McCain, but I don’t want to rain on the parade. I love my aunt, but get sad to see people make decisions on the most important issues of our day, from a simple 5-10 minute interview on a popular TV program.
"Great way with words of seeing this differently than it is typically portrayed, that is of a bipolar-only or binary (0/1) interpretation of our Constitution.
"Thank you Cap for your open minded analysis of so many issues. And citing your sources (on those court opinions/cases) is helpful, along with URL references, I know that takes time to gather the trail-backs (thank God for the ‘Net though!)."
My response:
Good points on Rottweilers. Often maligned and misunderstood. We’ve had great fortune with the breed. And, we’ve found, if you give any dog lots of love from the first moments to the last, they respond multifold. Although I was against getting another dog and especially a puppy, Jeanne does a remarkable job finding dogs with exceptional personalities. Abby Rose fits into that mold nicely.
I had not heard Sharon Stone’s pronouncement, but hers was comparable to so many celebrities . . . lacking logic and reason, hardly cerebral.
One of a myriad of public benefits to the Internet . . . instant access to judicial decisions from the Supreme Court down to the district courts, and in some case even down to state and local courts. The Judiciary has a profound and prolonged impact on our lives, and it is important to understand the meaning – disastrous case in point, the Controlled Substances Act and the Court’s abuse of the Commerce Clause to amplify the intrusiveness of government. So much happened beyond public scrutiny prior to the Internet. Now, we can keep a closer eye on things.
On the FLDS case, I’ve written more this week, so rather than repeat it here, I’ll leave it for this week’s Update.
Voting for or against someone based on religion is just as bad as voting for anyone based on their attractive appearance, or gender, or any of the other social factors, for that matter.
McCain has his flaws, just as we all do. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate, just as there is no perfect person. I see goodness and bad in all of them without exception. I rarely decide who will get my vote until the night before an election. I suspect it will be that way this time as well. While I have professed my praise for George where appropriate, in the main, he has been a HUGE disappointment. I eagerly await the end of his administration. And, I am sad to say, almost anything will surely be better.
I understand your reticence regarding same-sex marriage; you are in the majority. As you have read, I am not so reserved. For many years, I have used a surgical scalpel to understand the relationship between government and citizen, between public and private, between proper and improper. I also see homosexuals, or rather non-heterosexuals, as a seriously abused class, perennially denied “equal justice under the law.” As I have written, I did not raise my voice against racial inequality, injustice and bigotry in the 50’s & 60’s; I vowed to not fail that test again. Sexual orientation is a private, personal matter – at worst, one of the social factors – and not a proper topic of public or governmental concern. I speak out at every opportunity for homosexual rights because they deserve my activism, and we must get government out of our private lives. Again, as I have written, I have seen little effort expended to define the State’s interest to justify the extraordinary intrusion into the private lives of citizens in such issues as marriage. As I write this week, just because the majority votes it, does not make it right or constitutional. There is a very real, palpable reason why amending the Federal Constitution is so difficult; simple majority rule can so easily become mob rule. This Grand Republic has and will continue to stand for individual freedom – NOT majority freedom.
I share your view on the often simplistic, superficial reasons for which we vote for one candidate over another. Another factor is how we frame the question. If we have a ballot question that says, do you believe marriage should be between a man and a woman? We know how the majority will vote. If the same question is asked in a different manner like, do you think equal rights should be denied to certain citizens based on their private choices for a marriage partner? I would hope the majority would see the issue in a different light. I could be disappointed, but I have hope.
A good friend on mine has consistently claimed that a candidate’s choices for the Supreme Court are vastly more important than the temporal issues of the moment . . . by far. I have been and continue to be the most critical of Antonin Scalia, and yet he is a person I would love to have dinner and a nice long chat with because he is so clear in his writing. Yet, the thought of another Antonin or Clarence on the Court sends a bone-chilling cold throughout my body and soul. That is why I pay attention to what these particular men and women say, write and think.
Another contribution:
"The 'Obama is a Muslim' meme is indeed odious for a number of reasons. For one thing, it is reminiscent of the Nazis campaign against the Jews. Obama's father and grandfather were Muslims-- ergo, he is a Muslim, even if he has been a practicing Christian for decades. This is akin to the Nazis considering a person with any Jewish ancestry a Jew, even if he/she was an active Christian. One could be a Lutheran minister (priest) or a devout Catholic, and have had ancestors who had served loyally in the Kaiser's military, but nonetheless still be considered- and treated as- a 'Jew.' Not a good precedent to follow, and something these people should be reminded of.
"Also, regarding McCain being called 'McBush' or 'Bush III' - some of that can be traced to what he himself has said in a number of political statements-- notably so about Iraq and the future judiciary. It is a bit confusing, since on one hand he portrays himself as a 'maverick' and his own man, and other hand, he has tied himself seamlessly to policies of the incumbent, and has promised to follow them in his own administration. In trying to lock in a faction of his party, he is putting himself in the position of being called 'McBush' - by members of even his own party, who are unhappy with their situation."
My reply:
Well said, and spot on . . . concur without qualification to the first part.
However, on the second part . . . McCain is and will be walking a fine line in trying to hold a dysfunctional Republican Party together for the election, but he is hardly a Bush clone. John resisted the rush to war before the trigger pull on IRAQI FREEDOM, as you recall, but once committed, he moved to wage war successfully. He also criticized the conduct of the administration, especially with regard to insufficient troops for the operation. John has defied the administration on numerous issues. He is one of a handful of senators who consistently crosses the aisle to find solutions. W. has talked the talk, but certainly has NOT walked the walk – therein lies the difference and why I object to the McBush political rhetoric.
. . . a follow-up comment:
"The problem is that he has appeared to have morphed from a critic and 'maverick' to a strong supporter of the Administration. It is a bit surprising and disappointing, but according to CQ (Congressional Quarterly), McCain has voted with the President 100% in 2008 and 95% in 2007. The totals are below. He was indeed a 'maverick' in 2005, voting against the President 77% of the time, which is pretty significant. When you add the recent revelation that his main economic advisor is Phil Gramm, who spearheaded the deregulation when he was in the Senate that lead to Enron and the present mortgage crisis (and the fact that he was lobbying for UBS at the same time he was advising McCain), you have to wonder how much he really represents change. This aspect also brings up McCain's part in the Keating Five. McCain may have been critical at times, but he has too often fallen back in line when it comes time to vote. I am not so certain about his being bipartisan, especially in the last few years. Just my opinion, and to be frank, a disappointing one.
"Support Oppose
2008 (through May 15, 2008) 100% 0%
2007 95% 5%
2006 89% 11%
2005 77% 23%
2004 92% 8%
2003 91% 9%
2002 90% 10%
2001 91% 9%
"Good luck on the new puppy. We just inherited another cat from one of our kids and are integrating him into our herd."
. . . and my follow-up comment:
I’m not quite sure how such statistics are determined. Regardless, I do not see voting with the President as a bad thing; the President has not been wrong on everything . . . some things, yes, but not all. So, from a committed independent, it is hard to judge the pro’s & con’s. John argued against invading Iraq, but in the end, he voted for the Use of Force Authorization, just as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry did. To my, albeit limited, knowledge, John continued to argue against the publicly disclosed plan, saying, as General Shinseki said, the allocated forces were insufficient. But, once the trigger was pulled, he kept his public words in support of the President, while he argued for more troops. Even when the surge was being discussed in late 2006, he argued that we needed more troops than the administration was planning to allocate. John has not shied away from those areas where he has agreed with the President and supported the administration, but I think we can all see he intends to take a fundamentally different path to governance than W. took. And, I truly believe he will do what he has done in the Senate . . . try to find bipartisan solutions to difficult problems, rather than W’s ‘damn the torpedoes’ approach. The Keating Five fiasco was the closest McCain came to a political death sentence and not undeservedly . . . if you will allow the double negative. But, he also learned and became a better legislator as a result. I admire McCain’s efforts to put things before the public, e.g., campaign-spending, earmarks, etc. As I’ve said, he is not perfect, but painting him as McBush or Bush III is just flat wrong, and just as silly as attempting to paint Hillary as Slick Willy Jr. That said, the part that remains the most worrisome to me is his potential selling of his soul to the uber-Right and evangelicals regarding Supreme Court nominations. While I admire the writing of Roberts, Scalia and such, I often disagree strongly with their interpretation of the law and the Constitution. Putting more of like-minded jurists on the Court would not bode well for many elements of our lives we take for granted today. I do worry about the War, the economy, security, the largess with the Treasury, political ethics, governance, et al, but it is the evolving Federalist bent of the blooming Roberts’ Court that has been, is and will remain issue no.1 for me.
Another contribution:
"I'm looking forward to the next Update from the Heartland. I'm interested to hear your comments on the McClellan book.
"For my part it's a validation from an insider of what I always knew to be true about the Bush White House. Bush's vision of himself as a transformer of the Middle East rings true. To bad he didn't think things through a bit instead of going with his gut."
My response:
I have not read McClellan's book, and I probably won't, just as I've not read the Sanchez' book, or the plethora of other kiss & tell books from insiders. I usually turn to a historian's perspective at least one or preferably more steps removed from the subject. Those who are immersed are generally far from objective and driven by understandable self-interest.
Given that preface and my admission of having read nary a word, I do have an opinion. Surprise, surprise! My opinion to date is based on the myriad of Press reports and several interviews with McCellan. My take . . .
Last time I checked, the Press Secretary is not even an ex officio member of the National Security Council or the Cabinet. I do not doubt the veracity of McClellan's statements of fact. Yet, as with all points of history, so much depends upon perspective. We read the exact words of the Constitution, and we get diametrically opposed outcomes -- the beauty and curse of the English language. So part of the story goes, McClellan's manuscript submittal was uninspiring and editors coaxed him to sex it up; the editors knew precisely what would sell books.
That said, I am not a fan of George W. Bush -- never have been, never will be. And yet, he is President of the United States of America, and I respect that office and his position in that office. We have discussed the positives and negatives of his presidency, and there will be more of both before it's over.
. . . a follow-up comment:
"In listening to the interviews with him (and I've seen most of them) you can get some insight into the prism through which he views events. Taking that into account, I believe it's possible to gain a closer glimpse into the internal workings than ever before. In terms of the impact of the publisher, while probably not zero, his adamacy that he wrote what he believes, leads me to think that the meaning of the book was unaltered. I do think that he is representative of the kind of people Bush hired. People over their heads and incapable of confronting him on issues where they disagreed... ideologically compatible and loyal rather than experienced, self-confident professionals. I think that is a key flaw in this President and ultimately his undoing.
"Actually, the desire on the part of Bush to transform the Middle East and the assertion that he was maneuvered by others in the White House (deliberately or not) makes him seem somewhat less malevolent. I still look forward to having a Commander-in-Chief that is worthy of the nobility of the troops."
. . . and my follow-up response:
Certainly, McClellan gives us a view, and that is valuable.
George has many flaws, as we all do. He also has his admirable attributes, as at least a few of us have. When I reflect upon the last seven years and anticipate the remainder of his administration, the negatives exceed the positives. There are perhaps many reasons for his failures, but at the end of the day, it comes down to his leadership and management style. He is accountable.
Another contribution:
"The beauty though for the Brits, is they typically have short commute lengths, and drive small cars.
"My friend and his wife, just bought a Toyota car that looks like it came from London. It starts with an 'L' and they call it a Euro car class car. The problem with these very small but economical cars, is safety, if one were unfortunate enough to come up against a truck or SUV. Many people just look at the size of a car and think about the safety issues, but in addition to that one must consider weight and weight differences with between colliding vehicles. I'm sure you have seen the tragic pictures of a fully loaded tractor-trailer that has come up again a small car, it is not a pretty sight, and you can look at the grill of the tractor and it looks like small damage.
"But back on the fuel issue, it is one of the biggest levers on our economy besides inflation and taxation. The current or next president's administration better work on the true economic stimulus, which is to get the fuel prices down. A few days ago the price of crude dropped a bit, and our own market (DOW) went up that day. We need a 'recovery' and I believe the first step would be to get the fuel prices back down, while concurrently working on the 10 other most important items affecting the biggest cross section of producers in our economy, their spending, their investments, their outlook, and thus our economy. Then work on the next 10 problems, next 10, and on and on. With a rising unemployment rate, depreciating home values, increasing delinquencies on mortgage, car and credit card debt, lowering savings/investment values, and rising overall costs, obviously they better get busy.
"Back on oil though, if this is a global supply & demand issue, along with global speculative investors producing a bubble effect, we could be in for some rough air. In all honesty, I believe there is too many variables with uncertainty, so even experts are arguing about the true influencers to the cost of oil/fuel."
My reply:
More significantly, for the Brits, they have a good mass transit infrastructure. We lived in Hatfield, north of London, and we always too the Rail and Underground into London, and then walked wherever we needed to go. I typically took the Rail north as well. I only drove from Hatfield to Chester once, when there was a Rail strike, as I recall.
The diminutive Smart Car has reportedly done quite well in crash tests, which is contrary to an intuitive assessment. Innovative engineering can make the small cars even safer.
I am not so sure reducing fuel prices is a good thing. This economic shock, along with the potential of global warming, has forced us to look at more durable alternatives. Sure, I would like the government to investigate the possible abusive influence of the speculators and traders, but frankly I would prefer to hold our fossil rule reserves, while we execute a national, Manhattan-Project-like, Energy Project, to develop renewable, durable, clean energy sources. I have begun writing my opinion for next week’s Update.
We have endured difficult economic times before – the Great Depression (before my time), the 1973 Oil Crisis, the 1988 Savings-and-Loan Crisis, the 9/11 aftermath. We will survive the current rendition.
A different contribution:
"While I generally believe the military should not recruit anyone with a felony record, I do think some public discourse is required on the class of felon and stigma attached. With military though, the history/character/conduct of both enlisted and officer is integral to their respect and integration into a system that is centered on trust and judgment. Plus if word gets out to let's say the Iraqi public, that we have past criminals in the armed forces, just think how that will influence their respect for the difficult mission there, perhaps working house-to-house or walking patrol on a busy street.
"A felony that involves threat of, or actual violence against others, or sex crimes, seems to me to be the felons I am referring to. Repeat offenders too.
"However, felons convicted of drug charges, especially in possession cases, I believe should have some kind of opportunity to reform and clean up their record. In our times of databases, data warehousing, information availability and technology, anyone with a felony record is quickly discovered whether an prospective employee, house sitter, renter, debtor, insurance customer, bank customer, or romantic interest. And because of this, these individuals often cannot get a break in life, even after serving prison time.
"A gal I knew had this uncle, he was convicted for drug possession and felony class. He cleaned up his act, went through rehab., and became a much more productive citizen. His felony was in another state some 20 years ago. She told me he went to Home Depot to apply for a job, honestly answered their question about the felony, and was immediately denied any further processing as a potential new hire. So the uncle went to K-Mart, was not as honest as he should have been, marked 'no' on the felony history, got interviewed and hired, and was enjoying his minimum wage work, but 5 months into the job, his manager called him in and said 'we have to fire you, we like you and your work, but you lied on your application and our corporate office caught up with your history when they finally did a background check.' He said to the manager 'what would have happened if I said yes on the felony 5 months ago?' and the manager said, 'we would not have hired you.'
"My ex-girlfriend is a probation officer (had another one who is a patrol officer). I've never been arrested or in jail, but we spent much time talking about whether the correction system really reforms or equips prisoners for when they are released. I'm sure many learn from the experience and never want to go back, but then when they get out, they are penalized by our system and cannot find good jobs, cannot find a home, cannot open bank accounts. And then some end up down and out and resort back to crimes. Obviously the guys that are going to get out and repeat their crimes, especially involving violence, need to be kept away from civilized society. Another area where some probationers or parolees get themselves in trouble are something like not reporting an address change, can get them hooked back up. Leaving the state for let's say a nice little Las Vegas weekend, can get them arrested and re-jailed. So what I am saying is that it seems the judicial-corrections system almost provides no incentive for reform with a fresh start and opportunity, while having too much potential to be caught back into the system. State governors are now discussing pre-releasing thousands of felons back into the general population because of the excessive cost of housing prisoners. But were they reformed? Admittedly I don't think some criminals can ever be reformed, they will resort to their criminal and/or violent tendencies regardless. I suppose with fair application, the California 3-Strikes Law has helped to incarcerate those that find normalcy in crime.
"So if the military is taking in some limited felony-record recruits, but K-Mart and Home Depot will not hire those people, that is an interesting situation.
"I believe many people in life deserve a reboot or fresh start. While some people have abused the bankruptcy code, others have resorted to it in distress and repaid an agreed debt, reorganized and rebuilt. Why keep penalizing some felons after they have served time, paid restitution, reformed, and proven to parole and/or probation officials that they are no longer involved in any of the activities that got them down the prior path? These same individuals might likely be fit and also able to benefit from let's say a military path, but I am not sure how others in military would view that."
My response:
For me, national security is the primary task of the Federal government. In times of war, as we have been for longer than we care to acknowledge, the protection of the American People is paramount. We have a military combat force predominantly downsized by the Clinton administration for what was presumed to be a peacetime environment. Even the popular view of a militant Bush administration has failed to grow the military to wage war successfully. I have argued for five years that the combat arms should be 2-3 times the size they are now, perhaps even as much as five times, and if the draft was necessary to achieve those force levels, then so be it. Like you, I think military thresholds should adapt to the demands of the time in which they serve. We have extracted inordinate, illogical and irrational punishments for those caught with usage or simple possession of psychotropic substances, or for having tattoos, or as you note other non-violent felonies. We have yet to focus the Nation for the war we did not seek and we find ourselves immersed. We lost the moment in 2002. Perhaps, another major event will finally help us gain the focus we need to wage war successfully.
[PS: We continue to extract our pound of flesh for the crimes of our citizens, and then we lop off an arm and a leg, by the denial of rehabilitation to those who have paid their debt to society. And, we wonder why some citizens choose to become career criminals.]
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
For me, national security is the primary task of the Federal government. In times of war, as we have been for longer than we care to acknowledge, the protection of the American People is paramount. We have a military combat force predominantly downsized by the Clinton administration for what was presumed to be a peacetime environment. Even the popular view of a militant Bush administration has failed to grow the military to wage war successfully. I have argued for five years that the combat arms should be 2-3 times the size they are now, perhaps even as much as five times, and if the draft was necessary to achieve those force levels, then so be it. Like you, I think military thresholds should adapt to the demands of the time in which they serve. We have extracted inordinate, illogical and irrational punishments for those caught with usage or simple possession of psychotropic substances, or for having tattoos, or as you note other non-violent felonies. We have yet to focus the Nation for the war we did not seek and we find ourselves immersed. We lost the moment in 2002. Perhaps, another major event will finally help us gain the focus we need to wage war successfully.
[PS: We continue to extract our pound of flesh for the crimes of our citizens, and then we lop off an arm and a leg, by the denial of rehabilitation to those who have paid their debt to society. And, we wonder why some citizens choose to become career criminals.]
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment