Update from the Heartland
No.339
2.6.08 – 8.6.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.339
2.6.08 – 8.6.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- It is finally over! Phase 2 of the current silly season has ended; Phase 3 began on Saturday when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton conceded. Senator Barack Hussein Obama gained the requisite number of delegates to clinch the Democratic Party nomination. Congratulations, Barack! Well done! Regardless of our political affinities and affiliations, we must give Hillary the respect and kudos she deserves for standing up to the mark, enduring the extraordinary punishment of a national campaign, and coming oh so close. Americans will have some interesting choices. Obama is the best rhetorical speaker of the bunch. Clinton was probably the most elect-able among the two; she was most competitive in the large swing states that the Democrats must carry to beat McCain. Obama played to the Democratic voters, while Clinton attempted to build a centrist position the Democrats must have to win. The Democratic Party voters have made their choice; we shall see how wise the choice.
-- On the other side, John McCain stands to make his own history. Yet, the Left has been trying mightily to paint McCain as Bush III, well to the Right, when his entire career has been as a moderate crossing back and forth attempting to find solutions, e.g., the filibuster breakers, the immigration compromise, et al. So it begins.
-- As a result of the Texas state appeals process [337, 338], 51st District Court Judge Barbara Walther issued the orders to comply and return most of the children to their parents at the YFZ Ranch. The exact number being returned is somewhat fuzzy, but whatever the number, I imagine it does not include all the minor children. Presumably, the minor child-mothers will remain in state custody, as presumed victims of statutory rape at a minimum. I say this with hesitation as I am not convinced the state law is correct; perhaps this is a good topic for discussion / debate. Life outside the compound may have irreparably changed some of the children. Nonetheless, this case enters another phase and remains far from over.
-- Another reason the war on drugs is un-win-able and should be abandoned in favor of legalization and regulation – the law.
The follow-up news items:
-- It is finally over! Phase 2 of the current silly season has ended; Phase 3 began on Saturday when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton conceded. Senator Barack Hussein Obama gained the requisite number of delegates to clinch the Democratic Party nomination. Congratulations, Barack! Well done! Regardless of our political affinities and affiliations, we must give Hillary the respect and kudos she deserves for standing up to the mark, enduring the extraordinary punishment of a national campaign, and coming oh so close. Americans will have some interesting choices. Obama is the best rhetorical speaker of the bunch. Clinton was probably the most elect-able among the two; she was most competitive in the large swing states that the Democrats must carry to beat McCain. Obama played to the Democratic voters, while Clinton attempted to build a centrist position the Democrats must have to win. The Democratic Party voters have made their choice; we shall see how wise the choice.
-- On the other side, John McCain stands to make his own history. Yet, the Left has been trying mightily to paint McCain as Bush III, well to the Right, when his entire career has been as a moderate crossing back and forth attempting to find solutions, e.g., the filibuster breakers, the immigration compromise, et al. So it begins.
-- As a result of the Texas state appeals process [337, 338], 51st District Court Judge Barbara Walther issued the orders to comply and return most of the children to their parents at the YFZ Ranch. The exact number being returned is somewhat fuzzy, but whatever the number, I imagine it does not include all the minor children. Presumably, the minor child-mothers will remain in state custody, as presumed victims of statutory rape at a minimum. I say this with hesitation as I am not convinced the state law is correct; perhaps this is a good topic for discussion / debate. Life outside the compound may have irreparably changed some of the children. Nonetheless, this case enters another phase and remains far from over.
-- Another reason the war on drugs is un-win-able and should be abandoned in favor of legalization and regulation – the law.
[112, 117-120, 127-8, 183, 191, 194, 197, 199, 200,
204, 215, 220, 234, 269, 284, 290, 297-8, 322]
204, 215, 220, 234, 269, 284, 290, 297-8, 322]
The 4th Amendment attempts to protect us from “unreasonable search and seizure” by the State, but the Supreme Court has distorted the Commerce Clause far beyond reasonable federalism. Unless we are willing to give up our liberty and allow the State to monitor all our private activities, the foolish war on drugs will continue to be a simple band-aid on a gaping wound. Since no one has the chutzpah to stand up and do the correct thing, we shall blindly allow the government to continue eroding our independence, our liberty, and the very freedom we prize so highly – amazing how the sheep mentality works. I guess the majority will not get angry until law enforcement shows up in their bedroom or breaks down their front door because some anonymous antagonist claims they have drugs in the house.
-- On Thursday, Secretary of Defense Robert Michael Gates asked for and received the resignations of Secretary of the Air Force Michael W. Wynne and Chief of Staff of the Air Force General Teed Michael Moseley, USAF -- an unprecedented action, to my knowledge. One of the talking heads noted that Rumsfeld was all bark, but Gates is all bite. I expect this will be a positive change for the Air Force and the Defense Department.
-- First Lieutenant Andrew A. Grayson, USMC, was found not-guilty in his general court martial on charges of obstruction of justice related to the so-called Haditha massacre that sparked Representative John Murtha's condemnation [234, 276]. Five other enlisted Marines had their charges dropped. Only one of the Haditha Marines remains under charges and awaiting his trial, Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, USMC. Unfortunately, any career these Marines may have sought has vanished in the service of political correctness. God bless them for their service to this Grand Republic, and from one proud citizen, I apologize for the trauma they had to endure in the aftermath of combat.
-- On Thursday, near Kauai, Hawaii, a Scud-like ballistic missile was fired into the Pacific missile test range. On the other end of that missile's trajectory lay the USS Lake Erie (CG-70) -- the same ship that destroyed that rogue spy satellite last February [324]. The crew of the Lake Erie fired two Standard SM-3 missiles at the incoming short-range missile -- another success.
The title pretty well says it all.
“US: security’s bottom line -- How the most powerful nation disabled itself”
by Tom Engelhardt
Le Monde Diplomatique
Published: 3.June.2008
http://mondediplo.com/2008/06/06ussecurity
On the 22nd of May, Representative Doctor Paul Collins Broun Jr. of Georgia introduced a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, titled the “Marriage Protection Amendment” (MPA) [H.J.Res. 89]. The text of the amendment reads, “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.” Before I jump into this, I shall offer a little relevant background. Broun was elected to the House of Representatives in a special election in June 2007. Since then, he has been busy. As you may recall, Broun also introduced the Military Honor and Decency Act [H.R. 5821] [335] to further restrict the access of military personnel to pornographic material. When he was elected, Broun pledged [295] to carry a copy of the Constitution with him at all times, and to apply four tests to his House votes:
1. Is it constitutional and a proper function of government?
2. Is it morally correct?
3. Is it something we really need?
4. Is it something we can afford?
We can dispense with the last three questions. I am certain he feels the MPA is really needed; it is clearly affordable as it costs him nothing; and, I am quite sure he believes the MPA is morally correct. Where the MPA fails Broun’s legislative test is in the first question. Regulating the private lives of citizens is NOT the ‘proper function of government,’ and no one, including Broun or his proposed amendment, has provided rationale to justify the extraordinarily personal imposition upon the lives of every citizen. Lastly and most importantly, Broun and his MPA fail the most fundamental test of constitutionality; he is proposing an imposition of every citizen’s freedom of choice to achieve their “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.” The uber-Right claims and professes that the Constitution offers no protection to a citizen for certain medical procedures, and that states should regulate medical practice. Now, they wish to modify the Constitution to legally discriminate against a class of citizens that seeks private relationship choices that do not conform to Broun’s image of ‘normal.’ I trust both H.J.Res 89 and H.R. 5821 will meet the fate they deserve – death by neglect. The government needs to remove itself from the private morality business. The private domain belongs to each and every citizen – NOT the government or some fraction of our society. I suggest Broun go back to the Constitution he claims to carry at all times and re-read the 9th Amendment; the text is actually quite simple and direct.
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen qualified the 8th Initiative on the November ballot -- a constitutional amendment titled: "California Marriage Protection Act" -- that if passed by the electorate will add Section 7.5 to Article I to the state constitution and simply reads:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
So, it is official, the residents of California shall vote on whether to deny 'equal protection under the law' to those citizens who freely choose their pursuit of Happiness. Another initiative is before the Secretary of State not yet sanctioned; the title of the pending amendment is: "The Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative," and goes beyond Initiative 8 to resend the 'domestic partnership' rights passed by the legislature in the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003. Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger wrote, “[I]t is irrelevant that the voters rather than a legislative body enacted [the challenged law], because the voters may no more violate the Constitution by enacting a ballot measure than a legislative body may do so by enacting legislation.” The difference in this instance rests in amending the constitution and removing the law from judicial review, thus making the law legal discrimination. The truth is that if a sufficient majority of citizens are intent on reinstating slavery, or denying women the right to vote, or imposing alcohol prohibition again, they can do so by passing a constitutional amendment. Doing so hardly makes it correct and would fundamentally alter the course of this Grand Republic. I trust Californians will see Initiative 8 for what it is.
We received a clarion warning in 1973. While we moaned and groaned about the price of petrol, long lines at the gas pump, and protested the capriciousness of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), we failed to heed the warnings. Here we are 35 years later, moaning and groaning again. C’est la vie! The specter of global warming [215] allegedly produced by exhausting massive amounts of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, complex fluorocarbon compounds, and such, amplifies the reality that there are finite sources of fossil fuels. Add to this odiferous stew, the exponential increase in demand for fossil fuels by China and India, it should be no surprise to anyone that the price of a barrel of oil has skyrocketed. This time around as compared to 1973, we can include a greater world population, supply stress on agricultural exporting countries, and induced pressure on food grain supply and thus price, and the resultant food crisis in over-populated, under-producing countries. Politicians have bandied about their incessant empty promises of resolve toward energy independence, and yet, here we are once again, at the mercy of OPEC. Whether we choose to recognize or acknowledge the current energy crisis does not alter the reality of its consequences. We have choices . . . at least today. We can heed the clarion call this time around, or we can allow events to dictate our de facto policy until the consequences become violence to ensure our very survival. I advocate preemptive action rather reactive folly. The reason(s) or rationale for weaning ourselves off fossil fuels is irrelevant, doing so is the logical, progressive, intelligent thing to do. We should have hunkered down in the aftermath of 1973. I pray we have the will and leadership to do so today. The objective of my Energy Project [335] proposal is elimination of fossil fuel usage, and includes several key elements: 1.) Federal research leadership, 2.) Federal infrastructure development, and 3.) realignment of Federal priorities, programs and agencies to focus on the objective. I have used the U.S. Government’s Manhattan Project as an example of national focus to achieve a common objective. The notion of nuclear mass-energy conversion was popularly expressed in Albert Einstein’s 1905 Special Theory of Relativity. Nuclear research began in the academic community predominately in Europe and principally in Germany shortly after Einstein’s expression of the potential. With the ominous clouds of war billowing in the late 1930’s, the perceived progress in Germany reached a sufficient level to convince numerous physicists to cajole Einstein to write a personal letter of warning to President Roosevelt in August 1939. The President directed a secret study that ultimately led to the creation of the Manhattan Project in June 1942. Over the next three years, the U.S. Government secretly developed the unprecedented technology necessary to produce the first fissionable material and the Trinity device, detonated in July 1945. The Government went on to develop fusion technology and the infrastructure to produce an arsenal of nuclear and thermonuclear devices from small artillery projectiles to massive 20MT bombs, and begat the nuclear power industry. The Manhattan Project and its derivatives were war consequences, i.e., if it hadn’t been for the war, we may never have developed the technology that led to nuclear propulsion and nuclear electricity generating plants. We need focus, concentration and leadership, as we did in the Manhattan Project days, to achieve energy independence from fossil fuels [by which I mean: petroleum (oil), natural gas, and coal]. In 1942, it was war and the President of the United States that made it happen. The Manhattan Project cost an estimated $2B [$24B in today dollars]. A comparable, non-war, national project was Kennedy’s Man-to-the-Moon effort -- a national commitment "of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." The Apollo Project cost an estimated $25B [$146B in today dollars]. Similar conditions apply today; all we are missing is a President to focus the nation on achieving the objective. The Plan will evolve once the objective and commitment are clearly defined and articulated. Some of the fledgling technologies exist today. Some of those technologies simply lack the infrastructure to be commercially viable. More importantly, the conversion of fossil fuel, electricity, power plants to other forms of power generation cannot be absorbed commercially and requires Federal support. Drilling for more oil is not the answer. Nuclear power is not the answer either, as there are finite supplies of fissile material, and the spent fuel is not particularly pleasant to deal with. We simply must think bigger with an eye to clean, renewal sources. During this process, I would also propose that we hold our fossil fuel resources in reserve to protect us against a loss of valuable resources needed for other non-energy purposes. As with the nuclear and space programs, the Energy Project will spur parallel and ancillary technology applications that are incalculable. As with threats to our national security in wartime, economic threats are no less significant. A national Energy Project such as this would send a clear, unambiguous message to the World, enable us to focus our research, manufacturing and labor resources toward a beneficial common objective, and would allow us to eliminate the primary source of smog, greenhouse gases, and considerable pollution. We have done it before, and we can do it again. All we need is leadership; the rest will come with the flow.
There are not many court documents more revolting and nauseating to read than abortion rulings. Unfortunately, for me, it is also one of the battleground arenas in the conflict between public and private, and between the government and We, the People; thus, every decision becomes a matter demanding the utmost attention. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals provided the latest sample a couple of weeks ago – Richmond Medical Center for Women v. Herring [4CCA No. 03-1821 (2008)]. The court had been enjoined by the U.S. Supreme Court – Gonzales v. Carhart [550 U.S. ___ (2007); no. 05-380] [280] – to reexamine the Virginia State Partial Birth Infanticide Act of 2003 [VA H.1541] (I am always thrilled by these emotionally inflammatory legislative titles) in the light of Carhart. The Virginia law mirrors the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 [PL 108-105]. Circuit Judge M. Blane Michael delivered the majority opinion for the three judge panel, and concluded, "We therefore affirm the district court’s ruling that declares the Virginia Act unconstitutional on the ground that it imposes an undue burden on a woman’s constitutional right to choose a (previability) second trimester abortion." In his dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Paul Victor Niemeyer said, "[T]he State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child." Therein lies the conflict. How do we find an appropriate balance between the mother and the fetus, between private and public, between the citizen and the State? So many of these cases deal with the mechanics of the process and the law as related to the process, but rarely deal with the ethics involved in such questions and decisions. The conflicts presented to King Solomon are as basic and fundamental as they can be – the classic tension between the rights of an individual citizen and the interests of the State. To the point, the State professes profound interest in the protection of a viable fetus, and yet displays absolutely no sensitivity or compassion for the unwanted child and little regard for the health of the mother. I have tried to understand the polarization and inability to compromise, and I have not found the key, as yet. It seems to me that so much of our failure to find a reasonable compromise solution hangs upon our prudishness toward sex and our inability talk about sex in frank, direct terms. All that aside, the 4th Circuit stood against expanding Virginia's deeper imposition upon a very private decision; the court's rationale was weak and thin, and will not add to the body of skillful jurisprudence regarding the abortion issue.
We had no comments or contributions from Update no.338.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
-- On Thursday, Secretary of Defense Robert Michael Gates asked for and received the resignations of Secretary of the Air Force Michael W. Wynne and Chief of Staff of the Air Force General Teed Michael Moseley, USAF -- an unprecedented action, to my knowledge. One of the talking heads noted that Rumsfeld was all bark, but Gates is all bite. I expect this will be a positive change for the Air Force and the Defense Department.
-- First Lieutenant Andrew A. Grayson, USMC, was found not-guilty in his general court martial on charges of obstruction of justice related to the so-called Haditha massacre that sparked Representative John Murtha's condemnation [234, 276]. Five other enlisted Marines had their charges dropped. Only one of the Haditha Marines remains under charges and awaiting his trial, Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, USMC. Unfortunately, any career these Marines may have sought has vanished in the service of political correctness. God bless them for their service to this Grand Republic, and from one proud citizen, I apologize for the trauma they had to endure in the aftermath of combat.
-- On Thursday, near Kauai, Hawaii, a Scud-like ballistic missile was fired into the Pacific missile test range. On the other end of that missile's trajectory lay the USS Lake Erie (CG-70) -- the same ship that destroyed that rogue spy satellite last February [324]. The crew of the Lake Erie fired two Standard SM-3 missiles at the incoming short-range missile -- another success.
The title pretty well says it all.
“US: security’s bottom line -- How the most powerful nation disabled itself”
by Tom Engelhardt
Le Monde Diplomatique
Published: 3.June.2008
http://mondediplo.com/2008/06/06ussecurity
On the 22nd of May, Representative Doctor Paul Collins Broun Jr. of Georgia introduced a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, titled the “Marriage Protection Amendment” (MPA) [H.J.Res. 89]. The text of the amendment reads, “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.” Before I jump into this, I shall offer a little relevant background. Broun was elected to the House of Representatives in a special election in June 2007. Since then, he has been busy. As you may recall, Broun also introduced the Military Honor and Decency Act [H.R. 5821] [335] to further restrict the access of military personnel to pornographic material. When he was elected, Broun pledged [295] to carry a copy of the Constitution with him at all times, and to apply four tests to his House votes:
1. Is it constitutional and a proper function of government?
2. Is it morally correct?
3. Is it something we really need?
4. Is it something we can afford?
We can dispense with the last three questions. I am certain he feels the MPA is really needed; it is clearly affordable as it costs him nothing; and, I am quite sure he believes the MPA is morally correct. Where the MPA fails Broun’s legislative test is in the first question. Regulating the private lives of citizens is NOT the ‘proper function of government,’ and no one, including Broun or his proposed amendment, has provided rationale to justify the extraordinarily personal imposition upon the lives of every citizen. Lastly and most importantly, Broun and his MPA fail the most fundamental test of constitutionality; he is proposing an imposition of every citizen’s freedom of choice to achieve their “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.” The uber-Right claims and professes that the Constitution offers no protection to a citizen for certain medical procedures, and that states should regulate medical practice. Now, they wish to modify the Constitution to legally discriminate against a class of citizens that seeks private relationship choices that do not conform to Broun’s image of ‘normal.’ I trust both H.J.Res 89 and H.R. 5821 will meet the fate they deserve – death by neglect. The government needs to remove itself from the private morality business. The private domain belongs to each and every citizen – NOT the government or some fraction of our society. I suggest Broun go back to the Constitution he claims to carry at all times and re-read the 9th Amendment; the text is actually quite simple and direct.
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen qualified the 8th Initiative on the November ballot -- a constitutional amendment titled: "California Marriage Protection Act" -- that if passed by the electorate will add Section 7.5 to Article I to the state constitution and simply reads:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
So, it is official, the residents of California shall vote on whether to deny 'equal protection under the law' to those citizens who freely choose their pursuit of Happiness. Another initiative is before the Secretary of State not yet sanctioned; the title of the pending amendment is: "The Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative," and goes beyond Initiative 8 to resend the 'domestic partnership' rights passed by the legislature in the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003. Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger wrote, “[I]t is irrelevant that the voters rather than a legislative body enacted [the challenged law], because the voters may no more violate the Constitution by enacting a ballot measure than a legislative body may do so by enacting legislation.” The difference in this instance rests in amending the constitution and removing the law from judicial review, thus making the law legal discrimination. The truth is that if a sufficient majority of citizens are intent on reinstating slavery, or denying women the right to vote, or imposing alcohol prohibition again, they can do so by passing a constitutional amendment. Doing so hardly makes it correct and would fundamentally alter the course of this Grand Republic. I trust Californians will see Initiative 8 for what it is.
We received a clarion warning in 1973. While we moaned and groaned about the price of petrol, long lines at the gas pump, and protested the capriciousness of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), we failed to heed the warnings. Here we are 35 years later, moaning and groaning again. C’est la vie! The specter of global warming [215] allegedly produced by exhausting massive amounts of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, complex fluorocarbon compounds, and such, amplifies the reality that there are finite sources of fossil fuels. Add to this odiferous stew, the exponential increase in demand for fossil fuels by China and India, it should be no surprise to anyone that the price of a barrel of oil has skyrocketed. This time around as compared to 1973, we can include a greater world population, supply stress on agricultural exporting countries, and induced pressure on food grain supply and thus price, and the resultant food crisis in over-populated, under-producing countries. Politicians have bandied about their incessant empty promises of resolve toward energy independence, and yet, here we are once again, at the mercy of OPEC. Whether we choose to recognize or acknowledge the current energy crisis does not alter the reality of its consequences. We have choices . . . at least today. We can heed the clarion call this time around, or we can allow events to dictate our de facto policy until the consequences become violence to ensure our very survival. I advocate preemptive action rather reactive folly. The reason(s) or rationale for weaning ourselves off fossil fuels is irrelevant, doing so is the logical, progressive, intelligent thing to do. We should have hunkered down in the aftermath of 1973. I pray we have the will and leadership to do so today. The objective of my Energy Project [335] proposal is elimination of fossil fuel usage, and includes several key elements: 1.) Federal research leadership, 2.) Federal infrastructure development, and 3.) realignment of Federal priorities, programs and agencies to focus on the objective. I have used the U.S. Government’s Manhattan Project as an example of national focus to achieve a common objective. The notion of nuclear mass-energy conversion was popularly expressed in Albert Einstein’s 1905 Special Theory of Relativity. Nuclear research began in the academic community predominately in Europe and principally in Germany shortly after Einstein’s expression of the potential. With the ominous clouds of war billowing in the late 1930’s, the perceived progress in Germany reached a sufficient level to convince numerous physicists to cajole Einstein to write a personal letter of warning to President Roosevelt in August 1939. The President directed a secret study that ultimately led to the creation of the Manhattan Project in June 1942. Over the next three years, the U.S. Government secretly developed the unprecedented technology necessary to produce the first fissionable material and the Trinity device, detonated in July 1945. The Government went on to develop fusion technology and the infrastructure to produce an arsenal of nuclear and thermonuclear devices from small artillery projectiles to massive 20MT bombs, and begat the nuclear power industry. The Manhattan Project and its derivatives were war consequences, i.e., if it hadn’t been for the war, we may never have developed the technology that led to nuclear propulsion and nuclear electricity generating plants. We need focus, concentration and leadership, as we did in the Manhattan Project days, to achieve energy independence from fossil fuels [by which I mean: petroleum (oil), natural gas, and coal]. In 1942, it was war and the President of the United States that made it happen. The Manhattan Project cost an estimated $2B [$24B in today dollars]. A comparable, non-war, national project was Kennedy’s Man-to-the-Moon effort -- a national commitment "of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." The Apollo Project cost an estimated $25B [$146B in today dollars]. Similar conditions apply today; all we are missing is a President to focus the nation on achieving the objective. The Plan will evolve once the objective and commitment are clearly defined and articulated. Some of the fledgling technologies exist today. Some of those technologies simply lack the infrastructure to be commercially viable. More importantly, the conversion of fossil fuel, electricity, power plants to other forms of power generation cannot be absorbed commercially and requires Federal support. Drilling for more oil is not the answer. Nuclear power is not the answer either, as there are finite supplies of fissile material, and the spent fuel is not particularly pleasant to deal with. We simply must think bigger with an eye to clean, renewal sources. During this process, I would also propose that we hold our fossil fuel resources in reserve to protect us against a loss of valuable resources needed for other non-energy purposes. As with the nuclear and space programs, the Energy Project will spur parallel and ancillary technology applications that are incalculable. As with threats to our national security in wartime, economic threats are no less significant. A national Energy Project such as this would send a clear, unambiguous message to the World, enable us to focus our research, manufacturing and labor resources toward a beneficial common objective, and would allow us to eliminate the primary source of smog, greenhouse gases, and considerable pollution. We have done it before, and we can do it again. All we need is leadership; the rest will come with the flow.
There are not many court documents more revolting and nauseating to read than abortion rulings. Unfortunately, for me, it is also one of the battleground arenas in the conflict between public and private, and between the government and We, the People; thus, every decision becomes a matter demanding the utmost attention. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals provided the latest sample a couple of weeks ago – Richmond Medical Center for Women v. Herring [4CCA No. 03-1821 (2008)]. The court had been enjoined by the U.S. Supreme Court – Gonzales v. Carhart [550 U.S. ___ (2007); no. 05-380] [280] – to reexamine the Virginia State Partial Birth Infanticide Act of 2003 [VA H.1541] (I am always thrilled by these emotionally inflammatory legislative titles) in the light of Carhart. The Virginia law mirrors the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 [PL 108-105]. Circuit Judge M. Blane Michael delivered the majority opinion for the three judge panel, and concluded, "We therefore affirm the district court’s ruling that declares the Virginia Act unconstitutional on the ground that it imposes an undue burden on a woman’s constitutional right to choose a (previability) second trimester abortion." In his dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Paul Victor Niemeyer said, "[T]he State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child." Therein lies the conflict. How do we find an appropriate balance between the mother and the fetus, between private and public, between the citizen and the State? So many of these cases deal with the mechanics of the process and the law as related to the process, but rarely deal with the ethics involved in such questions and decisions. The conflicts presented to King Solomon are as basic and fundamental as they can be – the classic tension between the rights of an individual citizen and the interests of the State. To the point, the State professes profound interest in the protection of a viable fetus, and yet displays absolutely no sensitivity or compassion for the unwanted child and little regard for the health of the mother. I have tried to understand the polarization and inability to compromise, and I have not found the key, as yet. It seems to me that so much of our failure to find a reasonable compromise solution hangs upon our prudishness toward sex and our inability talk about sex in frank, direct terms. All that aside, the 4th Circuit stood against expanding Virginia's deeper imposition upon a very private decision; the court's rationale was weak and thin, and will not add to the body of skillful jurisprudence regarding the abortion issue.
We had no comments or contributions from Update no.338.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment