Update from the Heartland
No.357
13.10.08 – 19.10.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.357
13.10.08 – 19.10.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- A federal judge ordered the release and transport of 17 ethic-Uighur, Muslim, Chinese detainees from Guantánamo Bay to the United States, in the continuation of Parhat v. Gates [DC CCA no. 06-1397 (2008)] [342-3]. The DC Appeals Court blocked the order pending the government’s appeal. (I have not yet reviewed the rulings; see Update 358.)
-- Russian forces withdrew from the buffer zone between Georgia and its two breakaway provinces – South Ossetia and Abkhazia – and were replaced by 200 EU monitors, ending part of the invasion that began two months prior [348].
The last presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain was actually closer to a real debate than the others. The rhetorical skills of Obama contrasted sharply with McCain’s rather jerky, halting, disjointed delivery, and gave John an aura of uncertainty, un-confidence, and inconsistency. John gave it a good shot. The Democratic mantra of McCain being Bush III is really getting old and actually a bit nauseating. Although Barack’s delivery displayed polish, the words of meaning fell flat; he is playing this too safely. Running for President by itself is a hugely daunting task. John has stood up the challenge admirably despite the myriad of Bush failures and missteps, a fractious and lukewarm Republican Party, the continuing War on Islamic Fascism, and the tanking economy. Everyone must respect McCain’s scrappy spirit, and he is closer to the non-parochial leader we need. Barack seemed quite comfortable with party dogma and definitely stuck to the party line, which makes me quite suspicious of his ability to be a true leader, rather than simple the leader of the Democratic Party. This campaign is not over. I have seen John surprise folks. Do not count him out, just yet. It ain’t over ‘til it’s over!
I listened to the endorsement of Senator Obama by former Secretary of State General Colin Luther Powell, USA (Ret.) – a very logical, balanced, thoughtful statement. I hope he is correct about Senator Obama – the junior senator from Illinois leads all the popular vote polls plus several Electoral College vote estimates.
The continuing economic saga:
-- Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group closed the deal for a stake in Morgan Stanley (US$9B for a 21% stake).
-- The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded Paul Robin Krugman the Nobel Prize for Economics.
-- The USG strong-armed nine, major, American banks to accept temporary, partial nationalization. The government plans to investment up to US$250B of the US$700B authorized by Congress. The initial amounts and shares reported so far are:
Bank of America (BAC): US$25B for +9.7%
Citigroup (C): US$25B for +14.9%
JPMorgan Chase (JPM): US$25B for +5%
Wells Fargo (WFC): US$25B for +6%
Goldman Sachs (GS): US$10B for +10%
Morgan Stanley (MS): US$10B for +18.5%
Bank of New York Mellon (BK): US$2B for +6.5%
State Street (STT): US$2B for +5.5%
and Merrill Lynch (ML), soon to be acquired by Bank of America [353], an as yet unspecified amount.
-- French bank Groupe Caisse d’Épargne lost US$807M in unauthorized derivatives trading by a team using the bank’s own account.
-- The Swiss government acquired a stake in UBS (US$5.36B for 9% of the bank).
The latest addition to the list of marriage cases came from Connecticut – Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health [CT SC 17716 (2008)]. Connecticut Supreme Court Associate Justice Richard N. Palmer delivered the court’s decision. “The judgment [of the lower court] is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and application for injunctive relief.” As with the California Supreme Court, the Connecticut court decided residents could not be denied the benefits of marriage based on their sexual orientation. Palmer noted a critical factor, “The fact that the governing majority in a [s]tate has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.” There are two key perspectives: what is the State’s interest in marriage, and what is the individual’s interest in marriage? We have yet to resolve those questions. Kerrigan adds to the body of law, but does not answer the essential issue. Associate Justice David M. Borden wrote the dissenting opinion and advocates for the slow, deliberate, legislative path for social reconciliation, which most of us would strongly endorse and support. If we take that path . . . when it comes to individual rights, how long are offended citizens to wait for legislative reconciliation of the wrongs they have suffered? When does “separate but equal” or “equal protection under the law” become threshold principles when applied to individual freedom of choice in matters predominantly, if not totally, private? Justice Borden believes ‘marriage’ and ‘civil union’ are equal under the law. Looking from the exterior, as the law did for 100 years regarding racism, it is easy to see why he feels as he does. Prima facie, the two conditions appear equal. Certainly, to those not involved, they are at least essentially equal. When viewed from within, the appearance is dramatically different, in that each public declaration triggers a near code-word reaction by those so inclined; the use of disparate terms publicly illuminates an otherwise private matter – not exactly a reassuring point for citizens who wish to preserve their privacy. Justice Borden claimed, “[M]arriage is a fundamental institution in our state, as well as our nation, and recognizing it to include same sex marriage would be to change its nature.” David assumes we can all see his observation as fact, and that we inherently agree, because he offers no rationale as to why he believes his observation to be correct. Using Borden’s logic, what if we used ‘citizen’ to mean citizen when light skin pigmentation and ‘kinda citizen’ for those with dark skin pigmentation? When I apply for a job as a ‘kinda citizen,’ I may never be considered, as discrimination occurs beyond public scrutiny. As a ‘kinda citizen,’ I am oppressed by silence, ignorance, and criteria devoid of performance. Is this really the kind of equality, freedom, and Liberty we wish this Grand Republic to stand for?
To offer a contrarian view, James Taranto commented on the Connecticut judicial ruling and the impending California Proposition 8 vote.
“Defeatist Double Standard”
by James Taranto
Wall Street Journal – Best of the Web Today
October 15, 2008 -- 3:30 p.m. EDT
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122409149021536945.html
He was commenting on:
“California polls shock gay marriage supporters”
by Kevin Allison in San Francisco
Financial Times
Published: October 14 2008; 19:03
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c8da527e-9a17-11dd-960e-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
Rendering his opinion, Taranto said, “The push for same-sex marriage, as distinct from civil unions, is not about tolerance or overcoming discrimination. It is about imposing a view of the ‘transcendent’ on an unwilling public (‘whether you like it or not’). If Proposition 8 passes, even supporters of same-sex marriage ought to take heart in a vote against this sort of arrogance.” Taranto’s opinion appears to be fairly typical for those so inclined – anything to distract the public from the essential question. I respectfully disagree with Taranto.
Some additional thoughts for your consideration and rumination. The interpretation of constitutional law depends upon a clear understanding of the English language. Further, perspective toward the law appears to play a major role in the conclusions of any given judge or group of justices, thus the continuing debate regarding strict constructionist, fundamentalist, and activist judges legislating from the bench by judicial fiat. If a judge looks upon the law as a Federalist, for example, he tends to see the law enforcing the power of the State as inherently just, sound, rational and good. However, if a judge views the Constitution as a delegation of certain, delineated authority from We, the People, to the Federal government, or state and local governments for that matter, then the law sometimes looks quite different. The classic, relevant and salient case in our era remains Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] [319]. As Antonin the Impaler consistently and reliably illuminates at every opportunity, he sees Roe as judicial fiat. He points out that the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, or privacy for that matter, and thus should not be a matter before the Supreme Court. The opposing view based on Griswold v. Connecticut [381 U.S. 479 (1965)] [166, 189, 323] saw the law as an inherent violation of a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, thus exceeding the authority delegated to government by the Constitution and established a reasonable, reasoned and logical limit to a citizen’s privacy and the proper extension of the legitimate interests of the State. Of course, as is so often the case, depending upon each of our views, we tend to identify with the camp that supports our beliefs. We can argue that the majority of citizens have the right, through their representatives, to pass any law they wish. The Federalist will see such a law as the will of the people. An individualist will see laws that intrude upon a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy as a violation of the most fundamental of human rights and thus unconstitutional. If the majority can deny equal rights to any minority, then taken to its logical extreme, the majority can enslave any minority – subjugate, persecute and segregate any minority. What is Liberty? What is freedom? I know what the dictionary says, but clearly, We, the People, subscribe to a fundamentally different definition. Do we mean that Liberty and freedom for each of us is what remains after the majority establishes what it believes is acceptable to it, regardless of venue, condition, circumstance or time? Is freedom only what the majority says it is? Are there limits to the dicta of Congress, the President, and even We, the People? Is freedom all sunlight, glory and exultation? No, absolutely not. The dark side of freedom means we must endure the choices of bad people. We experience higher injury crimes that most, if not all, other civilized free countries. This Grand Republic is not about majority rule. The United States of America was born in the crucible of revolution and the core, most fundamental, principle was and remains individual freedom of choice; Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; and, protection from violation by others or imposition of the State.
I recognize and acknowledge that most subscribers to this humble journal have little interest in pronouncements from the Supremes. In that light, I seek your indulgence and forgiveness. A rare event occurred this week. The U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear the appeal of the State of Pennsylvania in a 4th Amendment case – Pennsylvania v. Dunlap [555 U. S. ____ (2008); no. 07–1486]. The Chief Justice objected to the denial and felt strongly enough about the Court’s action that he wrote a solo dissenting opinion. Even more interesting . . . he chose to use a novelist’s style of prose rather than the staid language of judges. Roberts began his dissent, “North Philly, May 4, 2001. Officer Sean Devlin, Narcotics Strike Force, was working the morning shift. Undercover surveillance. The neighborhood? Tough as a three-dollar steak. Devlin knew. Five years on the beat, nine months with the Strike Force. He’d made fifteen, twenty drug busts in the neighborhood.
“Devlin spotted him: a lone man on the corner. Another approached. Quick exchange of words. Cash handed over; small objects handed back. Each man then quickly on his own way. Devlin knew the guy wasn’t buying bus tokens. He radioed a description and Officer Stein picked up the buyer. Sure enough: three bags of crack in the guy’s pocket. Head downtown and book him. Just another day at the office.”
El Jefe went on to note, “That was not good enough for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which held in a divided decision that the police lacked probable cause to arrest the defendant. The [Pennsylvania court] concluded that a ‘single, isolated transaction’ in a high-crime area was insufficient to justify the arrest, given that the officer did not actually see the drugs, there was no tip from an informant, and the defendant did not attempt to flee. I disagree with that conclusion, and dissent from the denial of certiorari. A drug purchase was not the only possible explanation for the defendant’s conduct, but it was certainly likely enough to give rise to probable cause.”
Beyond the rarity of a stand-alone, solo dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Roberts presented a compelling rationale to support Officer Devlin’s probable cause search and subsequent arrest of Nathan Dunlap. In this case, I can even set aside my strong objections to the folly of the so-called war on drugs and say, spot on, el Jefe!
Comments and contributions from Update no.356:
“I guess one could say history will judge and maybe in 25 years we could look back and say the engagements in the Afghan and Iraqi theatres (Persian-Iran's next?) crushed America's enemies and de-trended the course of growing radical jihadist-Islam. Then one could look at the human and economic losses and say not only did we succeed but that action prevented more 9/11s. However, WHAT IF the opposite occurs? And in that process, Russia succeeds (or China) at our cost, a slow patient waiting game of letting us drain. The toll in American military, contractors, innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, lost geopolitical prestige and economic consequences, is too high a price to pay if our objectives were not achieved.
“Around 2005 (so 4 years after October 2001 – Operation Enduring Freedom – Afghanistan; and 2 years post March 2003 for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Iraq War II), I was driving in my town and came up on a car ahead of me, the bumper sticker on that vehicle said: ‘GWB, creating more terrorists than he can kill.’ While the slogan on that sticker may have been more simplistic than the matrix of our world and why we are engaged, it summarized very succinctly why I had great concerns about going to war(s) without realistic and laser-clear objectives and timetables. And then there needed to be plan B, plan C, and every letter of the alphabet indicating our ability to adapt so as to achieve the final objectives.
“Once this big of a fight is started (loosely referring to what the terrorists initiated the day they carried out the hijackings and flights into American structures and symbols), one does not pull back, because that would be defeat. But also, we don't do anything whether through war or non-war events, that will strengthen the enemies.
“The economic crisis that has fallen upon us as it has the globe, will influence if not bring to a head, another ticker-tape, and that is whether our progress in our theatres of war, are achieving the results various parties expected. When trillions of dollars have been wiped out, the costs of war will be highlighted in fluorescent yellow from now on.”
My response:
I can offer no solace to the dilemma of apprehension surrounding us. Perhaps a moment of history might be appropriate. After the evacuation of Dunkirk, with the Dutch & Belgians vanquished and the French teetering on defeat, Winston Churchill, PM for just over a month, stood before his colleagues and the nation to defiantly state, “We shall never surrender.” Three months hence, with RAF Fighter Command within days of utter collapse, Churchill used his magnificent rhetoric to inspire a vastly outnumbered, outgunned and surrounded nation to “fight on.” I dare say, those moments in history were far more dark, ominous and threatening than our little economic woes. Let us keep things in perspective.
I would disagree with you in the sense that market value is only wiped out if you cash out, thus solidifying one’s losses, or if all the institutions holding our money fail, which none of mine have or are about to. I fully expect to recover from this crash; recovery may be painful, most are, but we will recover.
Panic never helped a situation . . . not in the cockpit, not on the battlefield, and likewise not in the market. But, panic is what we have. So few alive today remember the 1930’s; most managers have only known good times.
Another contribution:
“This Update no. 356 is and exhilarating essay if you will: good work. Fox news (ch.48 here) is doing a great job the last few days of documenting Barack Obama's background from birth thru the present: His school years, and lack of any exposure of his grades or scholastic content, and response to his years and actions promoting ACORN are, I think, should SCARE THE HELL out of any thinking citizen. I believe his Promotion and ENABLING of ACORN's goals is the single MOST culpable and criminal cause of our current Market (Economic) Crisis. His Muslim schooling and Rearing in a totally dysfunctional home that he received during his youth followed by his Tutorship under Ayers (ACORN), in my mind, sets the stage for total disaster with him as president. (When and what does it take to classify a citizens actions and words as TREASON?)”
My reply:
I look for the good as well as the bad in every candidate. I seek balance. We are all flawed people, just as Barack, John, Bob and Ralph are. We shall soon decide which one shall lead us for the next four years. I believe William Charles ‘Bill’ Ayers is an unrepentant domestic terrorist, who got away with his crimes because the government abused the Constitution. Ayers’ crimes could be classified as treason as they occurred in wartime, but the crimes of Lady Jayne Seymour ‘Jane’ Fonda were clearly aiding and abetting the enemy during wartime. Barack is not Ayers or Fonda. While I disagree with Barack in more than a few ways, I think John was correct to defend Barack with a hostile partisan audience. But hey . . .
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Another contribution:
“Concur on your being tired of both candidates talking about tax cuts. We are in two wars, and can't cut taxes. You can't have both – tax cuts and a war – much less two wars. I think McCain hit a new low of absurdity when he suggested a cut in capital gains taxes – as if many are going to have cap gains for a while!!!”
My response:
Amen. Only a simple quibble . . . on war – the War on Islamic Fascism. Two battles: Afghanistan and Iraq. This war is far bigger than just Afghanistan and Iraq. I would have far more respect for these guys if they put as much detail into reduction of expenses as they have reduction of revenue.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The follow-up news items:
-- A federal judge ordered the release and transport of 17 ethic-Uighur, Muslim, Chinese detainees from Guantánamo Bay to the United States, in the continuation of Parhat v. Gates [DC CCA no. 06-1397 (2008)] [342-3]. The DC Appeals Court blocked the order pending the government’s appeal. (I have not yet reviewed the rulings; see Update 358.)
-- Russian forces withdrew from the buffer zone between Georgia and its two breakaway provinces – South Ossetia and Abkhazia – and were replaced by 200 EU monitors, ending part of the invasion that began two months prior [348].
The last presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain was actually closer to a real debate than the others. The rhetorical skills of Obama contrasted sharply with McCain’s rather jerky, halting, disjointed delivery, and gave John an aura of uncertainty, un-confidence, and inconsistency. John gave it a good shot. The Democratic mantra of McCain being Bush III is really getting old and actually a bit nauseating. Although Barack’s delivery displayed polish, the words of meaning fell flat; he is playing this too safely. Running for President by itself is a hugely daunting task. John has stood up the challenge admirably despite the myriad of Bush failures and missteps, a fractious and lukewarm Republican Party, the continuing War on Islamic Fascism, and the tanking economy. Everyone must respect McCain’s scrappy spirit, and he is closer to the non-parochial leader we need. Barack seemed quite comfortable with party dogma and definitely stuck to the party line, which makes me quite suspicious of his ability to be a true leader, rather than simple the leader of the Democratic Party. This campaign is not over. I have seen John surprise folks. Do not count him out, just yet. It ain’t over ‘til it’s over!
I listened to the endorsement of Senator Obama by former Secretary of State General Colin Luther Powell, USA (Ret.) – a very logical, balanced, thoughtful statement. I hope he is correct about Senator Obama – the junior senator from Illinois leads all the popular vote polls plus several Electoral College vote estimates.
The continuing economic saga:
-- Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group closed the deal for a stake in Morgan Stanley (US$9B for a 21% stake).
-- The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded Paul Robin Krugman the Nobel Prize for Economics.
-- The USG strong-armed nine, major, American banks to accept temporary, partial nationalization. The government plans to investment up to US$250B of the US$700B authorized by Congress. The initial amounts and shares reported so far are:
Bank of America (BAC): US$25B for +9.7%
Citigroup (C): US$25B for +14.9%
JPMorgan Chase (JPM): US$25B for +5%
Wells Fargo (WFC): US$25B for +6%
Goldman Sachs (GS): US$10B for +10%
Morgan Stanley (MS): US$10B for +18.5%
Bank of New York Mellon (BK): US$2B for +6.5%
State Street (STT): US$2B for +5.5%
and Merrill Lynch (ML), soon to be acquired by Bank of America [353], an as yet unspecified amount.
-- French bank Groupe Caisse d’Épargne lost US$807M in unauthorized derivatives trading by a team using the bank’s own account.
-- The Swiss government acquired a stake in UBS (US$5.36B for 9% of the bank).
The latest addition to the list of marriage cases came from Connecticut – Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health [CT SC 17716 (2008)]. Connecticut Supreme Court Associate Justice Richard N. Palmer delivered the court’s decision. “The judgment [of the lower court] is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and application for injunctive relief.” As with the California Supreme Court, the Connecticut court decided residents could not be denied the benefits of marriage based on their sexual orientation. Palmer noted a critical factor, “The fact that the governing majority in a [s]tate has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.” There are two key perspectives: what is the State’s interest in marriage, and what is the individual’s interest in marriage? We have yet to resolve those questions. Kerrigan adds to the body of law, but does not answer the essential issue. Associate Justice David M. Borden wrote the dissenting opinion and advocates for the slow, deliberate, legislative path for social reconciliation, which most of us would strongly endorse and support. If we take that path . . . when it comes to individual rights, how long are offended citizens to wait for legislative reconciliation of the wrongs they have suffered? When does “separate but equal” or “equal protection under the law” become threshold principles when applied to individual freedom of choice in matters predominantly, if not totally, private? Justice Borden believes ‘marriage’ and ‘civil union’ are equal under the law. Looking from the exterior, as the law did for 100 years regarding racism, it is easy to see why he feels as he does. Prima facie, the two conditions appear equal. Certainly, to those not involved, they are at least essentially equal. When viewed from within, the appearance is dramatically different, in that each public declaration triggers a near code-word reaction by those so inclined; the use of disparate terms publicly illuminates an otherwise private matter – not exactly a reassuring point for citizens who wish to preserve their privacy. Justice Borden claimed, “[M]arriage is a fundamental institution in our state, as well as our nation, and recognizing it to include same sex marriage would be to change its nature.” David assumes we can all see his observation as fact, and that we inherently agree, because he offers no rationale as to why he believes his observation to be correct. Using Borden’s logic, what if we used ‘citizen’ to mean citizen when light skin pigmentation and ‘kinda citizen’ for those with dark skin pigmentation? When I apply for a job as a ‘kinda citizen,’ I may never be considered, as discrimination occurs beyond public scrutiny. As a ‘kinda citizen,’ I am oppressed by silence, ignorance, and criteria devoid of performance. Is this really the kind of equality, freedom, and Liberty we wish this Grand Republic to stand for?
To offer a contrarian view, James Taranto commented on the Connecticut judicial ruling and the impending California Proposition 8 vote.
“Defeatist Double Standard”
by James Taranto
Wall Street Journal – Best of the Web Today
October 15, 2008 -- 3:30 p.m. EDT
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122409149021536945.html
He was commenting on:
“California polls shock gay marriage supporters”
by Kevin Allison in San Francisco
Financial Times
Published: October 14 2008; 19:03
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c8da527e-9a17-11dd-960e-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
Rendering his opinion, Taranto said, “The push for same-sex marriage, as distinct from civil unions, is not about tolerance or overcoming discrimination. It is about imposing a view of the ‘transcendent’ on an unwilling public (‘whether you like it or not’). If Proposition 8 passes, even supporters of same-sex marriage ought to take heart in a vote against this sort of arrogance.” Taranto’s opinion appears to be fairly typical for those so inclined – anything to distract the public from the essential question. I respectfully disagree with Taranto.
Some additional thoughts for your consideration and rumination. The interpretation of constitutional law depends upon a clear understanding of the English language. Further, perspective toward the law appears to play a major role in the conclusions of any given judge or group of justices, thus the continuing debate regarding strict constructionist, fundamentalist, and activist judges legislating from the bench by judicial fiat. If a judge looks upon the law as a Federalist, for example, he tends to see the law enforcing the power of the State as inherently just, sound, rational and good. However, if a judge views the Constitution as a delegation of certain, delineated authority from We, the People, to the Federal government, or state and local governments for that matter, then the law sometimes looks quite different. The classic, relevant and salient case in our era remains Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] [319]. As Antonin the Impaler consistently and reliably illuminates at every opportunity, he sees Roe as judicial fiat. He points out that the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, or privacy for that matter, and thus should not be a matter before the Supreme Court. The opposing view based on Griswold v. Connecticut [381 U.S. 479 (1965)] [166, 189, 323] saw the law as an inherent violation of a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, thus exceeding the authority delegated to government by the Constitution and established a reasonable, reasoned and logical limit to a citizen’s privacy and the proper extension of the legitimate interests of the State. Of course, as is so often the case, depending upon each of our views, we tend to identify with the camp that supports our beliefs. We can argue that the majority of citizens have the right, through their representatives, to pass any law they wish. The Federalist will see such a law as the will of the people. An individualist will see laws that intrude upon a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy as a violation of the most fundamental of human rights and thus unconstitutional. If the majority can deny equal rights to any minority, then taken to its logical extreme, the majority can enslave any minority – subjugate, persecute and segregate any minority. What is Liberty? What is freedom? I know what the dictionary says, but clearly, We, the People, subscribe to a fundamentally different definition. Do we mean that Liberty and freedom for each of us is what remains after the majority establishes what it believes is acceptable to it, regardless of venue, condition, circumstance or time? Is freedom only what the majority says it is? Are there limits to the dicta of Congress, the President, and even We, the People? Is freedom all sunlight, glory and exultation? No, absolutely not. The dark side of freedom means we must endure the choices of bad people. We experience higher injury crimes that most, if not all, other civilized free countries. This Grand Republic is not about majority rule. The United States of America was born in the crucible of revolution and the core, most fundamental, principle was and remains individual freedom of choice; Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; and, protection from violation by others or imposition of the State.
I recognize and acknowledge that most subscribers to this humble journal have little interest in pronouncements from the Supremes. In that light, I seek your indulgence and forgiveness. A rare event occurred this week. The U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear the appeal of the State of Pennsylvania in a 4th Amendment case – Pennsylvania v. Dunlap [555 U. S. ____ (2008); no. 07–1486]. The Chief Justice objected to the denial and felt strongly enough about the Court’s action that he wrote a solo dissenting opinion. Even more interesting . . . he chose to use a novelist’s style of prose rather than the staid language of judges. Roberts began his dissent, “North Philly, May 4, 2001. Officer Sean Devlin, Narcotics Strike Force, was working the morning shift. Undercover surveillance. The neighborhood? Tough as a three-dollar steak. Devlin knew. Five years on the beat, nine months with the Strike Force. He’d made fifteen, twenty drug busts in the neighborhood.
“Devlin spotted him: a lone man on the corner. Another approached. Quick exchange of words. Cash handed over; small objects handed back. Each man then quickly on his own way. Devlin knew the guy wasn’t buying bus tokens. He radioed a description and Officer Stein picked up the buyer. Sure enough: three bags of crack in the guy’s pocket. Head downtown and book him. Just another day at the office.”
El Jefe went on to note, “That was not good enough for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which held in a divided decision that the police lacked probable cause to arrest the defendant. The [Pennsylvania court] concluded that a ‘single, isolated transaction’ in a high-crime area was insufficient to justify the arrest, given that the officer did not actually see the drugs, there was no tip from an informant, and the defendant did not attempt to flee. I disagree with that conclusion, and dissent from the denial of certiorari. A drug purchase was not the only possible explanation for the defendant’s conduct, but it was certainly likely enough to give rise to probable cause.”
Beyond the rarity of a stand-alone, solo dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Roberts presented a compelling rationale to support Officer Devlin’s probable cause search and subsequent arrest of Nathan Dunlap. In this case, I can even set aside my strong objections to the folly of the so-called war on drugs and say, spot on, el Jefe!
Comments and contributions from Update no.356:
“I guess one could say history will judge and maybe in 25 years we could look back and say the engagements in the Afghan and Iraqi theatres (Persian-Iran's next?) crushed America's enemies and de-trended the course of growing radical jihadist-Islam. Then one could look at the human and economic losses and say not only did we succeed but that action prevented more 9/11s. However, WHAT IF the opposite occurs? And in that process, Russia succeeds (or China) at our cost, a slow patient waiting game of letting us drain. The toll in American military, contractors, innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, lost geopolitical prestige and economic consequences, is too high a price to pay if our objectives were not achieved.
“Around 2005 (so 4 years after October 2001 – Operation Enduring Freedom – Afghanistan; and 2 years post March 2003 for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Iraq War II), I was driving in my town and came up on a car ahead of me, the bumper sticker on that vehicle said: ‘GWB, creating more terrorists than he can kill.’ While the slogan on that sticker may have been more simplistic than the matrix of our world and why we are engaged, it summarized very succinctly why I had great concerns about going to war(s) without realistic and laser-clear objectives and timetables. And then there needed to be plan B, plan C, and every letter of the alphabet indicating our ability to adapt so as to achieve the final objectives.
“Once this big of a fight is started (loosely referring to what the terrorists initiated the day they carried out the hijackings and flights into American structures and symbols), one does not pull back, because that would be defeat. But also, we don't do anything whether through war or non-war events, that will strengthen the enemies.
“The economic crisis that has fallen upon us as it has the globe, will influence if not bring to a head, another ticker-tape, and that is whether our progress in our theatres of war, are achieving the results various parties expected. When trillions of dollars have been wiped out, the costs of war will be highlighted in fluorescent yellow from now on.”
My response:
I can offer no solace to the dilemma of apprehension surrounding us. Perhaps a moment of history might be appropriate. After the evacuation of Dunkirk, with the Dutch & Belgians vanquished and the French teetering on defeat, Winston Churchill, PM for just over a month, stood before his colleagues and the nation to defiantly state, “We shall never surrender.” Three months hence, with RAF Fighter Command within days of utter collapse, Churchill used his magnificent rhetoric to inspire a vastly outnumbered, outgunned and surrounded nation to “fight on.” I dare say, those moments in history were far more dark, ominous and threatening than our little economic woes. Let us keep things in perspective.
I would disagree with you in the sense that market value is only wiped out if you cash out, thus solidifying one’s losses, or if all the institutions holding our money fail, which none of mine have or are about to. I fully expect to recover from this crash; recovery may be painful, most are, but we will recover.
Panic never helped a situation . . . not in the cockpit, not on the battlefield, and likewise not in the market. But, panic is what we have. So few alive today remember the 1930’s; most managers have only known good times.
Another contribution:
“This Update no. 356 is and exhilarating essay if you will: good work. Fox news (ch.48 here) is doing a great job the last few days of documenting Barack Obama's background from birth thru the present: His school years, and lack of any exposure of his grades or scholastic content, and response to his years and actions promoting ACORN are, I think, should SCARE THE HELL out of any thinking citizen. I believe his Promotion and ENABLING of ACORN's goals is the single MOST culpable and criminal cause of our current Market (Economic) Crisis. His Muslim schooling and Rearing in a totally dysfunctional home that he received during his youth followed by his Tutorship under Ayers (ACORN), in my mind, sets the stage for total disaster with him as president. (When and what does it take to classify a citizens actions and words as TREASON?)”
My reply:
I look for the good as well as the bad in every candidate. I seek balance. We are all flawed people, just as Barack, John, Bob and Ralph are. We shall soon decide which one shall lead us for the next four years. I believe William Charles ‘Bill’ Ayers is an unrepentant domestic terrorist, who got away with his crimes because the government abused the Constitution. Ayers’ crimes could be classified as treason as they occurred in wartime, but the crimes of Lady Jayne Seymour ‘Jane’ Fonda were clearly aiding and abetting the enemy during wartime. Barack is not Ayers or Fonda. While I disagree with Barack in more than a few ways, I think John was correct to defend Barack with a hostile partisan audience. But hey . . .
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Another contribution:
“Concur on your being tired of both candidates talking about tax cuts. We are in two wars, and can't cut taxes. You can't have both – tax cuts and a war – much less two wars. I think McCain hit a new low of absurdity when he suggested a cut in capital gains taxes – as if many are going to have cap gains for a while!!!”
My response:
Amen. Only a simple quibble . . . on war – the War on Islamic Fascism. Two battles: Afghanistan and Iraq. This war is far bigger than just Afghanistan and Iraq. I would have far more respect for these guys if they put as much detail into reduction of expenses as they have reduction of revenue.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment