Update from the Heartland
No.373
2.2.09 – 8.2.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.373
2.2.09 – 8.2.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The President signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 [PL 111-002; S.181, S: 61-36-0-1(2); H: 250-177-0-6(2)], which was in direct response to the Supreme Court’s narrow interpretation of employment law – Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. [550 U.S. 618 (2007); no. 05-1074; 29.5.07] [336]. The new law clarifies the law and gives employees greater power to ferret down wage discrimination.
-- The Air Traffic Control transcript as well as the preliminary NTSB findings regarding the engines from the USAirways Flight 1549 A320 aircraft [370] support the crews statements that multiple large bird strikes took out both engines. The biomass remnants recovered from both engines are being genetically tested to determine the species. The accumulating evidence substantiates the extraordinary events that afternoon [15.1.2009].
-- When Congress chose to use a cheap, political trick to lambaste the auto executives for using their corporate jets [363, 370] and then make it a matter of law condemning business aviation as a frivolous luxury, our oh-so-wise politicians guaranteed the decimation of the general & business aviation industry. Friday, Hawker Beechcraft laid-off another 2300 employees (roughly 1/3 of its workforce). Very, very few of those still working today have seen anything like this; and, it is oh-so-nice to see our representatives working so bloody hard for their share of the pork-barrel. Perhaps, you can detect a twinge of anger in my words.
I hesitated to comment on the latest faux pas of Olympian Michael Fred Phelps, but an opinion column struck the urge for me.
“Smoking Marijuana Shouldn't be a Crime”
by Kathleen Parker
Wichita Eagle
Posted on Friday, February 06, 2009
http://www.kansas.com/opinion/story/689867.html
My opinion regarding the necessity to legalize and regulate marijuana as well as all other psychotropic substances has not changed. I note Kathleen Parker’s opinion column not just I agree with her assessment (I cannot claim the inverse since she has probably never read my words), but also because there is wisdom in her words. Phelps has already paid a far greater price for the betrayal of friend or acquaintance than any of us have or will ever suffer in our lifetimes. Now, we have the U.S. Swimming Federation suspending him from competition for three months, and Kellogg dumping his endorsement because his behavior was not consistent with their sense of propriety, and as if that was not enough, we have some damnable sheriff in South Carolina (where the photograph was allegedly taken) threatening to charge Phelps with a felony crime (presumably, violation of our myriad of oh-so-lofty drug use laws). I continue returning to the challenge from a good friend, “Show me the damage.” Who was being harmed by his actions last November and by that photograph? Oh sure, social conservatives have and will undoubtedly scream with outrage that their children – our children – are being harmed . . . that Phelps is setting a bad example for highly impressionable children. Are we truly this unconfident in our parenting skills that a single still photograph has more influence over our children than we do? Is that really what we are saying? I go way beyond Kathleen Parker. I advocate for legalization of all psychotropic substances, for regulation of those substances for quality control and for elimination of the criminal sub-culture that supplies them today, and for making them available to the adult public at your corner ‘head-shop’ or convenience store. If a citizen wants to fry his brain with LySergic acid Diethylamide (LSD) or any other substances of his choice, I want to help him along the way and keep them from harming anyone else. Prohibition on private conduct has NEVER EVER worked and is in fact the anti-thesis of freedom. One day, we shall mature as thinking creatures, have faith in what freedom truly means, and recognize the foolishness and folly of such idiotic endeavors . . . probably not in my lifetime, but I remain naïvely optimistic.
A few weeks back, I read a George Will opinion column and cogitated over his message as well as whether and eventually how I should respond. I chose to offer him my opinion of his words.
Reference:
“Of Judges, By Judges, For Judges
by George F. Will
Washington Post
Published: Thursday, January 15, 2009; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/14/AR2009011402930.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
George,
You offer numerous salients, which I would thoroughly enjoy taking up in vigorous debate with you, or anyone else for that matter. Since we are not likely to debate any one of these points, I shall restrain my urges. However, the topic you chose to re-emphasize your base opinion represents a classic example of the challenges We, the People, face in this Grand Republic.
First, please allow me to emphatically state that I am not an advocate for judicial fiat; in this, I believe we share common ground. Yet, the example you illuminate represents a critical facet of our form of governance.
You accurately note, “Passing laws by referenda is an imprudent departure from the core principle of republican government . . . .” Yet, many states provide for such actions by the People. And, California allows constitutional referenda by simple majority, in stark contrast to the Federal Constitution. Even in our representative democracy, the Legislature does not possess unilateral authority. Regardless, in this example, when does the majority (simple or super) have the right to deny equal rights, equal protection under the law, to a minority? I respectfully submit that the only proper justification is for the public safety, welfare, or the common good. If you agree, what is the question of public interest in dictating to each and every citizen the conditions and constraints under which they can enter into a legally binding relationship, and enjoy the same rights & privileges of that relationship?
If the majority has the right to dictate conditions in what is predominately a private relationship, where does it end? When does an individual citizen’s freedom exceed the majority’s “opinion or personal preference?” Most importantly, who stands to protect the equal rights of the minority?
I do not know whether you have read the California Supreme Court ruling in question – In re Marriage Cases [Six consolidated appeals] [CA SC S147999 (2008)]. If not, I strongly suggest you do so. The Court struggled with the constitutional question at issue. At the end, the majority affirmed that “separate but equal was inherently unequal” – a principle of settled law for a half century – and, the State had not presented sufficient public interest to override an affected citizen’s right to equal protection.
In the aftermath of Proposition 8, disenfranchised citizens have challenged the right of a willful majority to impose its preferences upon a minority where there is no injury, damage or conflict. I suspect the resolution of this question will have significant impact on California and perhaps even Federal governance.
The Court is the last bulwark to protect the rights of all citizens, not just the majority. We can malign judges for standing against the Legislative Branch and even a discriminatory majority, to protect the individual rights of all citizens. While I do not favor judicial dicta for social change or anything else, I am deeply offended by our penchant to make constitutional law by opinion poll.
Lastly, perhaps you could expound upon how someone else’s choices in their private marriage relationship affects your marriage or mine. Where is the public injury? What damage is being done? What justifies the denial of equal protection under the law to those who do not conform to our notion of normal?
Thank you for expressing your opinion, and thank you for allowing me to express mine. Vigorous debate is essential to a viable democracy. Take care and enjoy.
Cheers,
Cap
Needless to say, I have not nor do I expect to receive a response, but I feel better that I did not let his opinion go unchallenged. If social conservatives do not have sufficient confidence in their values that they need to impose those values on everyone else to avoid temptation, we are in for a very long slog to recover true freedom. We have so much to reconcile.
A decade after Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act in 1998 (COPA) [134, 276], the Supreme Court drove the final nail into the coffin three weeks ago, when they refused to hear the latest and final appeal in a long list of court actions, blocking implementation of the law intended to make criminal on-line pornographic material, ostensibly to protect children from exposure to images of naked people and sexually explicit activities. COPA was buried in the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 [HR 4328; PL 105-277]. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) immediately challenged the law before it became effective, and the new statute has been tied up in a long series of judicial reviews that ended with the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear any more appeals. COPA was bad law from the outset. The Court did what had to be done. Parents need to take responsibility for their children rather than constrain the freedom of everyone in order to do what they are apparently incapable of doing. So be it!
President Obama did not have a good week from a staff/cabinet nominations perspective this week. The Press has labeled the causal factor as taxes, but these cases are not appreciably different from the domestic help kerfuffles of past administrations.
-- The President’s nominee to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, former Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota [365], has withdrawn himself from consideration, ostensibly because he did not want his tax faux pas to become a “distraction.” I suspect there is more to the story that we may not hear.
-- Nancy Killefer, the President’s nominee for a new position as Chief Performance Officer in the White House Office of Management and Budget [369], has withdrawn her name from consideration, allegedly over a $1,000 tax mistake. The reason hardly sounds sufficient, but there we have it.
-- The President nominated Senator Judd Alan Gregg of New Hampshire for the position of Secretary of Commerce to replace Governor Bill Richardson who withdrew earlier [364, 368].
-- Then, we hear that U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg, 75, is being treated for pancreatic cancer. She intends to remain on the bench for the time being. However, the President may make the first of what may well be several High Court nominations earlier than any of us might have suspected.
News from the economic front:
[Note: I just cannot keep up with the reports of business. The list is getting too long. So, I must raise the threshold of historic notation. I will try to find the good among the doom & gloom. And, henceforth, I shall endeavor to note extraordinary bits of business information.]
-- Lenovo, the PRC personal computer maker, announced it is replacing its American chief executive – former Dell executive Bill Amelio – with Chairman Yang Yuanqing. Succeeding Yang as non-executive chairman will be Liu Chuanzhi, a current Lenovo board member who helped start the company 25 years ago.
-- The Bank of England cut its key interest rate by 0.50% to a new historic low of 1.00% to help combat the UK’s deepening recession.
-- The European Central Bank held its key rates steady at 2.00%, despite another batch of grim economic reports from the 16-nation euro zone. ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet had said at the last rate-setting meeting that the “next important rendezvous would be in March.”
-- The USG reported non-farm employment dropped by another 598,000 in January, more than expected and the most in one month since December 1974. The unemployment rate jumped 0.4% to 7.6% – the highest since September 1992.
[NOTE: the company I work for laid off 30+% of its work force on Friday, so we will add to what will probably not be good February numbers.]
-- President Obama decried the continued congressional wrangling over his American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan [368] as “inexcusable and irresponsible.” He giving us a “just trust me” rationale, just as ‘W’ did – not good, then or now. The President acknowledged the current bill “is not perfect, but a bill is absolutely necessary.” I do not doubt the President’s statement or admonition. However, I truly and sincerely believe the President must make a clear, definitive, unequivocal statement that business-as-usual, pork-barrel-spending by Congress, especially on a bill so important to this Grand Republic, cannot be tolerated. If he fails at this opportunity, his intention to break with “old school” political largesse will become exponentially more difficult to achieve. The pork in the House version is reprehensible, and I do not want to listen to some damnable politician try to convince me that spending a few measly millions of precious tax dollars on a water park, or birth control, or a museum, is going to help our economic situation. I could offer up a particular profane expletive, but I shall resist the urge, out of respect for this forum. I do recognize that what is one person’s pork is another person’s stimulus; however, applications of Federal tax dollars to projects that do not service the general public good, or create jobs, or encourage spending by consumers (in this context) is pork meant to garner political favor rather than help the economy.
-- Apparently, the Senate struck a deal on a trimmed down US$780B recovery plan from a version that exploded into US$930B pork-ladened behemoth – and that is all without recognition of the interest to be paid on all that debt. The Senate is expected to vote on its version early next week. Then, a joint House / Senate conference committee must reconcile the two bills, which must be approved by both chambers before going to the President.
For years, I railed against the obscene spending of the 107th through the 109th Congress and the complicity of an acquiescent President who refused to challenge the out-of-control spending of the little children in the candy store. I cannot blame Republican politicians of those years for the current economic crisis as I truly believe the stage was being set in 1977, and every administration since has contributed to where we are today. As much as I object to pork-barrel-spending of every Congress from as far back as I can politically remember, the efforts of the 111th Congress to spend precious Treasury funds on their pet projects are fundamentally no different from their Republican predecessors. Rationalists for Congress claim that only 2% of the current version of the House bill is pork. I don’t care! Pork is pork! If provisions of the final bill do not contribute directly to the economic recovery, then they must be cut. The President must insist upon no pork.
L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- Former securities industry executive turned independent financial fraud investigator Harry M. Markopolos testified before the House Financial Services subcommittee, regarding his decade plus analysis of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Markopolos skewered the Securities & Exchange Commission as inept and incompetent, and declared the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FIRA), the securities industry's self-policing organization, as “very corrupt.” Hearing Markopolos’ repeated, detailed warnings does not engender confidence in either the Federal government or the financial industry. I think we all have suspected that many more people, directly and indirectly, were involved in the US$50B Ponzi scam. Now, we see evidence that the Federal government helped perpetuate the fraud. On top of the Markopolos indictment, I recognized the name of the CEO of the FIRA for the past three years was none other than Mary L. Schapiro [366] – President Obama's nominee for Chairman of the Security and Exchange Commission. And, perhaps worse, Schapiro has been with FIRA since 1996. Why is it that the word “incest” keeps coming to mind?
A friend and contributor shared the following opinion:
“See below for a message I sent to Sean Hannity's blogspot. I don't anticipate any response or even that this will be acknowledged by his handlers, but I had to make the effort. And, yes, you may post.
________________________________________
“As a proud American, whose paratrooper father helped to liberate Corregidor , and whose husband was shot down, captured, and beaten to death in the closing months of the Vietnam conflict, I find it appalling that voices on the far right continue to beat the drums for policies that have been shown to be deficient in their morality, their efficacy, and their capacity to resolve the crises that face the United States and the world, all in a supposed spirit of patriotism.
“As Dr. Johnson said, ‘Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.’ Scoundrels abound on the far right today. Their only interest is the destruction or diminution of opposing voices, not solutions to the myriad difficulties confronting the American people. What sets the American people apart, and what has always set the American people apart, is our capacity to unite and to devise solutions in a common way to critical problems and extraordinary challenges. There is nothing patriotic in negativity, nonsensical blather, or deliberate attempts to undermine the sincere efforts of a new administration to resolve the current challenges in order to garner ratings, or perhaps, more insidiously, to derail those efforts.
“Shame on you, Sean Hannity, and shame on you, FoxNews.
“I am reminded of Federalist #10, wherein Publius defined faction, the most detrimental threat to popular government. ‘[Faction is]...a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.’ Note that factions never serve a good purpose in a representative republic.
“Fox News is a faction. It supports policies that undermine the rights of individual citizens (warrantless searches and surveillance for the most trivial reasons), while at the same time opposing positive solutions to the most critical challenges of our time and presents nothing in return. It offers nothing but criticism and contumely.
“Please contribute positively to the debate over our way forward. Please desist from engaging in ad hominem attacks and insinuation, but rather pose questions to elicit a collaborative response instead of a vituperative and divisive response based on personal dislikes or partisanship. Above all, please understand that freedom of the press carries responsibilities far beyond the ordinary responsibilities of the individual citizen.
“When I was a child, my father chased the demons of the cold war. He spoke vociferously of the threats posed by worldwide communism in various public forums, but, at the same time, he reminded his audiences of never allowing those threats to detract from the basic freedoms he had spent five years defending. ‘We must be vigilant,’ he said, ‘without ever forswearing those guarantees defended to the death by our ancestors.’ My husband, a man of few words, spoke to me in our last conversation of his hopes that Vietnam would eventually become a place where Americans and Vietnamese could come to a common understanding and mutual benefit.
“Harsh words are easy; positive criticism is hard. I happen to have severe reservations about the stimulus package as it is presently constructed. It involves spending for projects that would be better addressed in separate bills. However, I applaud the efforts of the Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress to present a package outlining how the United States government can alleviate the economic disaster confronting us. Republicans have offered only a recycled package of approaches that are demonstrably ineffective and OBE (overcome by events), and a concerted determination to just say ‘No.’ I can only hope that all people involved at all levels of government will take a deep breath, consider all the alternatives, and, in the American spirit, eschew partisanship and petty electoral consequences by constructing legislation that takes into account both liberal and conservative principles. In other words, a compromise that unifies all competing principles.
“I am not terribly sanguine of a positive outcome, because too many accept the ramblings of right-wing commentary as true. So, I call on you, Sean Hannity, and other right-wing commentators, to board the train. If you have solutions to the catastrophe awaiting and enveloping us, please disseminate and promote those solutions NOW. Do not offer retreads that have not worked in the past (Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it--George Santayana); instead, promote those ideas that proffer inclusive remedies. If you do not board the train, you will be left behind at a station closed for lack of passengers.”
. . . to which I offered this reply:
Thank you for sharing your Hannity letter. You bring a unique perspective to the point of your missive.
I have voiced similar opinions at various times, and in the main, I agree. The “nattering nabobs of negativism” are not contributory; they are just unnecessary distractions. Criticism, disagreement and debate are essential to a viable democracy. Yet, negativism without potential solutions is corrosive, divisive and diversionary. In this opinion, I believe we are in harmony and agreement.
Collaterally, I ask each of us including the readers of the Update to make a figurative substitution in your letter. Instead of the personal and political references, what if we substituted terms like “politically parochial factions,” or “political parties,” or “those who blindly adhere to political dogma.” The sentiment in your Hannity letter applies equally to the Anyone-But-Bush (ABB) crowd, to religious fundamentalists, to the moral projectionists, and indeed to all those who seek to impose their dogma, their values, their ideology, their catechism. I could easily substitute Keith Obermann for Sean Hannity to criticize the other political extreme.
I happen to be a fan of The View, largely because it is a rather raw, nationally televised, debate forum . . . the closest I’ve seen to Hyde Park Debaters’ Corner. Joy Bahar’s blind ABB mentality has served as a constant reminder of why compromise, moderation, negotiation, tolerance and active constructive debate are so important in a heterogeneous democracy.
Comments and contributions from Update no.372:
“Sorry Cap, Pork?”
My response:
Pork in a political context is a truncated reference to the more proper Americanism – pork barrel spending – and connotes congressional appropriations from the public treasury for projects that are intended primarily to benefit particular constituents, such as campaign contributors, friends, relatives, or anyone else with whom a politician seeks to garner favor. The term goes back 150 years or more in American history and has never been a positive descriptor; actually, most folks use it as a term of disgust and revulsion . . . well, except those fat-cats that benefit from congressional largesse. The worst kind of pork barrel spending is often created as “earmarks,” anonymously authored guarantees of federal funds that usually do not appear in the legislative text; these are backroom deals that are never debated or opened to public scrutiny. This is the under-belly of American politics, like a cancer eating us from the inside. And, now, as we struggle with the worst recession in several generations, we suffer too many politicians adding in their pork and trying to convince us it is for our good. Now you know.
. . . and a follow-up comment:
“Thank you for your response to my question. Not a term used in ‘British English;’ I think the term ‘sweetener’ might be appropriate here. I share your revulsion to the practice although I perceive a problem that as we try to work our way out of recession with any government sponsored work programmes benefiting one facet of society but seen as 'pork’ by another less fortunate. Although I can see by your tone, Cap, your feelings towards this practice are rightly of disgust and irritation how when we view the slanginess speech of politicians can we view such initiatives less cynically?”
. . . and my follow-up response:
Yeah, the process of lathering up constituents for the benefit of politicians is hardly a new phenomenon. Unfortunately, this process will never pass, but that shall not quell my anger at the corruption of that reality.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The follow-up news items:
-- The President signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 [PL 111-002; S.181, S: 61-36-0-1(2); H: 250-177-0-6(2)], which was in direct response to the Supreme Court’s narrow interpretation of employment law – Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. [550 U.S. 618 (2007); no. 05-1074; 29.5.07] [336]. The new law clarifies the law and gives employees greater power to ferret down wage discrimination.
-- The Air Traffic Control transcript as well as the preliminary NTSB findings regarding the engines from the USAirways Flight 1549 A320 aircraft [370] support the crews statements that multiple large bird strikes took out both engines. The biomass remnants recovered from both engines are being genetically tested to determine the species. The accumulating evidence substantiates the extraordinary events that afternoon [15.1.2009].
-- When Congress chose to use a cheap, political trick to lambaste the auto executives for using their corporate jets [363, 370] and then make it a matter of law condemning business aviation as a frivolous luxury, our oh-so-wise politicians guaranteed the decimation of the general & business aviation industry. Friday, Hawker Beechcraft laid-off another 2300 employees (roughly 1/3 of its workforce). Very, very few of those still working today have seen anything like this; and, it is oh-so-nice to see our representatives working so bloody hard for their share of the pork-barrel. Perhaps, you can detect a twinge of anger in my words.
I hesitated to comment on the latest faux pas of Olympian Michael Fred Phelps, but an opinion column struck the urge for me.
“Smoking Marijuana Shouldn't be a Crime”
by Kathleen Parker
Wichita Eagle
Posted on Friday, February 06, 2009
http://www.kansas.com/opinion/story/689867.html
My opinion regarding the necessity to legalize and regulate marijuana as well as all other psychotropic substances has not changed. I note Kathleen Parker’s opinion column not just I agree with her assessment (I cannot claim the inverse since she has probably never read my words), but also because there is wisdom in her words. Phelps has already paid a far greater price for the betrayal of friend or acquaintance than any of us have or will ever suffer in our lifetimes. Now, we have the U.S. Swimming Federation suspending him from competition for three months, and Kellogg dumping his endorsement because his behavior was not consistent with their sense of propriety, and as if that was not enough, we have some damnable sheriff in South Carolina (where the photograph was allegedly taken) threatening to charge Phelps with a felony crime (presumably, violation of our myriad of oh-so-lofty drug use laws). I continue returning to the challenge from a good friend, “Show me the damage.” Who was being harmed by his actions last November and by that photograph? Oh sure, social conservatives have and will undoubtedly scream with outrage that their children – our children – are being harmed . . . that Phelps is setting a bad example for highly impressionable children. Are we truly this unconfident in our parenting skills that a single still photograph has more influence over our children than we do? Is that really what we are saying? I go way beyond Kathleen Parker. I advocate for legalization of all psychotropic substances, for regulation of those substances for quality control and for elimination of the criminal sub-culture that supplies them today, and for making them available to the adult public at your corner ‘head-shop’ or convenience store. If a citizen wants to fry his brain with LySergic acid Diethylamide (LSD) or any other substances of his choice, I want to help him along the way and keep them from harming anyone else. Prohibition on private conduct has NEVER EVER worked and is in fact the anti-thesis of freedom. One day, we shall mature as thinking creatures, have faith in what freedom truly means, and recognize the foolishness and folly of such idiotic endeavors . . . probably not in my lifetime, but I remain naïvely optimistic.
A few weeks back, I read a George Will opinion column and cogitated over his message as well as whether and eventually how I should respond. I chose to offer him my opinion of his words.
Reference:
“Of Judges, By Judges, For Judges
by George F. Will
Washington Post
Published: Thursday, January 15, 2009; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/14/AR2009011402930.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
George,
You offer numerous salients, which I would thoroughly enjoy taking up in vigorous debate with you, or anyone else for that matter. Since we are not likely to debate any one of these points, I shall restrain my urges. However, the topic you chose to re-emphasize your base opinion represents a classic example of the challenges We, the People, face in this Grand Republic.
First, please allow me to emphatically state that I am not an advocate for judicial fiat; in this, I believe we share common ground. Yet, the example you illuminate represents a critical facet of our form of governance.
You accurately note, “Passing laws by referenda is an imprudent departure from the core principle of republican government . . . .” Yet, many states provide for such actions by the People. And, California allows constitutional referenda by simple majority, in stark contrast to the Federal Constitution. Even in our representative democracy, the Legislature does not possess unilateral authority. Regardless, in this example, when does the majority (simple or super) have the right to deny equal rights, equal protection under the law, to a minority? I respectfully submit that the only proper justification is for the public safety, welfare, or the common good. If you agree, what is the question of public interest in dictating to each and every citizen the conditions and constraints under which they can enter into a legally binding relationship, and enjoy the same rights & privileges of that relationship?
If the majority has the right to dictate conditions in what is predominately a private relationship, where does it end? When does an individual citizen’s freedom exceed the majority’s “opinion or personal preference?” Most importantly, who stands to protect the equal rights of the minority?
I do not know whether you have read the California Supreme Court ruling in question – In re Marriage Cases [Six consolidated appeals] [CA SC S147999 (2008)]. If not, I strongly suggest you do so. The Court struggled with the constitutional question at issue. At the end, the majority affirmed that “separate but equal was inherently unequal” – a principle of settled law for a half century – and, the State had not presented sufficient public interest to override an affected citizen’s right to equal protection.
In the aftermath of Proposition 8, disenfranchised citizens have challenged the right of a willful majority to impose its preferences upon a minority where there is no injury, damage or conflict. I suspect the resolution of this question will have significant impact on California and perhaps even Federal governance.
The Court is the last bulwark to protect the rights of all citizens, not just the majority. We can malign judges for standing against the Legislative Branch and even a discriminatory majority, to protect the individual rights of all citizens. While I do not favor judicial dicta for social change or anything else, I am deeply offended by our penchant to make constitutional law by opinion poll.
Lastly, perhaps you could expound upon how someone else’s choices in their private marriage relationship affects your marriage or mine. Where is the public injury? What damage is being done? What justifies the denial of equal protection under the law to those who do not conform to our notion of normal?
Thank you for expressing your opinion, and thank you for allowing me to express mine. Vigorous debate is essential to a viable democracy. Take care and enjoy.
Cheers,
Cap
Needless to say, I have not nor do I expect to receive a response, but I feel better that I did not let his opinion go unchallenged. If social conservatives do not have sufficient confidence in their values that they need to impose those values on everyone else to avoid temptation, we are in for a very long slog to recover true freedom. We have so much to reconcile.
A decade after Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act in 1998 (COPA) [134, 276], the Supreme Court drove the final nail into the coffin three weeks ago, when they refused to hear the latest and final appeal in a long list of court actions, blocking implementation of the law intended to make criminal on-line pornographic material, ostensibly to protect children from exposure to images of naked people and sexually explicit activities. COPA was buried in the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 [HR 4328; PL 105-277]. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) immediately challenged the law before it became effective, and the new statute has been tied up in a long series of judicial reviews that ended with the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear any more appeals. COPA was bad law from the outset. The Court did what had to be done. Parents need to take responsibility for their children rather than constrain the freedom of everyone in order to do what they are apparently incapable of doing. So be it!
President Obama did not have a good week from a staff/cabinet nominations perspective this week. The Press has labeled the causal factor as taxes, but these cases are not appreciably different from the domestic help kerfuffles of past administrations.
-- The President’s nominee to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, former Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota [365], has withdrawn himself from consideration, ostensibly because he did not want his tax faux pas to become a “distraction.” I suspect there is more to the story that we may not hear.
-- Nancy Killefer, the President’s nominee for a new position as Chief Performance Officer in the White House Office of Management and Budget [369], has withdrawn her name from consideration, allegedly over a $1,000 tax mistake. The reason hardly sounds sufficient, but there we have it.
-- The President nominated Senator Judd Alan Gregg of New Hampshire for the position of Secretary of Commerce to replace Governor Bill Richardson who withdrew earlier [364, 368].
-- Then, we hear that U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg, 75, is being treated for pancreatic cancer. She intends to remain on the bench for the time being. However, the President may make the first of what may well be several High Court nominations earlier than any of us might have suspected.
News from the economic front:
[Note: I just cannot keep up with the reports of business. The list is getting too long. So, I must raise the threshold of historic notation. I will try to find the good among the doom & gloom. And, henceforth, I shall endeavor to note extraordinary bits of business information.]
-- Lenovo, the PRC personal computer maker, announced it is replacing its American chief executive – former Dell executive Bill Amelio – with Chairman Yang Yuanqing. Succeeding Yang as non-executive chairman will be Liu Chuanzhi, a current Lenovo board member who helped start the company 25 years ago.
-- The Bank of England cut its key interest rate by 0.50% to a new historic low of 1.00% to help combat the UK’s deepening recession.
-- The European Central Bank held its key rates steady at 2.00%, despite another batch of grim economic reports from the 16-nation euro zone. ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet had said at the last rate-setting meeting that the “next important rendezvous would be in March.”
-- The USG reported non-farm employment dropped by another 598,000 in January, more than expected and the most in one month since December 1974. The unemployment rate jumped 0.4% to 7.6% – the highest since September 1992.
[NOTE: the company I work for laid off 30+% of its work force on Friday, so we will add to what will probably not be good February numbers.]
-- President Obama decried the continued congressional wrangling over his American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan [368] as “inexcusable and irresponsible.” He giving us a “just trust me” rationale, just as ‘W’ did – not good, then or now. The President acknowledged the current bill “is not perfect, but a bill is absolutely necessary.” I do not doubt the President’s statement or admonition. However, I truly and sincerely believe the President must make a clear, definitive, unequivocal statement that business-as-usual, pork-barrel-spending by Congress, especially on a bill so important to this Grand Republic, cannot be tolerated. If he fails at this opportunity, his intention to break with “old school” political largesse will become exponentially more difficult to achieve. The pork in the House version is reprehensible, and I do not want to listen to some damnable politician try to convince me that spending a few measly millions of precious tax dollars on a water park, or birth control, or a museum, is going to help our economic situation. I could offer up a particular profane expletive, but I shall resist the urge, out of respect for this forum. I do recognize that what is one person’s pork is another person’s stimulus; however, applications of Federal tax dollars to projects that do not service the general public good, or create jobs, or encourage spending by consumers (in this context) is pork meant to garner political favor rather than help the economy.
-- Apparently, the Senate struck a deal on a trimmed down US$780B recovery plan from a version that exploded into US$930B pork-ladened behemoth – and that is all without recognition of the interest to be paid on all that debt. The Senate is expected to vote on its version early next week. Then, a joint House / Senate conference committee must reconcile the two bills, which must be approved by both chambers before going to the President.
For years, I railed against the obscene spending of the 107th through the 109th Congress and the complicity of an acquiescent President who refused to challenge the out-of-control spending of the little children in the candy store. I cannot blame Republican politicians of those years for the current economic crisis as I truly believe the stage was being set in 1977, and every administration since has contributed to where we are today. As much as I object to pork-barrel-spending of every Congress from as far back as I can politically remember, the efforts of the 111th Congress to spend precious Treasury funds on their pet projects are fundamentally no different from their Republican predecessors. Rationalists for Congress claim that only 2% of the current version of the House bill is pork. I don’t care! Pork is pork! If provisions of the final bill do not contribute directly to the economic recovery, then they must be cut. The President must insist upon no pork.
L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- Former securities industry executive turned independent financial fraud investigator Harry M. Markopolos testified before the House Financial Services subcommittee, regarding his decade plus analysis of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Markopolos skewered the Securities & Exchange Commission as inept and incompetent, and declared the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FIRA), the securities industry's self-policing organization, as “very corrupt.” Hearing Markopolos’ repeated, detailed warnings does not engender confidence in either the Federal government or the financial industry. I think we all have suspected that many more people, directly and indirectly, were involved in the US$50B Ponzi scam. Now, we see evidence that the Federal government helped perpetuate the fraud. On top of the Markopolos indictment, I recognized the name of the CEO of the FIRA for the past three years was none other than Mary L. Schapiro [366] – President Obama's nominee for Chairman of the Security and Exchange Commission. And, perhaps worse, Schapiro has been with FIRA since 1996. Why is it that the word “incest” keeps coming to mind?
A friend and contributor shared the following opinion:
“See below for a message I sent to Sean Hannity's blogspot. I don't anticipate any response or even that this will be acknowledged by his handlers, but I had to make the effort. And, yes, you may post.
________________________________________
“As a proud American, whose paratrooper father helped to liberate Corregidor , and whose husband was shot down, captured, and beaten to death in the closing months of the Vietnam conflict, I find it appalling that voices on the far right continue to beat the drums for policies that have been shown to be deficient in their morality, their efficacy, and their capacity to resolve the crises that face the United States and the world, all in a supposed spirit of patriotism.
“As Dr. Johnson said, ‘Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.’ Scoundrels abound on the far right today. Their only interest is the destruction or diminution of opposing voices, not solutions to the myriad difficulties confronting the American people. What sets the American people apart, and what has always set the American people apart, is our capacity to unite and to devise solutions in a common way to critical problems and extraordinary challenges. There is nothing patriotic in negativity, nonsensical blather, or deliberate attempts to undermine the sincere efforts of a new administration to resolve the current challenges in order to garner ratings, or perhaps, more insidiously, to derail those efforts.
“Shame on you, Sean Hannity, and shame on you, FoxNews.
“I am reminded of Federalist #10, wherein Publius defined faction, the most detrimental threat to popular government. ‘[Faction is]...a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.’ Note that factions never serve a good purpose in a representative republic.
“Fox News is a faction. It supports policies that undermine the rights of individual citizens (warrantless searches and surveillance for the most trivial reasons), while at the same time opposing positive solutions to the most critical challenges of our time and presents nothing in return. It offers nothing but criticism and contumely.
“Please contribute positively to the debate over our way forward. Please desist from engaging in ad hominem attacks and insinuation, but rather pose questions to elicit a collaborative response instead of a vituperative and divisive response based on personal dislikes or partisanship. Above all, please understand that freedom of the press carries responsibilities far beyond the ordinary responsibilities of the individual citizen.
“When I was a child, my father chased the demons of the cold war. He spoke vociferously of the threats posed by worldwide communism in various public forums, but, at the same time, he reminded his audiences of never allowing those threats to detract from the basic freedoms he had spent five years defending. ‘We must be vigilant,’ he said, ‘without ever forswearing those guarantees defended to the death by our ancestors.’ My husband, a man of few words, spoke to me in our last conversation of his hopes that Vietnam would eventually become a place where Americans and Vietnamese could come to a common understanding and mutual benefit.
“Harsh words are easy; positive criticism is hard. I happen to have severe reservations about the stimulus package as it is presently constructed. It involves spending for projects that would be better addressed in separate bills. However, I applaud the efforts of the Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress to present a package outlining how the United States government can alleviate the economic disaster confronting us. Republicans have offered only a recycled package of approaches that are demonstrably ineffective and OBE (overcome by events), and a concerted determination to just say ‘No.’ I can only hope that all people involved at all levels of government will take a deep breath, consider all the alternatives, and, in the American spirit, eschew partisanship and petty electoral consequences by constructing legislation that takes into account both liberal and conservative principles. In other words, a compromise that unifies all competing principles.
“I am not terribly sanguine of a positive outcome, because too many accept the ramblings of right-wing commentary as true. So, I call on you, Sean Hannity, and other right-wing commentators, to board the train. If you have solutions to the catastrophe awaiting and enveloping us, please disseminate and promote those solutions NOW. Do not offer retreads that have not worked in the past (Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it--George Santayana); instead, promote those ideas that proffer inclusive remedies. If you do not board the train, you will be left behind at a station closed for lack of passengers.”
. . . to which I offered this reply:
Thank you for sharing your Hannity letter. You bring a unique perspective to the point of your missive.
I have voiced similar opinions at various times, and in the main, I agree. The “nattering nabobs of negativism” are not contributory; they are just unnecessary distractions. Criticism, disagreement and debate are essential to a viable democracy. Yet, negativism without potential solutions is corrosive, divisive and diversionary. In this opinion, I believe we are in harmony and agreement.
Collaterally, I ask each of us including the readers of the Update to make a figurative substitution in your letter. Instead of the personal and political references, what if we substituted terms like “politically parochial factions,” or “political parties,” or “those who blindly adhere to political dogma.” The sentiment in your Hannity letter applies equally to the Anyone-But-Bush (ABB) crowd, to religious fundamentalists, to the moral projectionists, and indeed to all those who seek to impose their dogma, their values, their ideology, their catechism. I could easily substitute Keith Obermann for Sean Hannity to criticize the other political extreme.
I happen to be a fan of The View, largely because it is a rather raw, nationally televised, debate forum . . . the closest I’ve seen to Hyde Park Debaters’ Corner. Joy Bahar’s blind ABB mentality has served as a constant reminder of why compromise, moderation, negotiation, tolerance and active constructive debate are so important in a heterogeneous democracy.
Comments and contributions from Update no.372:
“Sorry Cap, Pork?”
My response:
Pork in a political context is a truncated reference to the more proper Americanism – pork barrel spending – and connotes congressional appropriations from the public treasury for projects that are intended primarily to benefit particular constituents, such as campaign contributors, friends, relatives, or anyone else with whom a politician seeks to garner favor. The term goes back 150 years or more in American history and has never been a positive descriptor; actually, most folks use it as a term of disgust and revulsion . . . well, except those fat-cats that benefit from congressional largesse. The worst kind of pork barrel spending is often created as “earmarks,” anonymously authored guarantees of federal funds that usually do not appear in the legislative text; these are backroom deals that are never debated or opened to public scrutiny. This is the under-belly of American politics, like a cancer eating us from the inside. And, now, as we struggle with the worst recession in several generations, we suffer too many politicians adding in their pork and trying to convince us it is for our good. Now you know.
. . . and a follow-up comment:
“Thank you for your response to my question. Not a term used in ‘British English;’ I think the term ‘sweetener’ might be appropriate here. I share your revulsion to the practice although I perceive a problem that as we try to work our way out of recession with any government sponsored work programmes benefiting one facet of society but seen as 'pork’ by another less fortunate. Although I can see by your tone, Cap, your feelings towards this practice are rightly of disgust and irritation how when we view the slanginess speech of politicians can we view such initiatives less cynically?”
. . . and my follow-up response:
Yeah, the process of lathering up constituents for the benefit of politicians is hardly a new phenomenon. Unfortunately, this process will never pass, but that shall not quell my anger at the corruption of that reality.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment