Update from the Heartland
No.392
15.6.09 – 21.6.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.392
15.6.09 – 21.6.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- We bear witness to important history in the making within the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) . . . in an all-too-familiar manner, as we did in 1979. The Iranian post-election situation is an intriguing demonstration of civil disobedience within the Islamic world. Challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi [391] has protested the election results, and his supporters have taken their objection to the streets in Tehran, Esfahan, Shiraz, and other cities. Tehran is NOT the Islamic Republic of Iran – just the capital and largest city. As much as we would like to see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [203, et al] gone from the public domain, we must recognize that we are watching something akin to New York City rioting because they disapproved of a national election. Let us not ascribe too much of our opinion to wishful thinking. Ahmadinejad may well have won 62% of the total national popular vote. To me, the most troubling element of this situation is the government’s response and especially the unleashing of the Nirouye Moqavemate Basij (Mobilization Resistance Force) – a volunteer, paramilitary organization, ostensibly under the control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Who knows how this will turn out, but we must watch.
Friday morning, I woke up in time to listen to the last hour of a two-hour speech by Iran’s Khamenei during Friday prayers at the University of Tehran. The portion I heard was a cleverly crafted, not-so-veiled attempt to validate the election results, condemn the on-going street protests of the opposition, and worst to use the typical, inflammatory, religious, fascist rhetoric to deflect national attention away from the election. Every dictator and despot in history has used some, often hidden, usually external, power or influence to coalesce national fascist support to maintain the dictator. President Obama and the United States along with Great Britain, the European Union, and a good deal of the free world have remained largely muted, measured in their public words, to avoid the very accusation Khamenei chose to spew in his speech. We saw a clever dictator in the robes and trappings of religion. Other than his attire and the venue for his speech, Khamenei is no different from the secular variants that precede him. The line has been drawn. We shall bear witness to the clash between religion, dictatorship and the desire of the people to be free.
In my comment on the Iranian election last week [391], I quoted Joe Stalin. This week, another dictator seems most appropriate. Der Fürher observed,
“[I]n the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility . . . thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds [We, the People] they more readily fall victim to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1925
In the Iranian election, we see the BIG lie. Perhaps the Iranians are learning what the Founders of this Grand Republic learned in the aftermath of the Reformation . . . clerics like Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hoseyni Khamenei are just simple men, like all the rest of us, and as such they are just as prone to mistakes, missteps, errors in judgment, the seduction of power, and other weaknesses of mankind; and, they are just as fallible. We can look to the positive and think . . . perhaps the trauma Iran is experiencing will help them mature as a society and reject the theocracy that represses them – yet one more example why we all need a “wall of separation between church and State.”
One of my personal idiosyncrasies is my loathsome contempt for anyone who thinks he is better than another human being, and my opinion spans clerics, presidents, generals, kings and prima donna athletes to the common criminal and even Islamo-fascist terrorists. As Slick Willy Clinton so aptly observed, “Politics is a contact sport. If you’re not prepared to get hit, don’t get in the game.” In a theocracy, especially the Iranian variant, the Supreme Leader places himself above the fray . . . not allowing himself to be spattered by the mud & blood of secular politics that might sully his clerical robes; and yet, he lords over the Iranian politicians and people as if he is blessed with some divine wisdom or insight. Khamenei qualifies for my full contempt, not that he really gives a hoot about my opinion or anyone else’s. He is just another two-bit dictator, regardless of his robes, trappings, and sanctimonious rhetoric.
One additional observation: The World Wide Web, or Internet if you prefer, is a wondrous medium that links us all in what I euphemistically call cyber-space. As those us who are familiar with these wonders know, cyber-space enables good and evil; and, to date, we have enjoyed unfettered access. Perhaps more than any other historic event, we bear witness to the awesome power of cyber-space to equalize, to overcome barriers, to truly reflect the will of the People. The events unleashed a week ago in the IRI are far from over, however, the Iranian People are mobilizing cyber-space to their cause for freedom. Ah yes, the Internet is a wondrous place.
On Wednesday, President Obama issued an Executive Memorandum, or perhaps an Executive Order (I am not sure which, as I have not yet found an authentic copy), that extended Federal employment benefits to same-sex couples. I do not know how this order is reconciled against the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 [PL 104-199]. Since the Obama administration has elected to avoid confronting or addressing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy established by PL 103-160 [Div. A, Title V, Sec. 571(a)(1)], I suspect this is a gesture of placation. The President’s action may be challenged in court. I hope not. I trust that Barack will eventually make his way politically to address the inequality and discrimination of the current policy / law. We can hope, since hope seems to be the emotional currency of the moment.
I am constantly playing catch-up with my eMail reading, and this particular item did not make the cut last week. Given recent events, the questions raised present appropriate topics for this forum.
“Hate Crimes and Extremist Politics”
by The Editors
New York Times
Published: June 11, 2009, 12:29 pm
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/hate-crimes-and-extremist-politics/?8ty&emc=ty
They asked:
1. Should the United States consider tighter restrictions on hate speech?
2. In the meantime, how should law enforcement agencies respond?
Given recent events (the Tiller and Holocaust Museum murders), the questions are understandable . . . although enormously disappointing. Yet, coming from the editors of the New York Times, we can indulge the disappointment.
As to Question no.1:
If we set aside fundamental principles embodied by the Founders / Framers in the 1st Amendment and the logical response to the question posed . . . freedom of speech and the potential constraints thereupon are two sharp edges of the same blade. When we begin to pass judgment on one person’s speech in a particular context, we must expect others to find fault with our speech. Justice Douglas concluded in his concurring opinion in Brandenburg v. Ohio [395 U.S. 444 (1969); no. 492] [377]: “The quality of advocacy turns on the depth of the conviction; and government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief and conscience.” Even more fascinating, the Supremes were defending the Klu Klux Klan’s right to contaminate the public domain with their racist hatred and vitriol. The simple, direct, definitive answer to Question 1 is an emphatic, absolute, and unqualified NO. Question 1 is a lame, flimsy, miniscule band-aid that does nothing to address the root cause and risk infringement on the freedom of every citizen, for some folks to feel good about the band-aid. In discussions like this, I always return to the wise words of Justice Brandeis – “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” Frankly, I want the hate speech out in the open, where we can hear it and disinfect it.
Since the answer to Question 1 is a big ne-ga-tory, we come to Question 2. My answer:
Dealing with hate speech (or any other aberrant public behavior) is more a matter for society and not limited to law enforcement. Law enforcement at all levels needs an intelligence function that collects information from all sources including the community. The reality is the community must care about itself; it is not just a police function. Thus, law enforcement should respond by first, encouraging public participation with identification of threatening speech or conduct; second, collecting the information with respect to a citizen’s potentially threatening activities; and third, at least make the individual in question aware that the police are paying attention to his activities. Restrictions upon freedom of speech affect us all, whether we are perceptive enough to recognize the constraint. Restrictions are also pre-emptive actions by the State, which in themselves are open to interpretation, and thus risk extension far beyond the original intended purpose. As repulsive as it may be for us to defend that hate-speech of Scott Roeder or James Von Brunn, let us remember that limitations on their hate speech can be and probably would be used to suppress protests like we see in Tehran. Our freedom of speech is far too precious to give the government any more authority to suppress.
If anyone would like to feel just a tiny sliver of the discrimination non-heterosexual couples feel even in a state that ostensibly offers “separate but equal” rights based on sexual orientation, please read this article:
“ACLU: Hospital discriminated against gay couple”
Associated Press
Published: Monday, June 15, 2009; 10:32 pm ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090616/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_discrimination
A friend, contributor and thinker sent this article for my (our) review [comments below].
“The Same-Sex Future”
by David Cole
The New York Review of Books
New York Times
Published: July 2, 2009 [Volume 56, Number 11]
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22791
The books reviewed by Cole were:
-- Eskridge, Jr., William N., and Darren R. Spedale. “Gay Marriage: For Better or for Worse? What We've Learned from the Evidence.” New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
-- Gerstmann, Evan. “Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution.” New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
-- West, Robin. “Marriage, Sexuality, and Gender.” Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2007.
-- Laycock, Douglas, Anthony R. Picarello Jr., and Robin Fretwell Wilson (eds.). “Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts.” Plymouth, Devon, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2008.
Cole skillfully reviews the four books and paints a clear, concise image of the contemporary issue – perhaps one of the best concise descriptions, yet. The difficulty associated with relegation of marriage to the religious domain and dedicated civil union to the state sanction for all relationships is the pervasiveness of the term “marriage” or “married.” Every related form and procedure from private to public including local, state and Federal governments use the term “married.” I have considered the split of civil union and marriage, to public and private respectively, but I just cannot see it working in a practical sense. The proposal would reconcile the ideological conflict between secular and religious, between public and private, but the practical, operational dimension always pops out. While I could support the civil union proposal, I still believe amendment to existing common law (including the repeal of these foolish state constitutional amendments) can and should be carried out in a form implemented by Vermont’s S.115 law – protecting religion’s right to define private marriage as they see fit (including condemnation, ostracism, excommunication, or banishment), while the State recognizes civil marriage for the purpose of rights, benefits and the public domain. Cole concludes his review with an apropos observation, “If the inclusion of same-sex couples changes the institution, it is likely to be for the better, rendering it more consistent with ideals of fairness. For marriage itself, then, and more important for the constitutional principle of equality, the only just result is to accord equal dignity and respect to all those who choose to enter long-term, committed family relationships, irrespective of their sexual orientation.” That fairly well summarizes this issue, it seems to me.
Congress passed another pork-infested war-funding bill -- Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 [H.R. 2346; Senate: 91-5-0-3(1); House: 226-202-0-6(1)]. The President has not announced his intentions, but he is expected to sign yet the US$106B, pork-laden, spending authorization.
On 16.June.2009, Queens Bench High Court Judge, the Honorable Mister Justice Sir David Eady [346] issued his ruling in the case of The Author of a Blog v. Times Newspapers Limited [(2009) EWHC 1358 (QB); case No: HQ09X02293]. The case attracted my attention as another test of a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy. A prima facie anonymous blogger sought court protect of his identity against The Times, who in turn counter-claimed that the blogger was a serving police officer and disclosing law enforcement information normally considered confidential. Eady found against the claimant as blogging was a public activity, and the fact that the blogger was using “inside” information weighed in favor of the The Times. The case essentially boiled down to a citizen’s expectation of privacy in protecting his identity versus the public interest of police confidential information remaining out of the public domain. From my non-legal perspective, I believe Sir David got it spot on. Each of us has a basic, fundamental right to freedom of speech as expected by blogger Night Jack (AKA “The Author of a Blog,” or Detective Constable Richard Horton, 45, of the Lancashire Constabulary). However, when we don the trappings of our employment or service, e.g., military uniform, title, employment affiliation, et cetera, then we also acquire representation of our employment; therefore, we no longer enjoy full freedom of speech. When representing others, either directly or indirectly, we have an obligation to those we represent. I cannot use my position, title, affiliation or information derived from my employment to add credibility or weight to my public arguments.
I try to avoid comments on preliminary, “in process,” judicial activities; yet, every once in a while an intriguing event comes to us. Late last week [12.June.2009], United States District Judge Jeffrey Steven White issued his ruling on a motion to dismiss in the case of Padilla v. Yoo [USDC ND CA no. C 08-00035 JSW (2008)]. The names of the plaintiff and defendant may be familiar. Jose Padilla AKA Abdullah al-Muhajir [107, et al] is the American, al-Qaeda, dirty bomber, who seems to have become a cause célèbre for the anti-W believers. John C. Yoo is the former assistant attorney general, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice [340, et al]. Padilla accuses Yoo of being the source perpetrator for governmental violations of his constitutional rights. Yoo filed his motion to dismiss on a variety of grounds. As I read Judge White’s rationale for granting in part and denying in part Yoo’s motion to dismiss, I was struck by a strong image of White’s curiosity; the judge really wants to hear the arguments and see the evidence in this case. Judge White set the tone for his ruling by opening his decision with a quote from Publius [AKA Alexander Hamilton]:
“[War] will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.”
-- The Federalist No. 8.
So, the stage is set.
News from the economic front:
-- The Washington Post reported that they “obtained a near-final copy of the Obama administration’s 85-page ‘white paper’ detailing proposed changes to the country’s system of regulating financial markets.” We can say, “Good for the Washington Post.” I must say all these “advanced” disclosures of Federal government actions is getting really annoying, like they are dipping their big toe to see what reaction they will get before they take the plunge – annoying, really annoying.
-- As the Washington Post reported in advance (above), President Obama unveiled proposed sweeping changes to Federal oversight and regulation of financial markets. The changes include giving more power to the Federal Reserve to police large, systematically important institutions; allowing the government to break firms apart; implementing new rules for complex instruments; and creating a new federal agency to oversee consumer products such as mortgages and credit cards. In his public announcement, the President said, “With the reforms we are proposing today, we seek to put in place rules that will allow our markets to promote innovation while discouraging abuse.” He added, “We seek to create a framework in which markets can function freely and fairly, without the fragility in which normal business cycles bring the risk of financial collapse; a system that works for businesses and consumers.” Initial reaction to the President’s proposal have been muted and neutral as it has a long way to go before becoming law and actionable.
-- The outdoor-clothing chain Eddie Bauer filed for bankruptcy and announced the company’s plan to sell itself for US$202M to CCMP Capital, a private equity firm. I hope the company survives; they produce quality products.
-- Former AIG CEO, Maurice R. Greenberg [372], testified that he was entitled to remove US$4.3B in the company’s stock under certain conditions. His former employer filed a civil suit in Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York to recover some or all of those funds. Greenberg and his brethren give new meaning to the century old term “robber barons.”
-- Apparently the Wall Street Journal wants to add their voice against business aviation. The Journal reported, “Flight records show numerous occasions when banks receiving federal money have flown their planes to destinations near resorts or executives’ vacation homes, including spots in Europe, Mexico, the Caribbean, south Florida and Aspen, Colo. In some cases, it’s clear that bank executives were traveling for personal reasons; for other flights, many of which were over weekends or holidays, the passengers and purpose couldn’t be established.”
-- Convicted felon and Federal inmate, Richard Marin Scrushy – founder and former CEO of the global health care company, HealthSouth Corporation – has been ordered to pay US$2.8B to shareholders who sued over accounting fraud at the company. It is not clear whether or how Scrushy will pay his penalty, but I suspect given the judgment, the shareholders will now go after whatever assets he has remaining.
The Blago Scandal [365]:
-- While Blago is enjoying his remaining freedom, doing entertainment shows (anything to keep his name in the Press), his buddy, Senator Roland Burris of Illinois [368] learned he will not be charged with perjury for statements he made before an Illinois House impeachment committee. Whew! I bet he feels better, since he has no honor or dignity.
The Stanford Fraud [375]:
-- A Houston grand jury indicted and charged flamboyant financier R. Allen Stanford with orchestrating an US$8B fraud through his Caribbean-based, Stanford Financial Group. He surrendered to federal agents in Virginia within hours of his indictment. The Justice Department is expected to pursuit Federal prosecution and punishment. The SEC previously had filed a civil lawsuit [375] alleging fraud against Stanford and other top executives at his firm.
Comments and contributions from Update no.391:
“Enjoyed the pictures [390], everybody looks healthy and happy – couldn’t ask for much more. The red marks are typical of spider bites in the tropics and aspirin was a good choice – we see a lot of them down here with people going with sandals or flip-flops much of the year. It really never gets cold enough to kill most things outside and when it does get cool, everything comes inside and there isn’t enough protection in the world to kill all the ‘critters’ that come inside.
“I certainly am apprehensive of the direction our country is going in and the lack of any meaningful discussion about it from either the main street press or Congress. Over forty(?) czars that Congress has never heard of, never talked about, and has no oversight for is certainly cause for concern. The last I heard was that Congress wasn’t sure how many there were and no idea how any of them are getting paid. They, Congress, do know that they are out of the loop and the Czars only report to Obama and that the various Cabinet members are no longer in charge.”
Another contribution:
“My statements and position are based foremost on personal experience and observations in my own immediate family and several in the community of my work associates and social acquaintances. One of the most distressing aspects of homosexuals is that as a whole they do not limit their promiscuity to them selves but also engage in undisclosed bisexual relationships spreading their filth and diseased condition to otherwise innocent heterosexual partners. One of my grandchildren is victim of this vicious indiscretion suffering total hair loss diagnosed as an aids related illness. I recognize that many homosexuals are extremely sensitive, loving and caring individuals; but I also recognize that their partnering relationships only rarely are long-term commitments. Their commitments are not FAITH-Based. It was pointed out in a sermon recently that even heterosexual relation lose their bloom on average in two to three years, and only with the stabilizing influence of a 'faith' based commitment does any relationship stand much of a chance of survival. No one who reads with any understanding the Judeo-Christian Bible would be able to honestly contend that there is only One God. That God himself commands that his people are to place no other god before HIM. And HE is the GOD of our Lord Jesus Christ his only begotten SON, and HE further indwells ALL HIS Creation with The Holy Spirit. He also tells us that at the End Time he will hear only those who have publicly confessed their sins In The Name of HIS SON, Jesus Christ.
“With respect to General Pace, your own words serve to make my point.
“This Nation and those who served under the likes of General Pace have been, are and hopefully will continue to be Greatly Blessed.
“Cap, as much as I disagree with you on many issues I think your forum is useful to all who follow it; I thank you and hope you will continue with your forum.”
My reply:
Thank you for your support and your continuing contributions. I intend to continue the Updates as long as they have usefulness.
Re: homosexuals (or perhaps more properly, other than heterosexuals). Let it suffice to say, your experience and mine are not the same, and lead us to entirely different positions & conclusions. Homosexuals are no more promiscuous than heterosexuals, but they do tend to be a little less repressed about sex in general. Each of us may accept or disapprove of non-heterosexual relations, but whatever disapproval we may hold does not give us the right or authority to impose our beliefs, opinions or views on other human beings. Each of us chooses as we have been trained, taught, learned or come to rationalize; and, I am good with that. I am sorry anyone’s children or grandchildren must deal with HIV/AIDS; hopefully, someday, we shall find the cure. I do not agree that homosexual relationships are NOT faith-based. Like so many arguments related to homosexuality (and other sensitive topics) the rationale is circular and self-fulfilling. It should be no surprise that homosexuals who are not welcomed into a congregation, or who are shunned and rejected from a congregation they are in, do not seek the sanction of their particular faith for their life-partnership choices. Further, I find the notion that homosexual relationships do not “last” to be very disappointing; in that, under the stress of societal disapproval, of constitutional discrimination against them, and of general mindless homophobia, it is amazing that any homosexual relationship can withstand that kind of pressure. Nonetheless, there are many homosexual relationships that are not only enduring, they remain caring, devoted, loving, and nurturing relationships. If individuals were truly free to choose their partners and enjoy equal protection under the law, I think we would find that homosexual relationships would have a higher longevity than heterosexual couples. It must be extraordinarily difficult to maintain a relationship that general society and government condemns and forces to be hidden, and certainly not recognized under the law; and yet, we see homosexual couples survive and thrive despite the general homophobia around them. Lastly, more and more churches/religions/congregations are accepting homosexuals as equals. In this arena, I choose to err on the side of freedom and each individual’s inalienable right to his personal pursuit of Happiness; as a consequence, I offer my voice in resistance to those who seek to deny that right to any individual regardless of their sexual orientation. Because we may disapprove, does not give us the authority to deny equal rights and equal treatment under the law to anyone who is productive, respects the law, and conducts themselves properly in public.
I believe I understand your point. Now, I shall endeavor to explain my point. I believe there always has been, is, and always will be only ONE God. We may call Him by many different titles, names, references or forms, but at the end of the day, there is only ONE God. Each of us chooses how we wish to recognize God’s greatness; we are not born genetically with any pre-disposition toward one form of religion or worship. The fact that one man chooses to call God Allah and another chooses to see God in many facets or manifestations does not alter God. Further, the religion one chooses to best represent his beliefs is a matter of very personal and private choice, which should be no one else’s business but his. How I choose to worship God’s greatness does affect God’s greatness whatsoever, and He knows the purity of my heart. I respect the manner by which you choose to worship God’s greatness. I trust you will respect mine.
Peter was a good general, but he is also a flawed man, as we all are. Just because he wore four silver stars on each collar point does not make him super-human, more insightful, or even simply better than any of the rest of us. He is but a man. With respect to homosexuals serving in the military, I now believe he is wrong and clinging to a misguided homophobia of the past. But, hey, as Dennis Miller says, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Another contribution from a different individual:
“I thought you might like to read this excellent article from the New York Review of Books. My subscription is one of the best Xmas presents my sister ever gave me.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22791 [see article noted above]
My response:
Now we can both be thankful for the present your sister gave you. I skimmed the article sufficiently to know there is value to the article beyond the review of books. I was not even aware of the books, either, which I will pass along. I need to read the article more carefully and do a little more research.”
. . . with this follow-up comment:
Yeah, it pretty much puts the kabosh to all current arguments against same sex marriage. What I found most pleasing is the argument that it is time to separate civil marriage from religious marriage--an argument I have been making for years. I actually have sympathy for the concerns of some churches that they might be forced to perform a ritual that flies in the face of their church's teachings. A clear violation of the free exercise clause. But, the other side of the coin are those churches who attempt to impose their religious doctrine on everyone through civil law. A clear violation of the establishment clause. We will probably end up like many countries and have two ceremonies--the legal one sanctioned by law, and the religious one sanctified by a church. Fine by me and long overdue.
. . . and my follow-up response:
I wish the kibosh was that simple, but alas, there are ignorant folks who chose to cling mightily to their dogmatic ideology rather than embrace reason and logic. C’est la vie.
I’m still tweaking my Update opinion, so I know I will add more as the mood strikes.
We do not need more proof of the wisdom of the “separate but equal is inherently not equal” observation from Brown v. Board of Education.
“Long overdue” indeed! Progress is slow. There will be setbacks as in California. I understand the Strauss v. Horton ruling, and the court’s need to take a very narrow view of the question before them. Yet, as I have written, Justice Moreno’s dissent puts a very sharp point on the issue at hand.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The follow-up news items:
-- We bear witness to important history in the making within the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) . . . in an all-too-familiar manner, as we did in 1979. The Iranian post-election situation is an intriguing demonstration of civil disobedience within the Islamic world. Challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi [391] has protested the election results, and his supporters have taken their objection to the streets in Tehran, Esfahan, Shiraz, and other cities. Tehran is NOT the Islamic Republic of Iran – just the capital and largest city. As much as we would like to see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [203, et al] gone from the public domain, we must recognize that we are watching something akin to New York City rioting because they disapproved of a national election. Let us not ascribe too much of our opinion to wishful thinking. Ahmadinejad may well have won 62% of the total national popular vote. To me, the most troubling element of this situation is the government’s response and especially the unleashing of the Nirouye Moqavemate Basij (Mobilization Resistance Force) – a volunteer, paramilitary organization, ostensibly under the control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Who knows how this will turn out, but we must watch.
Friday morning, I woke up in time to listen to the last hour of a two-hour speech by Iran’s Khamenei during Friday prayers at the University of Tehran. The portion I heard was a cleverly crafted, not-so-veiled attempt to validate the election results, condemn the on-going street protests of the opposition, and worst to use the typical, inflammatory, religious, fascist rhetoric to deflect national attention away from the election. Every dictator and despot in history has used some, often hidden, usually external, power or influence to coalesce national fascist support to maintain the dictator. President Obama and the United States along with Great Britain, the European Union, and a good deal of the free world have remained largely muted, measured in their public words, to avoid the very accusation Khamenei chose to spew in his speech. We saw a clever dictator in the robes and trappings of religion. Other than his attire and the venue for his speech, Khamenei is no different from the secular variants that precede him. The line has been drawn. We shall bear witness to the clash between religion, dictatorship and the desire of the people to be free.
In my comment on the Iranian election last week [391], I quoted Joe Stalin. This week, another dictator seems most appropriate. Der Fürher observed,
“[I]n the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility . . . thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds [We, the People] they more readily fall victim to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1925
In the Iranian election, we see the BIG lie. Perhaps the Iranians are learning what the Founders of this Grand Republic learned in the aftermath of the Reformation . . . clerics like Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hoseyni Khamenei are just simple men, like all the rest of us, and as such they are just as prone to mistakes, missteps, errors in judgment, the seduction of power, and other weaknesses of mankind; and, they are just as fallible. We can look to the positive and think . . . perhaps the trauma Iran is experiencing will help them mature as a society and reject the theocracy that represses them – yet one more example why we all need a “wall of separation between church and State.”
One of my personal idiosyncrasies is my loathsome contempt for anyone who thinks he is better than another human being, and my opinion spans clerics, presidents, generals, kings and prima donna athletes to the common criminal and even Islamo-fascist terrorists. As Slick Willy Clinton so aptly observed, “Politics is a contact sport. If you’re not prepared to get hit, don’t get in the game.” In a theocracy, especially the Iranian variant, the Supreme Leader places himself above the fray . . . not allowing himself to be spattered by the mud & blood of secular politics that might sully his clerical robes; and yet, he lords over the Iranian politicians and people as if he is blessed with some divine wisdom or insight. Khamenei qualifies for my full contempt, not that he really gives a hoot about my opinion or anyone else’s. He is just another two-bit dictator, regardless of his robes, trappings, and sanctimonious rhetoric.
One additional observation: The World Wide Web, or Internet if you prefer, is a wondrous medium that links us all in what I euphemistically call cyber-space. As those us who are familiar with these wonders know, cyber-space enables good and evil; and, to date, we have enjoyed unfettered access. Perhaps more than any other historic event, we bear witness to the awesome power of cyber-space to equalize, to overcome barriers, to truly reflect the will of the People. The events unleashed a week ago in the IRI are far from over, however, the Iranian People are mobilizing cyber-space to their cause for freedom. Ah yes, the Internet is a wondrous place.
On Wednesday, President Obama issued an Executive Memorandum, or perhaps an Executive Order (I am not sure which, as I have not yet found an authentic copy), that extended Federal employment benefits to same-sex couples. I do not know how this order is reconciled against the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 [PL 104-199]. Since the Obama administration has elected to avoid confronting or addressing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy established by PL 103-160 [Div. A, Title V, Sec. 571(a)(1)], I suspect this is a gesture of placation. The President’s action may be challenged in court. I hope not. I trust that Barack will eventually make his way politically to address the inequality and discrimination of the current policy / law. We can hope, since hope seems to be the emotional currency of the moment.
I am constantly playing catch-up with my eMail reading, and this particular item did not make the cut last week. Given recent events, the questions raised present appropriate topics for this forum.
“Hate Crimes and Extremist Politics”
by The Editors
New York Times
Published: June 11, 2009, 12:29 pm
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/hate-crimes-and-extremist-politics/?8ty&emc=ty
They asked:
1. Should the United States consider tighter restrictions on hate speech?
2. In the meantime, how should law enforcement agencies respond?
Given recent events (the Tiller and Holocaust Museum murders), the questions are understandable . . . although enormously disappointing. Yet, coming from the editors of the New York Times, we can indulge the disappointment.
As to Question no.1:
If we set aside fundamental principles embodied by the Founders / Framers in the 1st Amendment and the logical response to the question posed . . . freedom of speech and the potential constraints thereupon are two sharp edges of the same blade. When we begin to pass judgment on one person’s speech in a particular context, we must expect others to find fault with our speech. Justice Douglas concluded in his concurring opinion in Brandenburg v. Ohio [395 U.S. 444 (1969); no. 492] [377]: “The quality of advocacy turns on the depth of the conviction; and government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief and conscience.” Even more fascinating, the Supremes were defending the Klu Klux Klan’s right to contaminate the public domain with their racist hatred and vitriol. The simple, direct, definitive answer to Question 1 is an emphatic, absolute, and unqualified NO. Question 1 is a lame, flimsy, miniscule band-aid that does nothing to address the root cause and risk infringement on the freedom of every citizen, for some folks to feel good about the band-aid. In discussions like this, I always return to the wise words of Justice Brandeis – “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” Frankly, I want the hate speech out in the open, where we can hear it and disinfect it.
Since the answer to Question 1 is a big ne-ga-tory, we come to Question 2. My answer:
Dealing with hate speech (or any other aberrant public behavior) is more a matter for society and not limited to law enforcement. Law enforcement at all levels needs an intelligence function that collects information from all sources including the community. The reality is the community must care about itself; it is not just a police function. Thus, law enforcement should respond by first, encouraging public participation with identification of threatening speech or conduct; second, collecting the information with respect to a citizen’s potentially threatening activities; and third, at least make the individual in question aware that the police are paying attention to his activities. Restrictions upon freedom of speech affect us all, whether we are perceptive enough to recognize the constraint. Restrictions are also pre-emptive actions by the State, which in themselves are open to interpretation, and thus risk extension far beyond the original intended purpose. As repulsive as it may be for us to defend that hate-speech of Scott Roeder or James Von Brunn, let us remember that limitations on their hate speech can be and probably would be used to suppress protests like we see in Tehran. Our freedom of speech is far too precious to give the government any more authority to suppress.
If anyone would like to feel just a tiny sliver of the discrimination non-heterosexual couples feel even in a state that ostensibly offers “separate but equal” rights based on sexual orientation, please read this article:
“ACLU: Hospital discriminated against gay couple”
Associated Press
Published: Monday, June 15, 2009; 10:32 pm ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090616/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_discrimination
A friend, contributor and thinker sent this article for my (our) review [comments below].
“The Same-Sex Future”
by David Cole
The New York Review of Books
New York Times
Published: July 2, 2009 [Volume 56, Number 11]
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22791
The books reviewed by Cole were:
-- Eskridge, Jr., William N., and Darren R. Spedale. “Gay Marriage: For Better or for Worse? What We've Learned from the Evidence.” New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
-- Gerstmann, Evan. “Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution.” New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
-- West, Robin. “Marriage, Sexuality, and Gender.” Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2007.
-- Laycock, Douglas, Anthony R. Picarello Jr., and Robin Fretwell Wilson (eds.). “Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts.” Plymouth, Devon, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2008.
Cole skillfully reviews the four books and paints a clear, concise image of the contemporary issue – perhaps one of the best concise descriptions, yet. The difficulty associated with relegation of marriage to the religious domain and dedicated civil union to the state sanction for all relationships is the pervasiveness of the term “marriage” or “married.” Every related form and procedure from private to public including local, state and Federal governments use the term “married.” I have considered the split of civil union and marriage, to public and private respectively, but I just cannot see it working in a practical sense. The proposal would reconcile the ideological conflict between secular and religious, between public and private, but the practical, operational dimension always pops out. While I could support the civil union proposal, I still believe amendment to existing common law (including the repeal of these foolish state constitutional amendments) can and should be carried out in a form implemented by Vermont’s S.115 law – protecting religion’s right to define private marriage as they see fit (including condemnation, ostracism, excommunication, or banishment), while the State recognizes civil marriage for the purpose of rights, benefits and the public domain. Cole concludes his review with an apropos observation, “If the inclusion of same-sex couples changes the institution, it is likely to be for the better, rendering it more consistent with ideals of fairness. For marriage itself, then, and more important for the constitutional principle of equality, the only just result is to accord equal dignity and respect to all those who choose to enter long-term, committed family relationships, irrespective of their sexual orientation.” That fairly well summarizes this issue, it seems to me.
Congress passed another pork-infested war-funding bill -- Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 [H.R. 2346; Senate: 91-5-0-3(1); House: 226-202-0-6(1)]. The President has not announced his intentions, but he is expected to sign yet the US$106B, pork-laden, spending authorization.
On 16.June.2009, Queens Bench High Court Judge, the Honorable Mister Justice Sir David Eady [346] issued his ruling in the case of The Author of a Blog v. Times Newspapers Limited [(2009) EWHC 1358 (QB); case No: HQ09X02293]. The case attracted my attention as another test of a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy. A prima facie anonymous blogger sought court protect of his identity against The Times, who in turn counter-claimed that the blogger was a serving police officer and disclosing law enforcement information normally considered confidential. Eady found against the claimant as blogging was a public activity, and the fact that the blogger was using “inside” information weighed in favor of the The Times. The case essentially boiled down to a citizen’s expectation of privacy in protecting his identity versus the public interest of police confidential information remaining out of the public domain. From my non-legal perspective, I believe Sir David got it spot on. Each of us has a basic, fundamental right to freedom of speech as expected by blogger Night Jack (AKA “The Author of a Blog,” or Detective Constable Richard Horton, 45, of the Lancashire Constabulary). However, when we don the trappings of our employment or service, e.g., military uniform, title, employment affiliation, et cetera, then we also acquire representation of our employment; therefore, we no longer enjoy full freedom of speech. When representing others, either directly or indirectly, we have an obligation to those we represent. I cannot use my position, title, affiliation or information derived from my employment to add credibility or weight to my public arguments.
I try to avoid comments on preliminary, “in process,” judicial activities; yet, every once in a while an intriguing event comes to us. Late last week [12.June.2009], United States District Judge Jeffrey Steven White issued his ruling on a motion to dismiss in the case of Padilla v. Yoo [USDC ND CA no. C 08-00035 JSW (2008)]. The names of the plaintiff and defendant may be familiar. Jose Padilla AKA Abdullah al-Muhajir [107, et al] is the American, al-Qaeda, dirty bomber, who seems to have become a cause célèbre for the anti-W believers. John C. Yoo is the former assistant attorney general, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice [340, et al]. Padilla accuses Yoo of being the source perpetrator for governmental violations of his constitutional rights. Yoo filed his motion to dismiss on a variety of grounds. As I read Judge White’s rationale for granting in part and denying in part Yoo’s motion to dismiss, I was struck by a strong image of White’s curiosity; the judge really wants to hear the arguments and see the evidence in this case. Judge White set the tone for his ruling by opening his decision with a quote from Publius [AKA Alexander Hamilton]:
“[War] will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.”
-- The Federalist No. 8.
So, the stage is set.
News from the economic front:
-- The Washington Post reported that they “obtained a near-final copy of the Obama administration’s 85-page ‘white paper’ detailing proposed changes to the country’s system of regulating financial markets.” We can say, “Good for the Washington Post.” I must say all these “advanced” disclosures of Federal government actions is getting really annoying, like they are dipping their big toe to see what reaction they will get before they take the plunge – annoying, really annoying.
-- As the Washington Post reported in advance (above), President Obama unveiled proposed sweeping changes to Federal oversight and regulation of financial markets. The changes include giving more power to the Federal Reserve to police large, systematically important institutions; allowing the government to break firms apart; implementing new rules for complex instruments; and creating a new federal agency to oversee consumer products such as mortgages and credit cards. In his public announcement, the President said, “With the reforms we are proposing today, we seek to put in place rules that will allow our markets to promote innovation while discouraging abuse.” He added, “We seek to create a framework in which markets can function freely and fairly, without the fragility in which normal business cycles bring the risk of financial collapse; a system that works for businesses and consumers.” Initial reaction to the President’s proposal have been muted and neutral as it has a long way to go before becoming law and actionable.
-- The outdoor-clothing chain Eddie Bauer filed for bankruptcy and announced the company’s plan to sell itself for US$202M to CCMP Capital, a private equity firm. I hope the company survives; they produce quality products.
-- Former AIG CEO, Maurice R. Greenberg [372], testified that he was entitled to remove US$4.3B in the company’s stock under certain conditions. His former employer filed a civil suit in Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York to recover some or all of those funds. Greenberg and his brethren give new meaning to the century old term “robber barons.”
-- Apparently the Wall Street Journal wants to add their voice against business aviation. The Journal reported, “Flight records show numerous occasions when banks receiving federal money have flown their planes to destinations near resorts or executives’ vacation homes, including spots in Europe, Mexico, the Caribbean, south Florida and Aspen, Colo. In some cases, it’s clear that bank executives were traveling for personal reasons; for other flights, many of which were over weekends or holidays, the passengers and purpose couldn’t be established.”
-- Convicted felon and Federal inmate, Richard Marin Scrushy – founder and former CEO of the global health care company, HealthSouth Corporation – has been ordered to pay US$2.8B to shareholders who sued over accounting fraud at the company. It is not clear whether or how Scrushy will pay his penalty, but I suspect given the judgment, the shareholders will now go after whatever assets he has remaining.
The Blago Scandal [365]:
-- While Blago is enjoying his remaining freedom, doing entertainment shows (anything to keep his name in the Press), his buddy, Senator Roland Burris of Illinois [368] learned he will not be charged with perjury for statements he made before an Illinois House impeachment committee. Whew! I bet he feels better, since he has no honor or dignity.
The Stanford Fraud [375]:
-- A Houston grand jury indicted and charged flamboyant financier R. Allen Stanford with orchestrating an US$8B fraud through his Caribbean-based, Stanford Financial Group. He surrendered to federal agents in Virginia within hours of his indictment. The Justice Department is expected to pursuit Federal prosecution and punishment. The SEC previously had filed a civil lawsuit [375] alleging fraud against Stanford and other top executives at his firm.
Comments and contributions from Update no.391:
“Enjoyed the pictures [390], everybody looks healthy and happy – couldn’t ask for much more. The red marks are typical of spider bites in the tropics and aspirin was a good choice – we see a lot of them down here with people going with sandals or flip-flops much of the year. It really never gets cold enough to kill most things outside and when it does get cool, everything comes inside and there isn’t enough protection in the world to kill all the ‘critters’ that come inside.
“I certainly am apprehensive of the direction our country is going in and the lack of any meaningful discussion about it from either the main street press or Congress. Over forty(?) czars that Congress has never heard of, never talked about, and has no oversight for is certainly cause for concern. The last I heard was that Congress wasn’t sure how many there were and no idea how any of them are getting paid. They, Congress, do know that they are out of the loop and the Czars only report to Obama and that the various Cabinet members are no longer in charge.”
Another contribution:
“My statements and position are based foremost on personal experience and observations in my own immediate family and several in the community of my work associates and social acquaintances. One of the most distressing aspects of homosexuals is that as a whole they do not limit their promiscuity to them selves but also engage in undisclosed bisexual relationships spreading their filth and diseased condition to otherwise innocent heterosexual partners. One of my grandchildren is victim of this vicious indiscretion suffering total hair loss diagnosed as an aids related illness. I recognize that many homosexuals are extremely sensitive, loving and caring individuals; but I also recognize that their partnering relationships only rarely are long-term commitments. Their commitments are not FAITH-Based. It was pointed out in a sermon recently that even heterosexual relation lose their bloom on average in two to three years, and only with the stabilizing influence of a 'faith' based commitment does any relationship stand much of a chance of survival. No one who reads with any understanding the Judeo-Christian Bible would be able to honestly contend that there is only One God. That God himself commands that his people are to place no other god before HIM. And HE is the GOD of our Lord Jesus Christ his only begotten SON, and HE further indwells ALL HIS Creation with The Holy Spirit. He also tells us that at the End Time he will hear only those who have publicly confessed their sins In The Name of HIS SON, Jesus Christ.
“With respect to General Pace, your own words serve to make my point.
“This Nation and those who served under the likes of General Pace have been, are and hopefully will continue to be Greatly Blessed.
“Cap, as much as I disagree with you on many issues I think your forum is useful to all who follow it; I thank you and hope you will continue with your forum.”
My reply:
Thank you for your support and your continuing contributions. I intend to continue the Updates as long as they have usefulness.
Re: homosexuals (or perhaps more properly, other than heterosexuals). Let it suffice to say, your experience and mine are not the same, and lead us to entirely different positions & conclusions. Homosexuals are no more promiscuous than heterosexuals, but they do tend to be a little less repressed about sex in general. Each of us may accept or disapprove of non-heterosexual relations, but whatever disapproval we may hold does not give us the right or authority to impose our beliefs, opinions or views on other human beings. Each of us chooses as we have been trained, taught, learned or come to rationalize; and, I am good with that. I am sorry anyone’s children or grandchildren must deal with HIV/AIDS; hopefully, someday, we shall find the cure. I do not agree that homosexual relationships are NOT faith-based. Like so many arguments related to homosexuality (and other sensitive topics) the rationale is circular and self-fulfilling. It should be no surprise that homosexuals who are not welcomed into a congregation, or who are shunned and rejected from a congregation they are in, do not seek the sanction of their particular faith for their life-partnership choices. Further, I find the notion that homosexual relationships do not “last” to be very disappointing; in that, under the stress of societal disapproval, of constitutional discrimination against them, and of general mindless homophobia, it is amazing that any homosexual relationship can withstand that kind of pressure. Nonetheless, there are many homosexual relationships that are not only enduring, they remain caring, devoted, loving, and nurturing relationships. If individuals were truly free to choose their partners and enjoy equal protection under the law, I think we would find that homosexual relationships would have a higher longevity than heterosexual couples. It must be extraordinarily difficult to maintain a relationship that general society and government condemns and forces to be hidden, and certainly not recognized under the law; and yet, we see homosexual couples survive and thrive despite the general homophobia around them. Lastly, more and more churches/religions/congregations are accepting homosexuals as equals. In this arena, I choose to err on the side of freedom and each individual’s inalienable right to his personal pursuit of Happiness; as a consequence, I offer my voice in resistance to those who seek to deny that right to any individual regardless of their sexual orientation. Because we may disapprove, does not give us the authority to deny equal rights and equal treatment under the law to anyone who is productive, respects the law, and conducts themselves properly in public.
I believe I understand your point. Now, I shall endeavor to explain my point. I believe there always has been, is, and always will be only ONE God. We may call Him by many different titles, names, references or forms, but at the end of the day, there is only ONE God. Each of us chooses how we wish to recognize God’s greatness; we are not born genetically with any pre-disposition toward one form of religion or worship. The fact that one man chooses to call God Allah and another chooses to see God in many facets or manifestations does not alter God. Further, the religion one chooses to best represent his beliefs is a matter of very personal and private choice, which should be no one else’s business but his. How I choose to worship God’s greatness does affect God’s greatness whatsoever, and He knows the purity of my heart. I respect the manner by which you choose to worship God’s greatness. I trust you will respect mine.
Peter was a good general, but he is also a flawed man, as we all are. Just because he wore four silver stars on each collar point does not make him super-human, more insightful, or even simply better than any of the rest of us. He is but a man. With respect to homosexuals serving in the military, I now believe he is wrong and clinging to a misguided homophobia of the past. But, hey, as Dennis Miller says, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Another contribution from a different individual:
“I thought you might like to read this excellent article from the New York Review of Books. My subscription is one of the best Xmas presents my sister ever gave me.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22791 [see article noted above]
My response:
Now we can both be thankful for the present your sister gave you. I skimmed the article sufficiently to know there is value to the article beyond the review of books. I was not even aware of the books, either, which I will pass along. I need to read the article more carefully and do a little more research.”
. . . with this follow-up comment:
Yeah, it pretty much puts the kabosh to all current arguments against same sex marriage. What I found most pleasing is the argument that it is time to separate civil marriage from religious marriage--an argument I have been making for years. I actually have sympathy for the concerns of some churches that they might be forced to perform a ritual that flies in the face of their church's teachings. A clear violation of the free exercise clause. But, the other side of the coin are those churches who attempt to impose their religious doctrine on everyone through civil law. A clear violation of the establishment clause. We will probably end up like many countries and have two ceremonies--the legal one sanctioned by law, and the religious one sanctified by a church. Fine by me and long overdue.
. . . and my follow-up response:
I wish the kibosh was that simple, but alas, there are ignorant folks who chose to cling mightily to their dogmatic ideology rather than embrace reason and logic. C’est la vie.
I’m still tweaking my Update opinion, so I know I will add more as the mood strikes.
We do not need more proof of the wisdom of the “separate but equal is inherently not equal” observation from Brown v. Board of Education.
“Long overdue” indeed! Progress is slow. There will be setbacks as in California. I understand the Strauss v. Horton ruling, and the court’s need to take a very narrow view of the question before them. Yet, as I have written, Justice Moreno’s dissent puts a very sharp point on the issue at hand.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
We shall see what happens in Iran. "A clever dictator in the robes and trappings of religion" is business as usual for the past thirty years in Iran. I still contend that theocrats wield more power and have even less scruples than fascists. Nevertheless, the recent rioting has at least shown that after three decades opposition still exists in Iran. That's a happy surprise to me. They have survived extreme oppression, apparently proving that no country is truly monolithic. Also, communications media have reached the point of being largely beyond the control of national governments. The outcome of all this has yet to be determined. I'm more concerned with North Korea today. Nukes do more damage than tear gas.
As best I understand, Obama's gesture toward same-sex partners is mostly a gesture. A given Federal employee could get time off (presumably FMLA unpaid leave) to care for his or her partner, but not health coverage, for example. The President has made no effort to take on either DOMA or Don't Ask Don't Tell. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Meanwhile, States make progress with or without the support of the Federal government.
I also support freedom of speech, including the freedom of those I find loathesome. If a given person supports the "freedom" of only those with whom he or she agrees, that person does not support freedom. The Klan and others whose views bring me nausea remain entitled to those views. Actions supporting some of those views can be another matter.
MrMacnCheese,
Well said and agreed. Our Founders learned that lesson is spades – dictators in the trappings of religion often (usually) are far more ruthless that their secular brethren; after all, they carry the word of God to execute their will [not His].
North Korea more dangerous or threatening than the Islamic Republic of Iran . . . perhaps. They are both dangerous nations for different reasons. A little side story at a personal level . . . All military folks (at least of my generation) were familiarized, if not trained, in NBC warfare – Nuclear, Biological and Chemical – all weapons of mass destruction, in today’s parlance. Of those three, I can handle nuclear. If Grand Dear Leader seeks to exchange detonations of his kiloton fission devices for our megaton thermonuclear weapons, I’m sure the exchange can be arranged. While Saddam’s Iraq was more active across the broad spectrum of WMDs, the IRI has dabbled in all three as well, although their focus is on the nuclear portion. What is far more worrisome to me is the IRI persistent, consistent, and substantial state-sponsorship of a wide variety of predominately Islamist, terrorist networks. The IRI has a world-wide distribution network that the DPRK does not enjoy, other than via rogue nations like the IRI and Saddam’s Iraq.
Thank you for your observations and opinion regarding the President’s “gesture.” I finally found the Presidential Memorandum yesterday. The President charged the OPM with a review of Federal employment benefits to “recommend to [the President] any additional measures that can be taken, consistent with existing law, to provide benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal Government employees.” The salient phrase is “consistent with existing law,” which seriously constrains the reach of the Memorandum. From my perspective, the Memorandum is barely more than a public statement – “mostly a gesture,” indeed.
We agree. Freedom of speech for every citizen is far too precious for the protection of all our freedoms and rights. We need to pay attention and assist law enforcement in dealing with those who choose to act out.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment