Update no.400

Update from the Heartland
No.400
10.8.09 – 16.8.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
Erratum: In Update no.399, I erroneously noted the CARS Program [HR 3435, AKA Cash for Clunkers] as PL 111-044. The bill signed into law by President Obama was actually PL 111-047. My apologies!

The follow-up news items:
-- The trials and tribulations of Debbie Purdy [364-6, 375, 399] continue as a former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, warned that new guidelines on assisted suicide as ordered by the Law Lords in R (Purdy) v. Director of Public Prosecutions [(2009) UKHL 45] [399] will expose the DPP to repeated challenges in the courts. Add to Lord MacKay’s warning and Ms. Purdy’s perpetuated anxiety, we have thrown in the insanity of Sarah Palin’s reference to “death panels.” This is the foolishness we must suffer in free society – exaggeration and disinformation to inflame the masses. Health care reform is far too complicated to tolerate a political misinformation campaign by those opposed to reform. My opinion regarding the need for Death with Dignity laws remains unchanged [349A].

The ruling military junta of Myanmar (Burma) immediately returned pro-democracy activist, Nobel Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, to another 18 months of house arrest, after being found guilty in court of violating the terms of her house arrest for allowing an American intruder to enter her home. As we bear witness yet again, fascist dictators cannot tolerate freedom or any talk of democracy. Suu Kyi’s peaceful struggle for freedom continues.

A contributor sent along this on-line article –
“Is the U.S. on the Brink of Fascism?”
by Sara Robinson,
Alternet.org
Posted: August 7, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/politics/141819/is_the_u.s._on_the_brink_of_fascism/
The author relied on a paper written by Columbia University historian Robert Paxton a decade ago, to present her question as titled. The Paxton essay:
“The Five Stages of Fascism”
by Robert O. Paxton
The Journal of Modern History; Vol. 70, No. 1; March 1998
http://www.salemstate.edu/~cmauriello/pdfEuropean/Paxton_Five%20Stages%20of%20Fascism.pdf
The five stages illuminated by Paxton and reiterated by Robinson are:
1st: a rural movement emerges to effect (sic) some kind of nationalist renewal,
2nd: movements take root, become political parties, and seize their seat at the table of power,
3rd: the transition to full-fledged government fascism – the point of no return,
4th: power struggles emerge between party faithful and conservative institutions – church, military, professions and business,
5th: “radicalization or entropy”
The topic deserves our attention, focus and debate. We can see signs that we are tiptoeing on the edge. Let it suffice to say, I do not think we are on an irreversible path to becoming a fascist state. Yet, some of the signs are undeniable. We, the People, must grasp the light, re-double our commitment to freedom for ALL citizens, not just the chosen, and reject the radicalization of our society . . . born in the belief that individual freedom can overcome all forces of tyranny.

A week ago Saturday, a private Piper PA-32 fixed-wing airplane and a Liberty Tours Eurocopter AS-350 helicopter collided over the Hudson River on a CAVU day – Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited. Nine people died. As is so often the case, the finger-pointing began immediately. Two air traffic controllers were suspended, pending the outcome of the investigation. Both aircraft were operating under Visual Flight Rules (VFR), which is governed by an aviation principle in existence for many decades – see and be seen. To my surprise, there are apparently no traffic rules for operating in the Hudson River corridor or in the vicinity of Manhattan. What is truly disappointing is the typical, knee-jerk, emotional, politically motivated, response of Congress. Representative Jerrod Nadler of New York and 14 other representatives wrote a letter to Federal Aviation Administration Administrator J. Randolph Babbitt, requesting immediate restrictions on New York City’s airspace. Hopefully, saner, more rational minds will prevail in the aftermath of the tragedy.

The last of the Supreme Court’s decisions from the past session in my “to read” Inbox was Cuomo v. Clearing House [557 U.S. ___ (2009); no. 08-453], which looked like an interesting and relevant case involving state’s rights and banking regulation in the context of the contemporary financial crisis. For the lawyers and constitutional scholars among us, please forgive me . . . this was a boring, dry, vaguely relevant case that I shall not waste anymore of your time to digest. ‘Nuf said about this one.

I bet y’all thought you were getting off easy this week with all these funky court rulings . . . not so fast, my friends. For a host of unrelated reasons, I was drawn to an older case – Zablocki v. Redhail [434 U.S. 374 (1978); no. 76-879]. The catalyst for the case was the denial of a marriage license to a Wisconsin resident for failure to pay court-ordered support for a child he fathered in high school, outside of any marriage contract. I try to avoid the laborious language of judges; however, in this case, Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall’s description for the Court is just too illuminating. He summarized, “Appellee Redhail is a Wisconsin resident who, under the terms of [Wis. Stat. (1973)] 245.10, is unable to enter into a lawful marriage in Wisconsin or elsewhere so long as he maintains his Wisconsin residency. The facts, according to the stipulation filed by the parties in the District Court, are as follows. In January 1972, when appellee was a minor and a high school student, a paternity action was instituted against him in Milwaukee County Court, alleging that he was the father of a baby girl born out of wedlock on July 5, 1971. After he appeared and admitted that he was the child's father, the court entered an order on May 12, 1972, adjudging appellee the father and ordering him to pay $109 per month as support for the child until she reached 18 years of age. From May 1972 until August 1974, appellee was unemployed and indigent, and consequently was unable to make any support payments.” The agony goes on for another couple of paragraphs, but I think we can all form a fairly clear picture based on Marshall’s description. Redhail claimed the Wisconsin law violated his Equal Protection rights under the 14th Amendment. The Supremes decided in Redhail’s favor. Marshall, writing for the Court, said, “Since the right to marry is of fundamental importance, e. g., Loving v. Virginia [388 U.S. 1 (1967)], and the statutory classification involved here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right . . . [t]he statute cannot be justified as encouraging an applicant to support his children;” and thus, violated Redhail’s Equal Protection rights. There are many aspects of this case that intrigue me. I shall also confess a seriously conflicted opinion. On one hand, I think the Court reached the correct conclusion for rather obtuse reasons; yet, on the other hand, the state has every right to use whatever means available to it to force compliance by a foolish, immature, impregnator of girls. To avoid stretching this out any further, please allow me to draw focus on the sole dissenting opinion from then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist, who wrote, “The statute [Wis. Stat. 245.10 (1973)]. . . is a permissible exercise of the State’s power to regulate family life and to assure the support of minor children, despite its possible imprecision in the extreme cases.” The most salient words in the entire ruling – like brilliant Klieg lights at close range – were the “power to regulate family life.” Those words, coming from a Supreme Court justice, who eventually became el Jefe, scare the bloody hell out of me. The implication . . . to me . . . there are no fundamental rights . . . at least none beyond the reach of the government – no matter how personal or how private. The reasoning . . . the Constitution says absolutely nothing about any right to privacy. None of the justices offered any rationale or basis for such potentially deep penetration into the private domain. When a citizen imposes upon the State [We, the People], we have every right to demand compliance with certain requirements and standards of performance. The Supremes offered no qualifiers to the “power to regulate family life;” it is the absence of those boundaries that I worry most about in the constant tension between government and citizen, between public and private. As a postscript, I believe we should change the law to require the parents of minor children to pay child support until both impregnator and birther become economically self-sufficient and can take care of the child properly, or the children reaches the age of majority, whichever occurs first.

News from the economic front:
-- The Wall Street Journal surveyed economists, the majority of whom believe the recession that began in December 2007 is now over – little comfort to those who are unemployed or are about to be unemployed.
--The Wall Street Journal also reported that economists are nearly unanimous that Ben Bernanke has done a good job handling the faltering economy and should be reappointed to another term as Federal Reserve chairman. Further, the economists thought there is a 71% chance that President Obama will appoint him for another term.
-- U.S. Federal Reserve left official interest rates near zero but suggested the economy is now on more stable ground. The Fed also indicated they would pull back from their plans to buy up to US$300B of Treasury securities. The rescue program was widely expected to expire in September; however, the Fed reportedly plans to continue purchases at least through October.
-- U.S. retail sales unexpectedly fell 0.1% in July, despite the Federal government’s “cash for clunkers” program meant to help the auto industry and boost the economy. Excluding auto sales, all other retailers posted a 0.6% drop. After a couple of steps forward, we take a step back.
-- The USG investigation and pursuit of clients of Swiss bank UBS AG is expanding globally. Court documents describe how the Swiss bank and outside advisers helped wealthy Americans hide money from the Internal Revenue Service, using shell businesses set up in Hong Kong.
-- In a relatively rare occurrence, I wholeheartedly endorse a New York Times editorial, suggesting that various Wall Street banks who benefitted so much from Federal TARP funds should donate their services pro bono to help the struggling insurance giant American International Group (AIG) restructure. Heck of a good idea, and quite appropriate.

L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- Frank DiPascali Jr., 52, stood before the judge and confessed his sins. In 1996, he became the Chief Financial Officer of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC, perhaps as some recognition for helping Bernie to steal billions from investors over 33 years. U.S. District Judge Richard Joseph Sullivan heard DiPascali’s admission of guilt to multiple counts of securities fraud, whereupon he denied a US$2.5M bail request and ordered DiPascali to jail immediately, where the felon may well spend the rest of his natural life – his sentence term might be mitigated only by his degree of cooperation and productivity in the continuing investigation to bring the others of Madoff’s accomplices to justice.

Comments and contributions from Update no.399:
Posted to the Blog:
“On ‘death with dignity’: this issue involves several of the most important issue known to humankind; death, the ultimate in choice, suffering. It also involves things like inheritance, greed and various other issues. All parties argue passionately and the arguments will continue. This is one of the few issues upon which I have no opinion; I find the riddle impossible to resolve.
“Cal Thomas's use of a Bible quote in reference to a matter of governance strikes me as a distinctly un-American approach.
“I doubt that Mr. George's protest against the reality of change will stop the change. I certainly hope not.
“I noted the very short duration of Bill Clinton's trip to North Korea. That leads me to think that (A) most of the work had been completed in advance and/or (B) the underlying message was a cleaned-up version of, ‘Don't make me send my wife over here to bitch-slap you.’ Whatever it was, I’ve very glad that the journalists got out of there.
“With respect to the economy, I'm glad that the Fed has seen fit to return to governing. That fact that a few of the crooks have agreed to pay back a fraction of what they have stolen is nice but not especially relevant. Even if they actually make the payments, that will not deter others.
“We need much deeper changes than a few large fines or even prison sentences to prevent recurring scams and scandals. Few criminals indeed believe that they will pay any price for their crimes. Most likely white collar criminals have even more confidence if they have studied the history of white-collar crime. We need deep, systemic changes to combat these people.
“Other than that, the economy is still in ‘endurance’ mode as far as I can see. History says life will improve sooner or later, and we seem to be reaching sooner. I hope so.
“To revisit the Couer Alaska discussion briefly, the evaluation of environmental impact and direction of its mitigation ought to be left to someone with more environmental commitment than Couer Alaska's management. That's an insane conflict of interest.”
My reply posted on the Blog:
The challenges in finding the balance between allowing death with dignity and protecting human life are certainly not trivial or simple. IMHO, great care went into the laws in Oregon and Washington that seek mightily to find that balance; and, they’ve done a credible job. Probably not perfect, but a respectable first step. We can always improve the law. We can even repeal the law. At least they have tried to respect each citizen’s fundamental freedom of choice. Further, while the Death with Dignity law is available to residents of Oregon and Washington, a very small fraction have actually applied, and an even smaller fraction have actually utilized the law even though approved to do so. Oregon and Washington should serve as an example for all of us.
I can forgive Cal for his weaknesses and his failings. I hope you can as well.
Likewise, I doubt Robert George’s protest will alter our progress toward equality for all citizens . . . not just the chosen. There is always hope.
I think you read the Bill Clinton mission correctly. According to scuttle-butt, Grand Dear Leader Umpa-Lumpa placed one last condition on the negotiations regarding the release of the two female journalists . . . former President Clinton had to come pick them up and listen to his drivel. Bill did his part well and without any fanfare on his part.
I agree. So many of these financial crooks are getting away with robbery, yet anything seems better than what was. Bernie Madoff received a rather harsh punishment, but even that hardly seems appropriate when compared to the damage he inflicted on so many innocent people across the planet. So far, Hank Greenberg and all the other thieves have gotten off lightly with their robberies. We only hope the USG pursues these crooks relentlessly, and the bastards finally get what is coming to them.
We have been through and survived rough patches before, and the Great Recession of 2008 will be no different in the historical context.
Per the Couer Alaska agreement with the USG, the EPA will monitor and enforce water quality downstream from the Lower Slate Lake, including the overflow as a consequence of the tailings fill material. From everything reported in the Court’s written opinion, the company has done everything by the numbers and appears to be abiding by the law – as written, as intended, and in spirit.

Another contribution:
“I continue to struggle with politics in general. I had no real knowledge of what politics really is. I continue to get daily lessons not unlike the video for our form of government. Lessons including corruption, back door politics, unionization, etc. Sometimes things are positive in light of all the negative. Hence there are a couple of specific items I'd like to share.
“On the not so positive. President Obama continues his campaign for health care...reform or otherwise. He truly scares the hell out of me. He has jumped into all sorts of financial situations and obligated all of us for which there truly isn't much of an accounting or accountability to. Listed, is the banks and banking in general, and GM (now affectionately referred to as "his favorite charity"). Lest we also forget the cash for clunkers; just issue another, bigger check. The toughest part to swallow here is that for years, and even today, everyone has recognized that social security is going under. Yet no-one seems to care. This is a program where the numbers are very clear. The method to fund it is defined and the output or method to implement is clear and succinct. This being said, how on earth can he run around the country, oh yes, and even the globe, and profess his program. There is no real definition on how to pay for it. Costs are truly immeasurable except for the numbers of people who need it. I do not disagree that something is needed. But it needs to be manageable. Being from his home state, I've seen how his home system works. 24-7 emergency room service is the norm in lieu of seeing your physician. It isn't pretty. Bottom line here, there isn't one. As long as the state continues to pay for all services in lieu of necessary procedures, the hospitals continue to bill.
“On the positive side of the coin. This state truly is driven by the unions. Anything with construction, housing, electricity, manufacturing, etc. has a union. It was reported today that the firefighters of Peoria (also unionized) took their contract to the city mayor and told him to keep their contractual 3% wage increase in order to offset any layoffs or other service reductions for the benefit of the citizens of this community. They have also challenged the other 3 union groups who contract with the city to do the same. The savings for all four groups could total as much as $4.3M. That's not chicken scratch for any local municipality. Kudos to them!”
My response:
You are of course absolutely correct regarding Social Security. W tried to take a stab at it, but ultimately failed miserably. I would expect Barack to take his shot once he gets passed the health care reform issue. Social Security is a time-bomb whose fuse was lit decades ago. Something will be done sooner or later, and the later it gets the more severe the remedy.
I believe most of us are agreed that something must be done with health care reform. In reality, we are all paying for the uninsured. The costs of the non-paying ER visits are ultimately passed on in the cost of operations that makes up part of the prices the rest of us pay for needed service. Having lived in England and Italy, there are distinct advantages to universal coverage, but it is the exceptions and weaknesses of those systems that tend to get our attention and scare the hell out of us. Nonetheless, something must be done. Unfortunately, both political extremes are distorting and misleading the facts for their political purposes, thus seriously clouding any reasonable discourse.
For what it’s worth, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Barbara Boxer, and the other politicos of their ilk scare me far more than Barack. Conversely, the insanity of Sarah Palin’s recent public statements on health care are equally as frightening, for different reasons. It is the moderates who must find the solutions; the extremes have little value beyond marking the fringes of political intercourse.
I’m glad to see the unions in Illinois trying to be a part of the solution – a rarity it seems to me. American unions have traditionally taken a staunchly adversarial position with virtually a singular focus – get as much as they can for their members (and screw the companies; they have never understood business). Perhaps the Great Recession of 2008 will alter their behavior. We shall see.

A different contribution:
“Your views on marriage are absolutely right on! Government should have no voice in marriage at all. It should be a contract, probably in most cases a legal contract, written in various forms, between the people involved. The government should treat each person as an individual and leave the question of marriage to the various religions. This means, of course, that there is no longer a government preference for marriage (such as lower tax rates) and that both biological parents bear equal responsibility for any children.”
My reply:
Yea verily! The public interest in marriage is far more limited than our current laws reflect. Hopefully, we will rollback the marriage intrusion as well as the other quite inappropriate, moral projectionist, intrusive laws that compromise and corrode our most fundamental and precious freedoms. The struggle continues. We shall overcome.

One more contribution:
“Let us all support every citizens’ most fundamental rights to privacy and freedom of choice. Each of us deserves and expects those rights.”
My response:
Yea verily! Far too much of our most fundamental rights have been eroded for one reason or another. I have faith that one day we shall reclaim our rights and full freedom.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)