Update from the Heartland
No.409
12.10.09 – 18.10.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.409
12.10.09 – 18.10.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The Nobel Committee’s selection of Barack Obama [408] has caused quite a stir, so much so that the Committee felt compelled to make a public, post-selection, justification statement. The following essay offers an insightful view of the Obama selection.
“Nobel Geopolitics”
by George Friedman
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: October 12, 2009; 19:08 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091012_nobel_geopolitics?utm_source=GWeeklyS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091012&utm_content=readmore
-- I believe my opinion regarding human rights for non-heterosexual citizens is clear [110 & subsequent]. The Washington Post editorial staff decided to weigh in, after the President’s Human Rights Campaign speech.
“Leadership on Gay Rights – President Obama isn't the only one falling short
Editorial
Washington Post
Published: Tuesday, October 13, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/12/AR2009101202439.html?wpisrc=newsletter
-- The Senate Finance Committee voted on the so-called Baucus health care reform bill, passing that version 14-9. The bill now goes to the full Senate. The five remaining versions of health care reform legislation [396-7, 404] still must be reconciled into one bill that must then pass the House and Senate as well as gain the President’s signature.
-- The President’s compensation czar Kenneth Feinberg [408] apparently has beaten up on Bank of America and its beleaguered CEO and former chairman Kenneth Lewis [375, 384-5, 390, 396, 408]. According to the Wall Street Journal, Lewis “voluntarily” agreed to forgo any salary or bonus for 2009, and will have to repay the bank more than US$1M in salary he has already earned. The more I hear about the Bank of America / Merrill Lynch / U.S. Government affair the angrier and more disgusted I get.
-- On Thursday alone, Pakistan suffered serious terrorist attacks on security forces at six sites across the country from the Afghan border to Lahore; at least, 39 were killed with scores more wounded. A coalition of Tehrik-e-Taliban, al-Qaeda, and affiliated tribes claimed responsibility and vowed that attacks would increase and intensify in response to the government’s crackdown in the tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan. Two days later, the Pakistani army deployed an estimated 30,000 troops into the tribal areas in a major offensive against the terrorist affiliates.
The Baluchis – a disgruntled ethnic and religious minority within Iran, along the southeastern frontier with Pakistan – apparently decided to make a demonstrative statement regarding their unhappiness with the regime. The Baluchis carried out two coordinated terrorist bombings that killed five commanders of Iran's elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps along with dozens of others left dead and wounded.
“Faith-Based Discrimination”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: October 13, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/opinion/14wed4.html?th&emc=th
Religion has held and continues to hold an important place in our society, and indeed in most societies. We also have a relevant principle of governance reflected in the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment and Jefferson’s Danbury Baptists letter. As such, I have believed in and defended the right of every religion to discriminate as their dicta requires, as long as it remains within the domain of the religion and its facilities, and no one is injured. Conversely, religion enjoys no special protection in the public domain. All religions must abide by the common law as every citizen must. In this context, the Times editorial is spot on the money. Once a religious-based organization accepts public treasury funds for any of their activities, they become subject to the public law, i.e., any discrimination based on the social factors should not and cannot be tolerated regardless of practitioners religious beliefs. The choices are: 1.) operate in the public domain and abide by the common law, or 2.) remain private and hold whatever discriminatory beliefs they choose.
Louisiana Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell of Tangipahoa Parish refused to issue a marriage license to Beth Humphrey, 30, and Terence McKay, 32, both of Hammond, Louisiana. Bardwell had only one reason for his rejection of the couple’s request – McKay has dark skin pigmentation and Humphrey has relatively little pigmentation. Bardwell justified his action by claiming that in his experience most interracial marriages do not last long and children born of such marriages have a difficult time in life. He went on to say, “I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way.” I really do not care whether Bardwell is a bigot, racist or simple malcontent. Regardless, as a justice of the peace, he is an agent of the State, and as such, he has violated the law. Interracial marriage has been settled law since Loving v. Virginia [388 U.S. 1 (1967)]. This is yet one more example of why the State should not be in the marriage business . . . other than to ensure the individuals involved are entering into their contract relationship by their free will and without communicable diseases. I trust Bardwell will lose his charter and face the bar for violating the civil rights of Humphrey and McKay. For the record, I do believe the future of humanity is better served by mixing the genetic code to the greatest extent possible; but hey, that’s just me.
I try to read a wide variety of material to keep in touch with the political spectra. This is an interesting and worthwhile perspective.
“Tomgram: David Swanson, The Imperial Presidency 2.0”
by Tom Engelhardt
tomdispatch.com
Posted: October 15, 2009 11:09 am
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175127
I disagree with one fundamental element of their argument. While George W. Bush certainly enhanced the imperial presidency, the jury is still out on whether “W” will exceed the vast expansion of presidential / Executive power perpetrated by President Richard Milhous Nixon on multitudinous levels.
News from the economic front:
-- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of former Enron CEO and now convicted and incarcerated felon Jeffrey Keith “Jeff” Skilling [233] with respect to his 2006 fraud conviction stemming from the horrendous 2001 crash of the Houston-based energy company. I have added Skilling v. U.S. [08-1394] to my SCOTUS watch list. Skilling was sentenced to 24 years in prison and forfeiture of US$45M – a mere pittance compared to the financial devastation wrought by him and his now-deceased cohort in crime Kenneth Lee “Ken” Lay [130].
-- Commerce Department reported U.S. retail sales fell 1.5% in September from the previous month, and cited the termination of the USG’s “cash for clunkers” program as the primary anchor. Excluding the automotive sector, retails sales were up 0.5% from the prior month – a hopeful sign for the economic recovery.
-- The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) – the US$200B state pension fund and the nation’s largest such fund – is launching a “special review” of fees paid by some of its money managers to an investment advisory firm run by a former CalPERS board member. The CalPERS press release stated, “The review was sparked by the recent receipt of information provided to CalPERS by investment funds that reported their payment of more than US$50M in fees over a five-year period to Arvco Financial Ventures” – a placement agent firm headed by former CalPERS board member and Los Angeles political operative Alfred Villalobos. I’d say this is not looking good for ol’ Al; can you say conflict of interest, corruption and collusion?
-- The Wall Street Journal reported from the minutes from the Federal Reserve's September policy meeting that members “expressed differing views on the inflation outlook and whether to curtail or expand mortgage-backed securities purchases.” While the specter of inflation or its evil cousin stag-flation looms over the recovering economy, the Fed’s “differing views” is a positive sign it seems to me, i.e., they can now able worry about what next.
-- Galleon Group founder Raj Rajaratnam (along with five others) has been charged with four counts of conspiracy and eight counts of securities fraud in a US$20M insider-trading case. The Galleon Group is a US$7B, New York City based, investment services company and one of the largest hedge funds on the planet. I suspect Raj will be joining eventually an expanding list of unscrupulous money men who contributed to the financial crisis. I trust that justice will be served and that dear ol’ Raj will not be the last to enjoy the hospitality of the State for his greed.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that General Motors’ planned sale of its Opel European unit to Magna International is now in doubt after European Union regulators expressed concerns over Germany's offer to support of the deal with €4.5B [US$6.4B] in state aid.
Comments and contributions from Update no.408:
“You might find it entertaining that I have blogged, related to Obama being given the Nobel Peace Prize:
“‘Something ain't right in Norway, I mean Denmark.’
“Another thing I wrote was:
“‘It took Jimmy Carter 26 years to get an award for screwing up 4 years, it took Obama only 9 months." But then I added that I think Carter's heart was in the right place, and that the Shah of Iran was going to fall any how, the Iranian Revolution would likely have still occurred, and Carter's problem was the perception of his inability to negotiate the return of the hostages, the failed rescue attempt, and of course spiking energy costs as we entered another recession. Carter hunkered down too much in the W.H. trying to project he was dealing with Iran, while the public saw him hiding from the cameras (although I don't think he needed to go on-air as much as Obama does).
“But most important, Jimmy Carter achieved the Camp David talks leading to the CD Accords, and that was well worth his being nominated to the Nobel Committee.
“My concern (I believe you share this), is if they start handing those out too freely, I just might go ask for one.
“I made a comment somewhere that the prestige and value of the award must have taken a hit last Friday, and someone wrote back "don't worry, it lost value a few years ago."
“What's interesting is the concept that it may actually be a political liability for Obama, being that it has stirred so much debate in our country. In San Diego, our leading newspaper ran a poll, and as of the weekend, with over 12,000 that voted, 70% felt the award should not have been given to Obama (unscientific poll).”
My response:
I think the vast majority of people view awards as recognition for performance and accomplishment, not the promise of same. Yet, the Nobel Committee was direct and forthright in their announcement rationale statement. I saw a cartoon that called it the “Nobel Not Bush Award;” that cartoon is perhaps the most accurate, and is a measure of how offended the rest of the world has been by “W.” As I closed my comment is last week’s Update, I want him to “Earn this!”
Another contribution:
“Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize just shows that the prize itself has now become a joke. Though, in my curiosity, I did do an internet search of lists of past Peace Prize recipients and found quite a few that one can question did not deserve it, like representatives for these peace promotion groups in the late 19th and early 20th centuries who seemed to mainly talk about world peace instead of actually doing anything about it. Then you have the people who actually rolled up their sleeves, did something meaningful and earned the award (Teddy Roosevelt, Ghandi, George C. Marshall, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, Began and Sadat. Giving Obama the Peace Prize for simply promoting hope is like giving the NFL MVP award right now to the NY Jets Mark Sanchez, because, well, he should be a good quarterback and should have real good numbers at the end of the season, shouldn't he?
“You want the award? End a war. Help refugees. Create an organization that sends food and medical supplies to Third World countries where the vast majority of the populace can't even get their hands on a bottle of aspirin. As the saying goes, "Deeds, not words."
“Oh yeah, and when does making a documentary on global warming, where many pieces of information have been proven false, earn one a Nobel Peace Prize?
“Another oh yeah, score one for the French Navy. An AK-47 is a deadly weapon. But against the 5-inch gun of a frigate. You are fracked! (Battlestar Galactica lingo there). ‘Aaarrrr, we surrender!’”
My reply:
The Nobel Committee was up-front, direct and candid with their announcement. They were indeed awarding hope and change. Nonetheless, I think you hit the nail squarely. This award puts even more pressure on Obama to deliver “peace,” as envisioned by the Nobel Committee and certainly by others. If they can give the award to Yasser Arafat for gosh sakes, then I’m OK with them recognizing Obama.
A different contribution:
“A couple of notes...a number of commentators have noted that when Gen McChrystal met with the President recently (in London, I think) he wore his camouflage uniform, not his Class A uniform-- this was interpreted by a few retired Army types as being disrespectful. Why he wore cammies to a meeting in London is a mystery.
“The DGSE [Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure] story is disturbing. That is a very good intelligence organization, especially in the fight against terrorism. They have good ties within the Arab world and their warning should not be dismissed.”
My response:
The image of Stan in cammies seems to be a popular Press item, but it is not clear to me exactly when or where that meeting actually occurred; it may be the only “file” image they have. McChrystal is too smooth an operator to make that kind of a mistake; and, I cannot imagine him being disrespectful to POTUS regardless of political views.
I agree completely re: the DGSE . . . not to be discounted; and, hopefully, our guys are dealing with the information precisely and expeditiously. Disturbing is a bit of an understatement with that lil’ tidbit – a new level of fanatical; however, better to know than not.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The follow-up news items:
-- The Nobel Committee’s selection of Barack Obama [408] has caused quite a stir, so much so that the Committee felt compelled to make a public, post-selection, justification statement. The following essay offers an insightful view of the Obama selection.
“Nobel Geopolitics”
by George Friedman
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: October 12, 2009; 19:08 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091012_nobel_geopolitics?utm_source=GWeeklyS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091012&utm_content=readmore
-- I believe my opinion regarding human rights for non-heterosexual citizens is clear [110 & subsequent]. The Washington Post editorial staff decided to weigh in, after the President’s Human Rights Campaign speech.
“Leadership on Gay Rights – President Obama isn't the only one falling short
Editorial
Washington Post
Published: Tuesday, October 13, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/12/AR2009101202439.html?wpisrc=newsletter
-- The Senate Finance Committee voted on the so-called Baucus health care reform bill, passing that version 14-9. The bill now goes to the full Senate. The five remaining versions of health care reform legislation [396-7, 404] still must be reconciled into one bill that must then pass the House and Senate as well as gain the President’s signature.
-- The President’s compensation czar Kenneth Feinberg [408] apparently has beaten up on Bank of America and its beleaguered CEO and former chairman Kenneth Lewis [375, 384-5, 390, 396, 408]. According to the Wall Street Journal, Lewis “voluntarily” agreed to forgo any salary or bonus for 2009, and will have to repay the bank more than US$1M in salary he has already earned. The more I hear about the Bank of America / Merrill Lynch / U.S. Government affair the angrier and more disgusted I get.
-- On Thursday alone, Pakistan suffered serious terrorist attacks on security forces at six sites across the country from the Afghan border to Lahore; at least, 39 were killed with scores more wounded. A coalition of Tehrik-e-Taliban, al-Qaeda, and affiliated tribes claimed responsibility and vowed that attacks would increase and intensify in response to the government’s crackdown in the tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan. Two days later, the Pakistani army deployed an estimated 30,000 troops into the tribal areas in a major offensive against the terrorist affiliates.
The Baluchis – a disgruntled ethnic and religious minority within Iran, along the southeastern frontier with Pakistan – apparently decided to make a demonstrative statement regarding their unhappiness with the regime. The Baluchis carried out two coordinated terrorist bombings that killed five commanders of Iran's elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps along with dozens of others left dead and wounded.
“Faith-Based Discrimination”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: October 13, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/opinion/14wed4.html?th&emc=th
Religion has held and continues to hold an important place in our society, and indeed in most societies. We also have a relevant principle of governance reflected in the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment and Jefferson’s Danbury Baptists letter. As such, I have believed in and defended the right of every religion to discriminate as their dicta requires, as long as it remains within the domain of the religion and its facilities, and no one is injured. Conversely, religion enjoys no special protection in the public domain. All religions must abide by the common law as every citizen must. In this context, the Times editorial is spot on the money. Once a religious-based organization accepts public treasury funds for any of their activities, they become subject to the public law, i.e., any discrimination based on the social factors should not and cannot be tolerated regardless of practitioners religious beliefs. The choices are: 1.) operate in the public domain and abide by the common law, or 2.) remain private and hold whatever discriminatory beliefs they choose.
Louisiana Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell of Tangipahoa Parish refused to issue a marriage license to Beth Humphrey, 30, and Terence McKay, 32, both of Hammond, Louisiana. Bardwell had only one reason for his rejection of the couple’s request – McKay has dark skin pigmentation and Humphrey has relatively little pigmentation. Bardwell justified his action by claiming that in his experience most interracial marriages do not last long and children born of such marriages have a difficult time in life. He went on to say, “I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way.” I really do not care whether Bardwell is a bigot, racist or simple malcontent. Regardless, as a justice of the peace, he is an agent of the State, and as such, he has violated the law. Interracial marriage has been settled law since Loving v. Virginia [388 U.S. 1 (1967)]. This is yet one more example of why the State should not be in the marriage business . . . other than to ensure the individuals involved are entering into their contract relationship by their free will and without communicable diseases. I trust Bardwell will lose his charter and face the bar for violating the civil rights of Humphrey and McKay. For the record, I do believe the future of humanity is better served by mixing the genetic code to the greatest extent possible; but hey, that’s just me.
I try to read a wide variety of material to keep in touch with the political spectra. This is an interesting and worthwhile perspective.
“Tomgram: David Swanson, The Imperial Presidency 2.0”
by Tom Engelhardt
tomdispatch.com
Posted: October 15, 2009 11:09 am
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175127
I disagree with one fundamental element of their argument. While George W. Bush certainly enhanced the imperial presidency, the jury is still out on whether “W” will exceed the vast expansion of presidential / Executive power perpetrated by President Richard Milhous Nixon on multitudinous levels.
News from the economic front:
-- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of former Enron CEO and now convicted and incarcerated felon Jeffrey Keith “Jeff” Skilling [233] with respect to his 2006 fraud conviction stemming from the horrendous 2001 crash of the Houston-based energy company. I have added Skilling v. U.S. [08-1394] to my SCOTUS watch list. Skilling was sentenced to 24 years in prison and forfeiture of US$45M – a mere pittance compared to the financial devastation wrought by him and his now-deceased cohort in crime Kenneth Lee “Ken” Lay [130].
-- Commerce Department reported U.S. retail sales fell 1.5% in September from the previous month, and cited the termination of the USG’s “cash for clunkers” program as the primary anchor. Excluding the automotive sector, retails sales were up 0.5% from the prior month – a hopeful sign for the economic recovery.
-- The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) – the US$200B state pension fund and the nation’s largest such fund – is launching a “special review” of fees paid by some of its money managers to an investment advisory firm run by a former CalPERS board member. The CalPERS press release stated, “The review was sparked by the recent receipt of information provided to CalPERS by investment funds that reported their payment of more than US$50M in fees over a five-year period to Arvco Financial Ventures” – a placement agent firm headed by former CalPERS board member and Los Angeles political operative Alfred Villalobos. I’d say this is not looking good for ol’ Al; can you say conflict of interest, corruption and collusion?
-- The Wall Street Journal reported from the minutes from the Federal Reserve's September policy meeting that members “expressed differing views on the inflation outlook and whether to curtail or expand mortgage-backed securities purchases.” While the specter of inflation or its evil cousin stag-flation looms over the recovering economy, the Fed’s “differing views” is a positive sign it seems to me, i.e., they can now able worry about what next.
-- Galleon Group founder Raj Rajaratnam (along with five others) has been charged with four counts of conspiracy and eight counts of securities fraud in a US$20M insider-trading case. The Galleon Group is a US$7B, New York City based, investment services company and one of the largest hedge funds on the planet. I suspect Raj will be joining eventually an expanding list of unscrupulous money men who contributed to the financial crisis. I trust that justice will be served and that dear ol’ Raj will not be the last to enjoy the hospitality of the State for his greed.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that General Motors’ planned sale of its Opel European unit to Magna International is now in doubt after European Union regulators expressed concerns over Germany's offer to support of the deal with €4.5B [US$6.4B] in state aid.
Comments and contributions from Update no.408:
“You might find it entertaining that I have blogged, related to Obama being given the Nobel Peace Prize:
“‘Something ain't right in Norway, I mean Denmark.’
“Another thing I wrote was:
“‘It took Jimmy Carter 26 years to get an award for screwing up 4 years, it took Obama only 9 months." But then I added that I think Carter's heart was in the right place, and that the Shah of Iran was going to fall any how, the Iranian Revolution would likely have still occurred, and Carter's problem was the perception of his inability to negotiate the return of the hostages, the failed rescue attempt, and of course spiking energy costs as we entered another recession. Carter hunkered down too much in the W.H. trying to project he was dealing with Iran, while the public saw him hiding from the cameras (although I don't think he needed to go on-air as much as Obama does).
“But most important, Jimmy Carter achieved the Camp David talks leading to the CD Accords, and that was well worth his being nominated to the Nobel Committee.
“My concern (I believe you share this), is if they start handing those out too freely, I just might go ask for one.
“I made a comment somewhere that the prestige and value of the award must have taken a hit last Friday, and someone wrote back "don't worry, it lost value a few years ago."
“What's interesting is the concept that it may actually be a political liability for Obama, being that it has stirred so much debate in our country. In San Diego, our leading newspaper ran a poll, and as of the weekend, with over 12,000 that voted, 70% felt the award should not have been given to Obama (unscientific poll).”
My response:
I think the vast majority of people view awards as recognition for performance and accomplishment, not the promise of same. Yet, the Nobel Committee was direct and forthright in their announcement rationale statement. I saw a cartoon that called it the “Nobel Not Bush Award;” that cartoon is perhaps the most accurate, and is a measure of how offended the rest of the world has been by “W.” As I closed my comment is last week’s Update, I want him to “Earn this!”
Another contribution:
“Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize just shows that the prize itself has now become a joke. Though, in my curiosity, I did do an internet search of lists of past Peace Prize recipients and found quite a few that one can question did not deserve it, like representatives for these peace promotion groups in the late 19th and early 20th centuries who seemed to mainly talk about world peace instead of actually doing anything about it. Then you have the people who actually rolled up their sleeves, did something meaningful and earned the award (Teddy Roosevelt, Ghandi, George C. Marshall, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, Began and Sadat. Giving Obama the Peace Prize for simply promoting hope is like giving the NFL MVP award right now to the NY Jets Mark Sanchez, because, well, he should be a good quarterback and should have real good numbers at the end of the season, shouldn't he?
“You want the award? End a war. Help refugees. Create an organization that sends food and medical supplies to Third World countries where the vast majority of the populace can't even get their hands on a bottle of aspirin. As the saying goes, "Deeds, not words."
“Oh yeah, and when does making a documentary on global warming, where many pieces of information have been proven false, earn one a Nobel Peace Prize?
“Another oh yeah, score one for the French Navy. An AK-47 is a deadly weapon. But against the 5-inch gun of a frigate. You are fracked! (Battlestar Galactica lingo there). ‘Aaarrrr, we surrender!’”
My reply:
The Nobel Committee was up-front, direct and candid with their announcement. They were indeed awarding hope and change. Nonetheless, I think you hit the nail squarely. This award puts even more pressure on Obama to deliver “peace,” as envisioned by the Nobel Committee and certainly by others. If they can give the award to Yasser Arafat for gosh sakes, then I’m OK with them recognizing Obama.
A different contribution:
“A couple of notes...a number of commentators have noted that when Gen McChrystal met with the President recently (in London, I think) he wore his camouflage uniform, not his Class A uniform-- this was interpreted by a few retired Army types as being disrespectful. Why he wore cammies to a meeting in London is a mystery.
“The DGSE [Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure] story is disturbing. That is a very good intelligence organization, especially in the fight against terrorism. They have good ties within the Arab world and their warning should not be dismissed.”
My response:
The image of Stan in cammies seems to be a popular Press item, but it is not clear to me exactly when or where that meeting actually occurred; it may be the only “file” image they have. McChrystal is too smooth an operator to make that kind of a mistake; and, I cannot imagine him being disrespectful to POTUS regardless of political views.
I agree completely re: the DGSE . . . not to be discounted; and, hopefully, our guys are dealing with the information precisely and expeditiously. Disturbing is a bit of an understatement with that lil’ tidbit – a new level of fanatical; however, better to know than not.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
I read the article to which you linked on the Nobel prize award. As best I understand from that piece, Alfred Nobel's instructions, while vague at best, directed the committee to award accomplishment rather than hope. Bassed on that and with some reluctance, my conclusion is that Obama has not earned such a prize to date.
The atttempts to reform health care continue. As one of the uninsured, I continue to wait. I can only hope that some assistance reaches me before I die of treatable illnesses. I saw a figure from an advocacy group stating that something over 1400 people here in Ohio die that way annually. I would rather not become one of those, but that's up to Congress and the President.
I certainly agree that "faith-based" (mostly Christian) organizations receiving public money give up any right of religious or belief-based discimination in the use of that money. That seems blindingly obvious to me based on any possible reading of the Bill of Rights, but the Bush Administration set that aside and the Obama Administration has not seen fit to return to the rule of Constitutional law.
Speaking of the rule of Constitutional law, I see the Tomgram article linked in your blog as the most important part. As this article is commentary rather than news, I do not need to verify its sources as much as I would news. I'll admit that I never heard of Tomgram or its author, but I find it very persuasive and well supported by news reports at all points of information.
I'll note in passing that the Tomgram article addresses the discussion of the word "war" that you and I have conducted elsewhere. That's not the important part in itself, though. What matters here is the large, growing and unconstitutional power of the Presidency. I will let historians decide who gets more of the blame. What I want is to recognize that Congress is abdicating its Constitutional duty to exercise its legislative responsibility and authority, very much to the detriment of the entire US system of governance. Regardless of how we see a given President (Bush, Obama, Clinton, whomever), we cannot afford to become an empire, even with an elected emperor.
MrMacnCheese,
As you note, the charter for the Nobel Committee is rather vague and thus ambiguous. I think the Committee provided their rational, i.e., changing the tone of international diplomacy. If that was truly the statement they sought to make, awarding the prize next year might have gone down a little better. When put in the light of the very short, nomination window, this award is stretching the criteria significantly.
I hope a health care solution is achieved for you and many others. Presumably, you do have the Emergency Room option. I am torn on the public option. On one hand, I have a deep aversion to governmental involvement in our private lives – far too much already. On the other hand, the government already delivers medical care & coverage – military medical, VA medical, Medicare/Medicaid, TriCare, et cetera. I could go on, however, the bottom line remains; we must find a reasonable, equitable and sustainable solution to un-insured / under-insured citizens.
We are in precise agreement on the public conduct of “faith-based” organizations. While the Obama administration has been reluctant to correct so far, I think they are moving and will move away from the Bush administration’s blind faith in “faith-based” organizations.
My point on the Tomgram essay was what appears to be a politically biased focus on “W,” when I believe Nixon was a far more excessive and accomplished practitioner of presidential imperialism.
Again, we are in agreement on “war” and congressional abdication. Even before we began our continuing exchanges, I wrote about President Bush’s mistakes. He was satisfied with the thinnest of justification for the actions he wanted to take, i.e., he stretched presidential authority. Worse, he failed to coalesce the support of the American People for the war he intended to wage – not least of which is the minimal authorization of both PL 107-040 and PL 107-243. Frankly, I would rather take what comes than attempt to wage war without the support of the American People. While I think the majority of Americans supported the President at the time of the Authorizations, he took that support for granted and failed to maintain that support. I could go on, but at the end of the day, we agree in the main.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment