Update no.436

Update from the Heartland

No.436

19.4.10 – 25.4.10

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- I did not acknowledge the sinking of the Republic of Korea, Pohang-class corvette, ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772) at 22:45 [H], 25.March.2010 [432], due to conflicting reports as to whether it was an internal or external explosion. Given the location, I had my suspicions, but I chose to refrain from comment. On Thursday, based on various sources, Sky News reported that they now believe the sinking was the direct result of a DPRK human torpedo, reminiscent of the Japanese Kaitin suicide submarines used at the end of World War II, killing 46 ROK sailors. The ROK has salvaged the remainder of the warship. The evidence of an internal or external explosion will be clear and unmistakable. There are more than a few aspects of this incident that are rather odd. Firing a missile or spewing slogans of the Cold War injure no one. This incident killed citizens and sank a ship of another country – an attack on a warship. Countries have gone to war for less.

Jeanne insisted that I read one of her books. She knew I would get into the story, and she was quite correct, as she so often is.
Picoult, Jodi. “My Sister’s Keeper.” New York: Atria Books, 2004.
Before I get into some of my ruminations sprouting from the story, I would urge everyone to read the book – the reasons for my recommendation may become apparent.
We are presented with moral and ethical challenges virtually every day of our lives, whether we recognize those challenges. Here we have a story about a family struggling with the life-threatening illness of their daughter – leukemia – reminiscent of the Ayala family in the early 1990’s. In 1988, Mary & Abe Ayala’s daughter, Anissa, 14, was diagnosed with Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML) – a grim diagnosis . . . typically fatal in three to five years. A bone marrow transplant held the potential to cure Anissa. The family was tested – no match. The family queried the fledgling National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) registry – no match. Mary & Abe took the controversial of conceiving another child as a potential donor for Anissa. They were successful; another daughter, Marissa, born in 1990, proved to be a perfect match. When Marissa was 14 months old, the Ayala’s gave permission to extract some of Marissa’s bone marrow for her ailing sister. Anissa is 38 years old and a mother herself, and Marissa is 20 years old and a senior in college. Success stories like the Ayala family give patients hope. At the time, many folks fretted over the ethics of “producing” children, or “selecting” matched embryos as related marrow donors. Marrow donation, while it does present some risk of infection, is a renewable tissue like blood, and causes no long term injury to the donor. The book takes the ethical dilemma farther down the road. What if a “donor child” is sought as a kidney or liver donor? Neither organ donation is life threatening, but they are clearly far more risky procedures. Does a parent have the right to approve donation of a kidney from a 13-year-old child? Clearly, no one has the right to sacrifice one child for another. Kidney donation is a permanent “injury,” not life-threatening, but certainly more risky than a blood or even marrow donation. What say does the child have regarding donations of her/is bodily fluids or organs? At what age does a child begin to take on some right to decide?

Numerous news sources reported the declaration of Iranian Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi told worshippers in Tehran on Friday that they had to stick to strict codes of modesty to protect themselves. He declared, “Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes.” Sedighi asked, “What can we do to avoid being buried under the rubble?” He went on to proclaim. “There is no other solution but to take refuge in religion and to adapt our lives to Islam's moral codes” – a common solution from clerics. The use of many “fears” to control the conduct of believers and even demand subservience of non-believers is not unique to Islam. To me, such ridiculous attempts to coerce people into submission, obedience and domination of those around them, not just those who choose to believe – is yet another real example of why the “separation of church and State” is such a wise principle of governance and essential to individual “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.” Unfortunately, ignorance continues to be a comfort for far too many people.
A friend and contributor offered his opinion of Sedighi’s Friday sermon declaration.
“There is a recognized mental illness (actually a symptom, not an illness) called magical thinking. It is where an otherwise cognizant adult denies reality and known facts with a belief that certain thoughts can induce changes in physical reality. It is a mainstay of childhood imagination and a normal adult's enjoyment of fantasy, but when it becomes impossible for an individual to separate the fantasy from reality it becomes dangerous, to the individual and those around them. Unfortunately, throughout the ages, the willingness of religious leaders to push the limits of followers' separation from magical thinking has been a powerful tool of religion. This sex/quake analogy is one example. "The Power of Positive Thinking" or an evangelist asking for prayers for the ill via television broadcast is a more benign usage. Promising future rewards for current deeds and sacrifice with those rewards being in a realm that is wholly a function magical thinking is a center-point of many powerful religions and religious motivations, from the Crusades, to suicide bombers, to a grieving mother hoping beyond hope that her missing child will be rescued by God's intervention stemming from the prayers of Fox News listeners, to a religious group saying pandemic flu or war deaths are the result of societal sin. Separating the positive from the negative in such results is often a mere matter of point of view.”

At 13:30 [T] MST, 23.April.2010, in Phoenix, Arizona, Governor Janice Kay “Jan” Brewer née Drinkwine signed into law SB1070 – an act amending [the law] relating to unlawfully present aliens. At the signing ceremony, Governor Brewer said, “We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act. But decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created an unacceptable situation.” Predictably, the action has touched off a firestorm regarding illegal aliens and immigration reform. One side claims the law violates the Constitution, while the other side claims the state is simply filling the void left by an ineffectual or incompetent Federal government. Whether the Obama administration will attempt what the Bush (43) administration failed twice to achieve remains beyond the public horizon. I suspect the legal challenges will come quickly and might force the administration to act more quickly than otherwise may be desired. The administration has taken the first big step toward health care reform – the Democratic Party agenda – which has occupied Congress for more than a year. Now, it is time to take up the enormous challenge of financial industry reform that certainly will occupy the legislature for perhaps another year. Immigration reform may well push for attention. The burdens of leadership rarely lessen. So it is, so it shall be.

I have a list of court cases (like legislative bills) that have attracted my attention – my to-read list. I read as my capacity allows. I take notes to capture the words from the rulings as well as my impressions of those words. I do not always consider those cases in this forum; then, one comes along that trips my trigger. Obviously, that threshold has been passed this week.
In 1978, James Dale, age eight, joined Monmouth Council's Cub Scout Pack 142. He became a Boy Scout in 1981, and an Eagle Scout in 1988. Dale applied for adult membership and was approved as assistant scoutmaster of Troop 73 in 1989, as he entered Rutgers University. While attending university, he joined and became co-president of the Lesbian/Gay Alliance. In 1990, Dale attended a seminar addressing the psychological and health needs of lesbian and gay teenagers. In early July 1990, a local newspaper published an interview with Dale and his photograph as it reported on the seminar. Later that month, Dale received a letter from Monmouth Council Executive James Kay revoking his adult membership in the Boy Scouts. Appropriately so, Dale filed suit, claiming the Boy Scouts violated the New Jersey's public accommodations statute that prohibits, among other things, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. The state superior court sided with the BSA. The state appeals and supreme courts disagreed and found for James Dale. The BSA appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming the application of the public accommodation statute violated its 1st Amendment right of assembly (expressive association) – Boy Scouts of America v. Dale [530 U.S. 640 (2000); no. 99-699]. Chief Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the divided Court. “[A]ssociations do not have to associate for the ‘purpose’ of disseminating a certain message in order to be entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. An association must merely engage in expressive activity that could be impaired in order to be entitled to protection.” In his conclusion, he quoted from an earlier, related case. “While the law is free to promote all sorts of conduct in place of harmful behavior, it is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however enlightened either purpose may strike the government” [Hurley, 515 U.S., at 579]. Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote an excellent dissenting opinion. “That such prejudices are still prevalent and that they have caused serious and tangible harm to countless members of the class New Jersey seeks to protect are established matters of fact that neither the Boy Scouts nor the Court disputes. That harm can only be aggravated by the creation of a constitutional shield for a policy that is itself the product of a habitual way of thinking about strangers. As Justice Brandeis so wisely advised, ‘we must be ever on our guard, lest we erect our prejudices into legal principles.’” The dissent’s argument is precisely correct . . . there is no logical reason to exclude homosexuals from leadership roles within the BSA. The myopic attitude of the BSA perpetuates the erroneous notion that homosexuals are somehow, by some means, less worthy, appropriate, or productive toward the objectives of the BSA. Homosexuality is not some contagion spread by contact or a sneeze. The BSA implicitly subscribes to the myth that homosexuals are pedophiles, and thus a threat to children. As much as I argue for extermination of mindless, illogical discrimination, the 1st Amendment articulates clearly our freedom of assembly as we see fit, not as the government deems appropriate (within limits, of course). In this instance, the Boy Scouts of America is not a public institution. As the Court tried to illuminate, in this form of assembly, discrimination and unreasonable bias exists in the fuzzy, grey area at the boundary. Against the logical and reasonable argument by the dissenting justices, the Court sided with the 1st Amendment over the inclusive intent of “public access” laws in effect with numerous states. The bottom line is, private organizations like churches, affinity groups and the BSA have the right to discriminate against those who do not fit their notion of membership. Trying to force the BSA to admit or accept homosexuals is akin to legislating private morality. As idiotic as I think the BSA position is, there are no differences with the lunacy of the Fred Phelps clan. We may find such discrimination nauseating, but we must protect every citizen’s freedom of assembly. Sad . . . the consequent message of Dale, and DoD’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, to be successful at their chosen profession or avocation, non-heterosexuals must deny who they are and be staunchly protective of their identity, i.e., in the closet, as they say, and stand in stark contrast to heterosexuals who may freely flaunt their sexual identity. I shall end my review and opinion with two questions. Why is homosexuality immoral? Says who?

News from the economic front:
-- The International Monetary Fund forecast the world economy will expand by more than 4% this year, with the United States projected to grow by 3.1% -- better than the 2.3% estimated average growth for the advanced economies.
-- Existing-home sales rose to a 5.35 million unit annual rate (+6.8%) in March, slightly more than economists had expected. First-time buyers purchased 44% of all homes, lured by the government's tax-credit program. The supply of unsold homes fell to eight months, down from 8.5 in February.
-- Moody's Investor Services downgraded its rating on Greece's sovereign debt from A2 to A3, and warned that further downgrades could be in the offing. The action sent Greek bonds into a tailspin, with the yield on a Greek 10-year bond nearing 8.7%, and all but dashed any remaining hopes that Greece might borrow afresh from international markets. We bear witness to a genuine, contemporary, Greek tragedy.
-- President Obama returned to Manhattan’s Cooper Union on Thursday, to admonish the financial industry that so often has forgotten the ordinary Americans who have suffered from its reckless irresponsibility. The President said, “A free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it.” Risk is essential to capitalism. We must protect the ability of industry to take risk, however that risk can only be balanced by the threat of failure. Without the threat of loss, risks become reckless, irresponsible and broadly injurious to so many innocent citizens who lose their jobs as a consequence. Reform is vital to re-find balance.
-- In more leaks from the government’s hand in the case against Raj Rajaratnam [409/10, 418, 435] – founder of the hedge-fund, Galleon Group – a Goldman Sachs director apparently tipped off Rajaratnam about a US$5B investment in Goldman by Berkshire Hathaway before a public announcement.
-- The Commerce Department reported that new home sales rose in March to a seasonally adjusted, annual 411,000 units (+27%), due to better weather and government incentives. The new home sales figures significantly exceeded the previous month's record low and was the strongest month since last July as well as the biggest monthly increase in 47 years.

Comments and contributions from Update no.435:
Comment to the Blog:
“First, I want to say that you presented a very decent, balanced view of the Confederate History Month flap. Thanks.
“I will note that the health care reform was passed by the usual method, a majority vote. It was not rammed down anyone's throat by any minority. That the Democrats do not have a "supermajority" is neither here nor there. I did not come close to getting what I wanted in the bill, but it passed. Let's all get over it.
“Very related to that is the implosion of the Republican Party. While I agree that dissent ought to offer alternatives, I see a strategic distinction here. The Democrats' views moved left and got more support from the party as more people agreed with them. The Republicans are moving to the right and getting more party support as fewer people agree with them. Major strategic error. Sarah Palin and the Tea Baggers (what a name!) do not represent the views of any moderates, and moderates are the "swing" voters who decide elections. It's a shame; even if a day comes when my party is in power, a "loyal opposition" is necessary to the American system. Perhaps the Libertarians will be able to step up in that role.
“I had not been aware of the Phelps crowd showing up at the mine disaster. I don't know the specific families at that mine. I do, however, know plenty of people in or from West Virginia. I'm a bit surprised that no Phelpses were injured in the making of that incident. In the end, though, I must agree with your position. However repellent I find Phelps and his minions, they are allowed to have and express their opinions.”
My reply to the Blog:
Thank you. I try to see all sides of a given set of events.
My “rammed down our throats” comment was not meant as a universal notation, only a reflection of those who strongly oppose what the Federal government has done. Clearly, those who support the change do not feel the change in quite the same way. My point was, we must not ignore the opposition. We will adjust. I would have preferred we deal with more of the medical cost root causes. I am not happy with the resultant law either, but I do concede that it moves us in a better direction. Now, the challenge will be improving the law.
I would not be so quick to discount the Republican Party. I do not think either party has been a loyal opposition in quite some time, like at least 40 years, maybe even as long as 60 years. No political party represents the majority of American citizens. As you note, moderates & independents tend to swing back & forth. Libertarians are closer to my vision of government, but not entirely – law & order cannot be maintained with a laissez-faire approach. There is a proper, legitimate place for government in the regulation of public life. Unfortunately, we have allowed the government to go too far and consequently penetrate far too deeply into the private domain.
The Phelps clan has positioned itself quite well for vigorous public debate.

Another contribution:
“Good points on the ‘Southern Heritage Month’ kerfluffle. The Sons of the Confederacy played a big role in this, requesting the holiday. They seem to forget that the Confederate soldiers, while brave, were engaged in an act of violent treason against the United States. When you put it that way, it isn't so romantic. And if they wanted to do a Civil War memorial month-- why not also honor the Union soldiers, who were as brave, if not braver. After all, they were the attacking forces most of the time.”
My response:
Indeed!
Resorting to armed conflict was not the answer – a mistake that killed hundreds of thousands of citizens and devastated this Grand Republic . . . but we survived and became better for the trauma.
Conversely, trying to abolish slavery without solving the economic equation of such an action virtually forced strong resistance. Faced with what they perceived as economic ruin, they took the action they felt necessary.
You have a good point for comparable recognition of the Union forces as well.
“They” were the attacking force . . . presumably you refer to the Confederates? I might quibble with that notion. The CSA did not seek domination of the North, only sovereignty for the South. They attacked because exceptional students of war led them – the best defense is a good offense. They were aggressive because they had to be. They were out numbered, out gunned, and fighting mostly on their land.
I see the Civil War as a symptom of imbalance in the political process of the day. The eruption became part of the healing process.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“My bad for not being clear. In most of the battles, the Union was attacking the Confederate forces- hence the greater casualties. Part of that was due to the 'modern' weapons, the more accurate and rapid fire, which didn't allow the charges to succeed like Napoleon's. Whereas a cavalry or even infantry unit could cross a field to contact with the enemy in the Napoleonic age, that was much more problematic in the Civil War. The advantage usually was heavily in favor of the defensive forces. (Interesting sidelight on how the French infantry under Napoleon were able to move so quickly on the charge compared to others). Also, the Confederates had great engineers -like Lee- who were able to construct/develop excellent defensive positions. Did you know that there are works that Lee supervised the construction of that are still standing? Fort Monroe is one.”
. . . my follow-up response:
No worries, mate.
Both sides had their battles of offense and defense. The Confederate military leaders tended to be more imaginative and innovative in their tactics and strategy, given the serious constraints of the Confederacy – a brutal, bloody slog no matter how we cut it. Engineering was a major contribution on both sides . . . as it has been since Roman times . . . always intriguing to study.

A different contribution:
“I see your early morning weekly Update includes something on [Thomas] Drake. I am just starting your Update, but thought you had received this sent on Saturday, but I somehow missed you on the send.”
The Contributor added two informational links:
Cryptome Blog:
http://cryptome.org/drake/thomas-drake.htm
. . . and, the Department of Justice public notice:
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/April/10-crm-416.html
My response:
I had not seen the DoJ details when I wrote my piece. I expect we are going to learn a lot more about what this guy has done. I, for one, will read the court documents with keen interest as they become publicly available. The difficulty in this case may well hang upon the classified nature of some key collateral information. Nonetheless, I hope this guy feels the full weight of the Federal government. What he did was treasonous, even though he did not aid the enemy directly; he certainly did indirectly by disclosing critical intelligence programs.

An opinion from another contributor:
“Well, this is one update we will have to differ on. If this health care bill is not the correct solution, then why pass it? I don't buy the "it's better than nothing" argument if this bill is going to make the health care system even worse. How will that help anyone? And I do think there have been some people offering solutions other than the "You better buy health care insurance whether you want to or not" bill, like trying to get a handle on damages from malpractice suits, one of the things that really jack up health care costs. And I do support the state's organizing court challenges to this bill. I mean, isn't there a thing about state's rights in the Constitution? Didn't a majority of the population express their disapproval of this bill, only to see Obama and his cronies in Congress shove it down our throats? The time has come to take a stand against this overreaching government.
“As for Clinton's bit on "tone down the rhetoric, or else people might get violent," I'm on Rush Limbaugh's side there. As far as I'm concerned, saying something like that is designed to try to get more negative press aimed at folks like the Tea Party, and get them to shut up because I think Obama and his ilk absolutely cannot stand being criticized. People are pissed off in this country, and they have every right to be. Obama is spending money we don't have, trying to pass all sorts of regulations and legislation that a majority of the people don't want, and as a result, many people (me included) feel disenfranchised. If they don't like some of the angry words coming from people, tough! Then represent us like you're supposed to. I also don't buy into the argument that we must tone down the rhetoric because there are nutty people out there who may step over the line and do something like the Oklahoma City bombing. That, to me, is a cop out. If we're going to do that, then let's blame J.D. Sallinger for the death of John Lennon and the shooting of Ronald Reagan, as both assailants pointed to "Catcher In The Rye" as a reason for doing what they did. Let's blame dogs for the murders committed by the Son of Sam in NYC. Let's blame rock performers like Ozzy Osbourse and Evanescence whenever some teenager kills him or herself because they have songs that deal with suicide. No one knows what is going to set off an unstable person. And if the Obama crowd has a problem with harsh rhetoric and violence, why don't they condemn what happened in Seattle during the WTO conference a few years ago? Hey, I don't recall any Tea Party rallies that wrecked a downtown.”
My reply:
I respectfully submit . . . the health care reform law was the best we could do given the myriad of forces at play. The status quo ante simply could not be maintained and was unstable. I do not believe it will make the health care system worse. If it does nothing else, it will begin to flush out all the hidden costs that are in every health care dollar we spent, like our penchant for litigiousness, as you note. Once illuminated, we can begin correcting them or moving toward reconciliation.
Yes, there is a states’ rights issue in health care reform. One side justifies their action via the Commerce Clause, which has been grossly abused, IMHO; although the Supremes have been quite liberal in their interpretation on behalf of federalism, and the other side claims no constitutional authority. The court challenges are appropriate and relevant; however, given the Supremes bias on the Commerce Clause, I suspect the challenges will be futile.
I do not know that a majority of citizens disapproved. This is rarely a popularity contest. As a representative republic, we have entrusted Congress to do the correct things, which in turn illuminates the importance of voting. Thus, we will get a pretty good view of the mood of the citizenry this fall. Remember, overreaching to some is not reaching far enough to others. This law was a compromise; neither side got what they wanted. My opinion remains, at least we have tried to do something; now, let’s make it better.
I do not think it was Bill Clinton’s objective to silence anyone. He was simply and directly urging everyone to use the full expanse of the English language, to move our point across without inflammatory words and phrases. I try to practice that very exercise in this forum and others. So, we shall respectfully disagree on Clinton & Limbaugh.
Your example of our unhinged citizens does not float. To my knowledge, Salinger did not advocate armed violence or conflict to resolve issues.
We can have a good, long discussion about Kurt Cobain and suicide if you wish, or about any one of dozens of rappers who urged their believers to kill a cop. Incitement to riot or commit a crime is itself a crime, even if prosecutors have chosen not to pursue such crimes. The 1st Amendment goes a long way, but there are thresholds of tolerance as well as acceptability for civil discourse – one is defended by the law, the other by our disapproval. Neither Bill Clinton nor I advocate for censorship, but rather self-restraint and intellectual focus, i.e., use words with precision and clarity rather than the blunderbuss of explosive discharge.

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