Update no.497

Update from the Heartland

No.497

20.6.11 – 26.6.11

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

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- We have another opinion regarding the so-called “war on drugs” [119 & sub], and especially the Global Commission’s “War on Drugs” report [496].
“Call Off the Global Drug War”
by Jimmy Carter [former president and Op-Ed Contributor]
New York Times
Published: June 16, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/opinion/17carter.html
I have seen mostly derisive comments about Jimmy Carter rather than the subject matter at hand, to the point that more than a few have pronounced that if Jimmy said it, it must be wrong. I am not a particular fan of Jimmy’s performance as President, but in this, I urge each and every one of us to read carefully his opinion. In his topic, I happen to agree with Jimmy. However, like the half-step of the Global Commission, Jimmy misses or ignores the basic axiom of human activity in a free society – the individual citizen will not alter his behavior until he convinces himself he must change. Throwing precious Treasury funds at treatment programs rather than or even in addition to incarceration will be just as much of a failure and waste of the People’s money that the so-called “war on drugs” has been. An individual consumer will not seek or respond to treatment no matter the inducement until he is ready to kick the habit. Please let us not fool ourselves.
-- The current Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Leon Edward Panetta, 72, [489] has been confirmed by the Senate with a rare 100-0-0-0(0) vote, to replace Bob Gates as Secretary of Defense.
-- Fourth Amendment restrictions and impairment [149 & sub]:
“Free to Search and Seize”
by David K. Shipler -- Op-Ed Contributor
New York Times
Published: June 22, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/opinion/23shipler.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212
Kentucky v. King [563 U.S. ___ (2011)] [495] is simply the latest and undoubtedly not the last example to support Shipler’s opinion.
-- After the shot across the bow from Speaker Boehner and the House regarding the President’s continued support of Operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR {H.RES.292 [496]} three week’s ago, the House attempted two additional steps. 1.) The vote on H.J.RES.68: Authorizing the limited use of the United States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya failed [House: 123-295-0-13(1)]. 2.) They also failed to pass H.R.2278: To limit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for United States Armed Forces in support of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya, unless otherwise specifically authorized by law [House: 180-238-0-13(4)]. The President continues to maintain that U.S. participation in Libya does not violate the War Powers Act of 1973 (AKA War Powers Resolution) [PL 93-148; H.J. Res. 542] [344].

Circa 22:30 [R] EDT, Friday, 24.June.2011, the New York State Senate passed A8354-2011 – the Marriage Equality Act. An hour later, Governor Andrew Mark Cuomo walked into the Senate chamber and at 23:55 [R] EDT, signed into law A8354-2011, enabling all residents to marry the person of their choice. New York becomes the seventh jurisdiction to allow same-sex marriage, following Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and the District of Columbia. California’s law remains under judicial contest and appeal – Perry v. Schwarzenegger [USDC CA(ND) no. C 09-2292 VRW (2010)] [452]. The journey toward equal rights for all citizens took another step forward. We remain a long way from the objective.
Another perspective:
“Marriage Is a Mixed Blessing”
by Katherine M. Franke– Op-Ed Contributor
New York Times
Published: June 23, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/opinion/24franke.html?src=me

On 2.July.2007, Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona (now, Secretary of Homeland Security) signed into law the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007 (AKA Employer Sanctions Law) [HB 2779; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§23-211, 212, 212.01]. The Chamber of Commerce immediately and preemptively challenged the state law. [SIDE NOTE: The implicit message in the Chamber of Commerce “objection” is business wants cheap labor no matter what the consequences.] This case precedes the better-known controversy surrounding Arizona’s SB1070 law [436] and the associated judicial review in United States v. Arizona [USDC AZ case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB (2010)] [450]. The HB 2779 law requires Arizona employers check the authority-to-work status of all new employees using the Federal E-Verify system. The constitutional issue before the Supremes in this case – Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting [563 U.S. ___ (2011); no. 09-115] – centered upon the state’s mandatory use of E-Verify contrary to the preemptive provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) [PL 99-603]. Congress created the E-Verify system in 1996, as a pilot program available on a voluntary basis to only ten states. The system was extended in 2001. The Basic Pilot Program Extension and Expansion Act of 2003 [PL 108-156] extended E-Verify to all 50 states but left it as a voluntary process, thus the conflict and challenge. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 5-3 majority (Kagan did not participate) and affirmed the 9th Circuit’s ruling in favor of Arizona’s HB 2779 law. The dissenters offered a variety of arguments, which in my opinion boil down to keeping the states out of immigration enforcement – for better or worse; they suggest the Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 is sufficient for authorization validation. The unfortunate reality is the I-9 leaves enforcement almost entirely in the hands of employers, who have a vested interest in the impression of legality. The Federal government’s creation of a classic Catch-22 with immigration enforcement is not likely to be reconciled by Congress. The Judicial branch has taken the next step in allowing the states to regain some modicum of control over their fate with respect to illegal immigration. So it is, so it shall be.

On 7.January.1991, Rear Admiral William Morris, the Navy's contracting officer for the A-12 Avenger development program, terminated the contract for default. The U.S. Government (USG) declared the prime contractor, McDonnell Douglas Corporation, irretrievably over budget and behind schedule, cancelled the contract, and sought repayment of US$1.35B in “progress payments for work never accepted” by the Navy. The company counter-claimed the USG withheld “superior knowledge” in the groundbreaking, carrier-based, stealth aircraft project. After a string of actions before the Court of Federal Claims (CFC), the case made it to the Supreme Court – General Dynamics Corp. v. United States [563 U.S. ___(2011); no. 09-1298]. The Court vacated the CFC judgment and remanded for further consideration. The Supremes said the USG could not hide behind the state secrets doctrine or withhold its “superior knowledge” in stealth technology, and then default a contractor for inadequate performance. The unanimous Court sought further constraints on the USG’s use of the state secrets doctrine established in Totten v. United States [92 U.S. 105 (1875)] [215] and reinforced by United States v. Reynolds [345 U.S. 1 (1953)] [306]. My attention focused on this case for curiosity regarding the A-12 program and the USG’s invocation of the state secrets doctrine. Interesting case, but unfortunately, it will likely be decades before we might learn the technical details in this failed stealth program.

News from the economic front:
-- The Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve’s policy board voted unanimously to maintain its benchmark interest rate near zero “for an extended period,” beyond the two-year-old commitment. The Fed statement said, “The economic recovery is continuing at a moderate pace, though somewhat more slowly than the committee had expected.” They added, “The committee expects the pace of recovery to pick up over coming quarters and the unemployment rate to resume its gradual decline.” The Fed also announced they would complete the planned purchase of US$600B in Treasury securities next week as scheduled, and then suspend its three-year-old economic rescue campaign.
-- The International Energy Agency and the Obama administration jointly announced that they would release 60 million barrels of oil into the market over the next 30 days, with half coming from the emergency U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, citing the loss of oil production as a result of the conflict in Libya and the upcoming energy demands of the summer season. The move came amid signs that rising fuel prices are dampening the economic recovery.
-- Using mortgage data filed with banking regulators, the Wall Street Journal reported the “percentage of mortgage applications rejected by the nation's largest lenders increased last year, spotlighting how banks' cautious lending practices are hampering the nascent housing market recovery.” “In all, the nation's 10 largest mortgage lenders denied 26.8% of loan applications in 2010, an increase from 23.5% in 2009.”

Comments and contributions from Update no.496:
Comment to the Blog:
“While I cannot condone vandalism even in opposition to Westboro Baptist, I also cannot condone Westboro Baptist’s actions.
“I will be brief about Rep. Weiner. (1) He has done nothing that cannot be displayed on national TV with children in the room. (2) He was a strong progressive voice before the current nonsense began. (3) He has a very nice torso.
“On the ruling requiring California to make its prison population 137.5% or less of the prisons’ capacity: this does not give courts anything like direct supervision of the prison system. It merely enforces the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. California can meet the requirement any way it likes. If California was still the leading state it once was, they could choose to increase their prison system’s capacity. The predecessors of the Tea Party got California into this mess by prohibiting reasonable taxation (Prop 13). They need not complain about getting what they wanted.
“Also, we may hope this will add fuel to the fire for changing drug laws. After, if possession of marijuana or some other drug is a felony, that increases the prison population very quickly.”
My reply to the Blog:
Re: Westboro. I have voiced my disdain with strong words for Freddie Phelps and his minions. I find his vitriol as repugnant as the Wahhabist or Salafist fundamentalist dogma, so I am clearly neither a fan nor a supporter. Likewise, I condemn Phelps, his spawn, and the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church. However, I believe the Supremes got it right in Snyder v. Phelps [563 U.S. ___ (2011); no. 09-751] [481]. Freedom means tolerating the really regrettable choices of others.
Re: Weiner. Well said, and ‘nuf said.
Re: Plata ruling [496]. Life is choices. California must make hard choices. The Supremes stated it simply – the Constitution protects criminals from cruel & unusual punishment by the State.
Re: “war on drugs.” Usage must be decriminalized. Supply must be regulated. Release user inmates. Disband & close the DEA. Transform our prohibition laws from punishment to protection of the innocents and treatment for those who truly seek sobriety. Then again, almost anything we do to abandon the foolish “war on drugs” will be better than what we have endured for the last 40 years.

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

Update no.496

Update from the Heartland

No.496

13.6.11 – 19.6.11

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

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- On 7.June.2011, U.S. Senior District Judge Dickinson Richards Debevoise of New Jersey issued his ruling in the case of Soobzokov v. Holder [USDC NJ 2:10-cv-06260-DRD (2011)] – Aslan Soobzokov’s petition for a Writ of Mandamus [474] – a court order seeking:
“(1) to compel [the U.S. G]overnment [USG] to disclose the results of their investigation into his father’s murder,
“(2) the creation of a neutral body to review [the USG] investigation, and
“(3) to transfer the investigation files to a different jurisdiction for investigation and prosecution of certain suspects.”
On 15.August.1985, a bomb at his front door critically injured Tscherim Soobzokov; he died of his injuries on 6.September.1985. After 20 years of exhausting efforts to seek justice for his father and family, Aslan Soobzokov filed a Complaint and Order to Show Cause on 21.November.2005, to compel the FBI and DOJ to reopen the investigation into his father’s assassination [Soobzokov v. Gonzales, no. 05-5486]. Aslan has been diligently pursuing judicial intervention in his laudable and admirable effort to find justice for his family. Judge Debevoise noted, “[I]t is well-settled that ‘the executive branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case.’ United States v. Nixon [418 U.S. 683 (1974)]. More specifically, ‘[T]he Attorney general and United States Attorneys retain broad discretion to enforce the Nation’s criminal law.’ United States v. Armstrong [517 U.S. 456 (1996)].” Further, the judge observed, “To be sure, prosecutorial discretion is not absolute. For example, selective prosecution ‘based on an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification’ is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Armstrong.” Is political bias against the victim an “unjustifiable standard”? Judge Debevoise concluded, “[T]he Court does not have jurisdiction to provide the mandamus relief sought,” as he denied Aslan’s petition.
I wrote to Aslan,
When I read Judge Debevoise’s opinion, I am struck by the sense of weight and the power of the State. He cites the prevailing common law, but he does not mention justice. Judge Debevoise stands behind the separation of powers as he should, but I find the court’s circular argument disturbing. He says you cannot establish malfeasance because you are denied access to essential information, i.e., your petition for discovery was denied by the “ongoing” status. The USG appears to want it both ways – to claim the case is open to deny you access and also to claim it is closed (no further investigation). Although those of us who seek justice for your father and your family do not find comfort or resolution in the court’s opinion, I would feel better if they declared their resistance to seeking extradition a national security issue. I am certain you find little satisfaction in the court’s ruling. The USG risks alienation via unilateral bias, such that a citizen feels the government is against him at a personal level, thus favoring others for unspecified reasons – hardly “Equal Justice for All.”
I like your recommendation for a court ordered independent investigation, which presumably could and should overcome any political bias. We clearly do not know why the USG is not pursuing the murderers and terrorists, who assassinated your father and injured your family. There is no question or debate that your father’s death was murder – a felonious crime of the most serious kind.
You have been denied “equal protection of the laws” by the USG, for whatever reason they may claim, and despite what the court chooses to ignore.
An appeal will cost money and time. I do not see any flaws or errors in Judge Debevoise’s opinion – only an unsupportive emphasis and interpretation of the law. Yet, it seems to me, an appeal that attempts to paint the common law in the light of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection provision might find resonance. However, to be frank, such an appeal is a crap-shoot, dependent upon the perspectives of the judges assigned the appeal. They could also simply deny an appeal.
Have you sought political support and pressure from your Federal senators and representative? If so, what did they say?
Have you decided what your next move is?
You have supporters, Aslan. You and your family deserve justice. Please let me know if there is anything we can do to assist you.
Peace be with you,
Cap
Postscript: Given the judicial biases of the Supremes illuminated in Plata (below), an appeal that would make it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court must acknowledge the intervening law, cited by Judge Debevoise, while emphasizing the “equal protection” dimensions beyond the case law. I believe each and every one of us in similar circumstances would seek the same justice and closure for our families. One or more assassins murdered Tscherim Soobzokov. He was denied the justice due him. We should all be offended by what the Soobzokov family has had to endure for a quarter century. Let justice prevail!
-- A friend and long-time contributor sent along a local news clip that should be of interest to all. It seems our demonic, possessed neighbors from the Westboro Baptist Church [190 & sub] of Topeka, Kansas, sought to conduct their usual protest at the funeral of Specialist Robert P. Hartwick, USA, in Logan, Ohio (a small community in the hill country of Eastern Ohio). As it was reported, the Phelps protesters never showed up at the funeral service, as they found themselves without transportation. Apparently, a concerned citizen (or two) decided to take matters into their own hands – all four tires on their van were slashed. I certainly understand the action, but we cannot condone damage to property (or injury to citizens) because we disapprove of the words of others. I hope this does not escalate elsewhere.

I have tried to avoid the whole sordid mess that exploded around Representative Anthony David Weiner of New York. I cannot resist any longer. I shall make no attempt to condemn or rationalize his conduct. What I would like each of us to ask ourselves is why? Not why did he do what he did, but rather why do we find such joyous or gleeful satisfaction in dismembering public officials or celebrities with our sanctimonious faux-morality? These were words, folks . . . well, and a few images . . . sent to willing, consenting adults. He drew no blood. He did not impregnate anyone. He did not violate any law (morality law or otherwise). He did not force anyone to do anything. In short, he harmed no one . . . the primary and principle exception of his new wife, who in her own right is a prominent public official. There is no doubt he seriously embarrassed his wife and himself. I suspect husband and wife have plenty to discuss and work out. Our most prominent public transgressor in my lifetime violated ethical and legal standards, and yet he survived his impeachment trial and reclaimed his status as a respected elder statesman. Reportedly, Anthony’s mistake was a moment of carelessness regarding the privacy settings of his Facebook account. For this, we crucify the man. And, we wonder with quasi-ignorance why good citizens do not seek public service.
BTW (in Web-parlance), Anthony’s family name is pronounced vī-nur in German, so let’s ditch the jokes.

Most judicial pronouncements appear to have no direct effect on us – after all, we are not drug dealers, murderers, or criminals of any kind. Even cases that might indirectly impact some of us seem to be quite distant. So, who cares? I see these rulings not as any direct consequence to me, but rather little glimpses into what might one day affect each and every one of us. A month ago, the Supremes issued their ruling in Brown v. Plata [563 U.S. ___ (2011); no. 09-1233] – an affirmation of a lower court order to the State of California to dramatically reduce its prison population. The succinct bottom line: the California state prison system at trial held 156,000 inmates with a capacity for 80,000; for 20 years, the state and courts danced around the serious consequences of prison overcrowding; the courts ordered to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design capacity (which is still too high in my opinion). The required population reduction could be as high as 46,000 persons. None of us are in prison, so who cares. This case gives us an unusually crisp illumination and contrast into the judicial thinking of the Supremes. Associate Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. He noted, “Prisoners retain the essence of human dignity inherent in all persons. Respect for that dignity animates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. ‘The basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment is nothing less than the dignity of man.’ Atkins v. Virginia, [536 U.S. 304 (2002)].” As much as I have railed against the judicial reasoning of Antonin the Impaler, there should be no doubt I truly admire his writing and cogent arguments; this case is no different. Scalia focused his dissent (in which Thomas joined) on the clear reality that the Constitution offers no authority to the Court for the action taken in Plata. He said, “Structural injunctions depart from that historical practice, turning judges into long-term administrators of complex social institutions,” as the Court’s order places judges as supervisors of Executive action. Scalia also opined, “[T]he Court disregards stringently drawn provisions of the governing statute, and traditional constitutional limitations upon the power of a federal judge, in order to uphold the absurd.” In such judicial pronouncements, we are left with the impression that Antonin the Impaler could care less about the rights of an individual citizen; it is the power of the State that he seeks to preserve – the very base distillate of Federalism. Perhaps Antonin believes Article III has far more (verging on infinite) weight than the 8th Amendment. Associate Justice Alito stated the essence of the dissent, “The Constitution does not give federal judges the authority to run state penal systems.” The words of the Court’s decision were not my point.
The issues raised by Plata offer us the opportunity to examine the broader questions. The State always retains the option of building more facilities and hiring more personnel to ameliorate the conditions of the constitutional violation. Like any resource, utilization must be regulated by a variable demand, which in this situation seems to demand a sliding filtration process to ensure available capacity is efficiently used without exceeding the constraints on the resource – a form of capacity triage, if you will; such that once a prison reaches capacity, a serious violent convict entering prison must displace a lesser, non-injurious prisoner – released. I am a confessed unsympathetic citizen when it comes to punishment for violent and/or habitual criminals that cause injury to other citizens or property. I want incarceration to be stark, austere sustenance – nutritious food, pure water, security and medical services. If we were discussing a flood rather than medical facilities, would or should the response be any different? In my flood analogy, must we wait for a prisoner to drown before we recognize the flood threat, and even at that, since the deceased prisoner is the only one to suffer injury, is he the only one with standing for a claim? This is a magnificent example of contrast between the so-called fundamentalist or strict constructionists and those they accuse of being judicial activists. The Constitution offers not one literal word of authority for the Court to dictate to a State that it must reduce its prison population. Thus, we have the dissent of Justices Scalia, (Thomas), Alito and (Roberts) that give us a forecast of things to come; they see themselves as the protectors of the State rather than the defender of the right of citizens, even incarcerated, transgressor citizens.

Comments and contributions from Update no.495:
Comment to the Blog:
“We are in broad agreement this week. I still doubt whether legalization without any regulation will ever occur, and I agree that it would create very serious problems. I am still using Prohibition, Repeal, and their aftermath as my basic guide. I expect that basic restraints to protect non-users would be part of any legalization or, at worst, would follow shortly.
“I share your horror at the King decision. The removal of the foundation of the United States goes far beyond legal issues with drug users. “Exigent circumstances” can excuse even the most brutal and unjustified abuses.”
My response to the Blog:
Re: drug use. I would not advocate for legalization without regulation. I truly believe legalization would simply be another form of anarchy and would only serve those who oppose decriminalization of psychotropic substance consumption -- vindication.
Re: King decision. I doubt very much the travesty of the King ruling would have happened without the underlying drug issue. The vast expansion of the “exigent circumstances” exception to the 4th Amendment protections and (to me) the far worse extraordinary extension of the Commerce Clause, which in turn amplified Federalism far beyond the limited government created by the Framers, are bona fide threats to the very freedom we cherish. Being the consummate optimist, I truly believe We, the People, will eventually figure it out, returning this Grand Republic to the Liberty envisioned by the Founders / Framers. We clearly have not reached our collective threshold of tolerance, yet. I am well past mine.

A query:
“I follow your Update From the Heartland Blog. I haven't seen anything recently re Aslan Soobzokov's law suit. I may have missed that particular blog entry? Is there any news about his law suit and his efforts to vindicate his father?”
My reply:
Fortuitous. Actually, yes, I'm working on it now for this week's Update [496]. More to follow. Thank you for your interest.

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

Update no.495

Update from the Heartland

No.495

6.6.11 – 12.6.11

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

To all,
The Global Commission on Drug Policy issued is report titled: “War on Drugs” on Tuesday, 2.June.2011.
http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Report
The title page of the report offers a graphically descriptive preface to the content, conclusions and recommendations.

Report Title Page

[report title page.jpg]

The 19 international Commissioners who produced the report are:
» Asma Jahangir - human rights activist, former UN Special Rapporteur on Arbitrary, Extrajudicial and Summary Executions, Pakistan
» Carlos Fuentes - writer and public intellectual, Mexico
» César Gaviria - former President of Colômbia
» Ernesto Zedillo - former President of México
» Fernando Henrique Cardoso - former President of Brazil (chair)
» George Papandreou - Prime Minister of Greece
» George Shultz - former Secretary of State, United States (honorary chair)
» Javier Solana - former European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Spain
» John Whitehead - banker and civil servant, chair of the World Trade Center Memorial, United States
» Kofi Annan - former Secretary General of the United Nations, Ghana
» Louise Arbour - former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, president of the International Crisis Group, Canada
» Maria Cattaui - Member of the Board, Petroplus Holdings; former Secretary-General of the International Chamber of Commerce, Switzerland
» Marion Caspers-Merk - former State Secretary at the German Federal Ministry of Health, Germany
» Mario Vargas Llosa - writer and public intellectual, Peru
» Michel Kazatchkine - executive director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, France
» Paul Volcker - former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve and of the Economic Recovery Board, U.S.
» Richard Branson - entrepreneur, advocate for social causes, founder of the Virgin Group, cofounder of The Elders, United Kingdom
» Ruth Dreifuss - former President of Switzerland and Minister of Home Affairs
» Thorvald Stoltenberg - former Minister of Foreign Affairs and UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Norway
The Commission offered eleven recommendations along with numerous observations, supporting examples, and insight from their research and study. The report is worth everyone’s precious time to read. The human cost of the “war on drugs” has been incalculable. The Commission takes a predominately social, humanistic approach to drug use. They noted, “The factors that influence an individual’s decision to start using drugs have more to do with fashion, peer influence, and social and economic context, than with the drug’s legal status, risk of detection, or government prevention messages.” The Commission also pointed out, “The factors that contribute to the development of problematic or dependent patterns of use have more to do with childhood trauma or neglect, harsh living conditions, social marginalization, and emotional problems, rather than moral weakness or hedonism.” They concluded, “The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world”; and recommended that we, “End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others.”
While I laud and endorse the Commission’s report, legalization is only a half-step likely to lead to a quasi-anarchistic state that could be more threatening to public health and safety. The Commission failed to note the most basic, overarching and fundamental reality that altering private behavior can and will only occur when the individual convinces himself that he must change his conduct. My experience and knowledge tells me there are no laws, no threats, no arguments, no rhetoric, no family, no shame, no officials, no treatments, nothing that can turn an individual from his addiction. The addict will only seek and respond to treatment if he recognizes he has a problem and truly wants to break his dependency upon psychotropic substances. Anything short of that point is destined to failure for a host of reasons. In my humble opinion, the best we can hope for once an individual has turned to the intoxication of any psychotropic substance is to minimize the collateral damage until the addict either convinces himself to change or dies. While we can and should have compassion for the addict, we cannot help him. Our focus should be on all other citizens we can protect. There may be many paths to accomplish our societal contribution, but we have obligations to our citizens – even those who seek intoxication. Let us return freedom of choice to and respect the choices of all citizens. Let us end the foolishness and transgressions carried out in the name of the so-called “war on drugs.” Please see the King ruling below.

Juxtaposed with the Commission’s report above, we have the recent Supreme Court decision of Kentucky v. King [563 U.S. ___ (2011); no. 09-1272] – a contemporary example of the collateral consequences and damage done by the “war on drugs.” This is yet another crucial 4th Amendment “search and seizure” case. The context is important, so I shall risk boring you with some of the details. I shall ask everyone to imagine they happen to live in the proverbial “left apartment” as described below.
On the evening of 13.October.2005, Lexington-Fayette County [Kentucky] police conducted a drug “buy bust” operation at a Centre Parkway apartment complex. Undercover Police Officer Gibbons watched the deal take place from an unmarked car in a nearby parking lot. After the deal occurred, Gibbons radioed uniformed officers that the suspect was moving quickly toward the breezeway of an apartment building, and he urged them to “hurry up and get there” before the suspect entered an apartment building. The uniformed officers drove into the nearby parking lot, left their vehicles, and ran to the breezeway. Just as they entered the breezeway, they heard a door shut and reportedly detected a very strong odor of burnt marijuana. At the end of the breezeway, the officers saw two apartments, one on the left and one on the right, and they did not know which apartment the suspect had entered. Gibbons had radioed that the suspect was running into the apartment on the right, but the officers did not hear this statement because they had already left their vehicles. Because they smelled marijuana smoke emanating from the apartment on the left, they approached the door of that apartment. Officer Steven Cobb testified that the officers banged on the left apartment door "as loud as [they] could" and announced, “This is the police” or “Police, police, police.” Cobb said that “[a]s soon as [the officers] started banging on the door,” they “could hear people inside moving,” and “[i]t sounded as [though] things were being moved inside the apartment.” These noises, Cobb testified, led the officers to believe that drug-related evidence was about to be destroyed. At that point, the officers announced that they “were going to make entry inside the apartment.” Cobb then kicked in the door. The officers entered the apartment and found three people in the front room: Hollis Deshaun King, his girlfriend, and a guest who was smoking marijuana. The officers performed a protective sweep of the apartment during which they saw marijuana and powder cocaine in plain view. In a subsequent search, they also discovered crack cocaine, cash, and drug paraphernalia. As the subsequent investigation determined, King was not the subject witnessed by Gibbons; that man was in the right apartment. King was convicted for possession of drugs and paraphernalia discovered during the warrantless search of his apartment.
Associate Justice Sam Alito wrote for the Court and the 8-1 majority. He stated, “This Court has identified several exigencies that may justify a warrantless search of a home.” Alito went on to conclude, “Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame for the warrantless exigent-circumstances search that may ensue.” Thus, the Supremes affirmed King’s conviction and substantially expanded the police use of “exigent circumstances” – in essence, the police can invoke that condition whenever they wish against whomever they wish . . . now isn’t that a comforting thought. The sole dissenter, Associate Justice Ruth Ginsburg, opened her dissent, “The Court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases.” One sentence of her dissent best summarizes the seriousness of this issue, “In no quarter does the Fourth Amendment apply with greater force than in our homes, our most private space which, for centuries, has been regarded as ‘entitled to special protection.’” In the King ruling, each and every one of us lost more of that “special protection,” all in the name of the disastrous “war on drugs.” Justice Ginsburg asked the question we should all ask ourselves, “How ‘secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?” This is precisely what we have sacrificed, in that private freedom of choice cannot be (and I will argue never should have been) prohibited, and thus used to justify expansion of police powers in a free society. While “illegal substances” may not be the sole reason for police invocation of “exigent circumstances,” that single reason surely appears to be the predominant root cause. The police can bang on any door, and if they invoke “exigent circumstances,” they can break down your door. What happens when the police have the wrong place (as was the case for Hollis King)? Or, the folks banging on the door are bad guys claiming to be police? Where are the limits? When the police lose contact (like a trail of evidence) with a suspect, the King decision virtually gives the police carte blanche to search whatever they wish, and collect up whatever they might find. Is the denial of freedom of choice to a few other citizens worth all of us sacrificing this much of our precious Liberty? I think not!

News from the economic front:
-- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke believes the U.S. economy should pick up in the second half of 2011, despite recent signs of weakness and an “uneven” economic recovery. He also believes the central bank's stimulation of the economy is still necessary, as he reiterated the expectation that interest rates will remain low for an “extended period.” Bernanke acknowledged that conditions in the labor market remain troubling.

Comments and contributions from Update no.494:
Comment to the Blog:
“While I oppose laws banning circumcision, I also oppose the practice. Circumcision is unnecessary surgery, and it carries the risks of any surgery. Any medical benefits from removing the foreskin remain controversial after many years of investigation. In addition, the surgery is typically done without anesthesia, and I count pain as harm to the infant. In addition, I see psychological harm as harm, and socially-sanctioned destruction to that part of a boy is bound to cause psychological harm, whether or not he consciously remembers it. Last but not least, should that decision not be left to the person whose penis is irrevocably altered by circumcision?
“You are correct that donations freely made, even to Harold Camping, are protected by law. The legal question, I would think, is whether his end-of-the-world claims constitute coercion of his believers. I tend to think it would be coercion given the context. The sad thing for me is that, legitimate or not, those donations are beyond taxes on the receiving end and largely unaccountable.”
My response to the Blog:
Penile circumcision (as differentiated from clitoral circumcision) evokes an emotional response and an opinion from most folks, like abortion, prostitution, gambling, drug use, et cetera. In the main, I would agree the decision logically should belong to the person undergoing the medical procedure, although I do not agree with the negative cost-benefit assessment. However, parents are charged with making medical decisions for their minor children; circumcision is one of those proper decisions. We are each entitled to our opinion and the exercise of our individual rights to make such decisions for ourselves and our children. We are agreed in our objection to State intrusion; now, we must enlist all voters in San Francisco to disapprove the intrusive, offensive initiative; the State has no place in the private lives of individuals or families. On a personal level, I believe the benefits outweigh the risks, and I do not believe there is any injury, no more so than a smallpox vaccination. We can argue the aesthetics. Regardless, this is a very personal decision, not a matter for State interest.
Spot on, re: Camping. Faith is one of the beautiful aspects of religion, and yet it is also one of its greatest weaknesses, i.e., a feature so easily exploited by charlatans, false prophets, and clever con men . . . as I believe Camping fits all three.

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

Update no.494

Update from the Heartland

No.494

30.5.11 – 5.6.11

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

To all,
A lot happened this week, but I have been way behind my reading, research and writing. I offer my most humble apologies. As they say, life is what happens when you are busy making other plans. On Tuesday, 31.May, Jeanne had in-patient surgery that fairly well occupied my capacity this week. She is home now, well into recovery, and doing pretty good. She should make steady progress and approach a status resembling normal within a few more weeks. Hopefully, my reading and writing will also return to normal soon. Thank you for your patience.

The follow-up news items:
-- At 02:35 [R] EDT, 1.June.2011, Captain Mark Kelly brought the Space Shuttle Endeavour home to a picture perfect night landing at Cape Canaveral, after a picture perfect mission to the International Space Station. The crew completed the 16-day STS-134 mission [492] – the last for the vehicle and second to the last for the entire shuttle program. The vehicle will be inert-ed, safe-d, and retired to a museum in California. One more to go. Atlantis is scheduled to launch in July, and planned to land the last time on the 42nd anniversary of the first Moon landing.
-- Nice to see the National Business Aircraft Association (NBAA) added its voice of indignation to the release of aircraft registration data after the WSJ published correlated flight tables [492]. The Federal government is headed toward modifications to the Block Aircraft Registration Request (BARR) program, which will make such personal information readily available to the public. Unfortunately, most citizens will say, “Who cares!” The reality is, we should all object strongly to the invasion of privacy. The wealthy have the same fundamental rights we all enjoy. Let’s just imagine our automobiles, license plates, times, our names, and every stop we made was published in the newspaper, on the Internet, on television. Would you object to such correlated information being made public? I truly hope the unanimous answer would be a resounding, “Hell yes!” If so, then why should we tolerate such information being published for the wealthy?
-- For those who may be interested, the data for the latest PATRIOT Act extension [493] finally made it to the public domain – PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 [PL 112-014; S.990; House: 250-153-0-28(4); Senate: 72-23-0-5(0)]. With numerous conflicting Press reports on this extension version, I wanted to read the text. Very disappointing! The publicly available text simply states: “amended by striking ‘May 27, 2011’ and inserting ‘June 1, 2015’,” for both the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 [Public Law 109–177] and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 [Public Law 108–458]. There has been considerable yammering about secret provisions authorizing expanded surveillance and search powers for the Federal government. I could find no suggestion or even hint of any classified provisions. Nonetheless, my opinion of the PATRIOT Act remains the same.
-- The speculation and incessant blame-game surrounding the demise of Air France Flight 447 [391] took another leap into the abyss after the latest preliminary report [493] from the Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation Civile (BEA). Some folks are condemning Airbus products and specifically the A330 (the aircraft model used for AF447). Others are blaming the pilots – did a relatively young pilot make the critical nose-up command, or did the reversionary control laws of the highly automated, flight control system make the control input that the pilots struggled to overcome? For all the inflammatory rhetoric, the reality is, we do not yet know. Let us remain calm and not give these damnable, persistent and injurious leaks more credibility than they deserve. There appears to be many factors involved in this accident, not least of which are pilot training, multiple levels of key failures, automated flight controls, and a specific, largely, undefined, atmospheric phenomenon. We have a long way to go on this one.
-- I suppose it was inevitable. As We, the People, raise our collective voices against the corrupting influence of earmarks [257 & sub], those clever politicians we occasionally refer to as our representatives and senators are developing and testing new ways to hide from public scrutiny their unchecked spending of the public treasury for political gain. The House Armed Services Committee created a new funding line called the Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund (MFET) within the Defense appropriations legislation into which they have placed dozens of en bloc amendments, valued at US$1B, so far. If this ploy works, we can be assured other committees will create their version of the MFET and load it up with billions of Treasury dollars of typical earmark, political largesse so common to contemporary Federal legislative action. Congress is committed and determined to continue spending for political gain. Only We, the People, can stop this foolishness.

President Obama nominated General Martin E. Dempsey, USA [USMA 1974] – the 37th and current Chief of Staff of Army (7 weeks) – to be the 18th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff replacing Admiral Mike Mullen, USN.

On or about 2.June.2011, a bright, Type II supernova designated SN2011dh was detected in the Whirlpool Galaxy (M51) – 23 million light-years distant. The scientists are still collecting data from the latest event. The first comparative images are shown at:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110605.html
Such things fascinate me.

Another log for the fire:
“Birthers, Truthers And Interrogation Deniers – The latest lunacy to get a popular hearing is the idea that harsh CIA interrogations yielded no useful intelligence. I guess we should toss out the 9/11 Commission Report”
by Michael Hayden
Wall Street Journal
Published: June 2, 2011; Pg. 19
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576359820767777538.html

The explosion of the E-coli infection outbreak centered in Germany that began a few weeks ago has taken on ominous dimensions. This episode is distinct by the complication known as Hemolytic-Uremic Syndrome (HUS) with an extremely rare serotype [O104:H4] of the enterohemorrhagic strain of the Escherichia coli (EHEC) bacterium. The German government initially suspected cucumbers, tomatoes and lettuce from Spain; the government directed the destruction of millions of euros worth of produce as well as prohibition of further importation. On Sunday, the government pointed its accusatory finger at bean sprouts grown in Northern Germany. The trace has proved to be less than definitive. This is not an ordinary event. Neither governmental sources nor the Press have made the jump so far, however, based on the symptoms, virulence and surprising morbidity along with the inability so far for scientists to trace the origins . . . bells, whistles, alarms and warning klaxons are going off in my little pea-brain. I do not wish to cause undue apprehension, however my perception suggests we may be witnessing a biological warfare attack. I truly hope I am wrong, but the signs point me in that dreadful direction. On the contrary, this could be just a naturally occurring mutation of a common bacterium, but I am always skeptical of this form of happenstance.

News from the economic front:
-- The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) monthly composite index of U.S. manufacturing growth slowed substantially in May to 53.5, the lowest level since September 2009. New orders, production and export measures all declined. Rising commodity prices and a sharp decline in automobile production cut into manufacturing growth and put a chill on hiring.
-- European Central Bank (ECB) President Jean-Claude Trichet recommended the creation of a euro-zone finance ministry and advocated for much tougher fiscal measures relative to Union countries needing financial support during the debt crisis. He wants euro-zone authorities to have “a much deeper and authoritative say in the formation of the county’s economic policies if these go harmfully astray.” Trichet believes the notional EU finance ministry should have “the right to veto some national economic-policy decisions,” in particular, a veto-right over “major fiscal spending items and elements essential for the country's competitiveness.”
-- The Labor Department reported U.S. hiring slowed significantly in May. Nonfarm payrolls rose by 54,000 last month, as the private sector posted the smallest job gain in nearly a year. There are almost 13.9 million Americans who are looking for work but cannot find a job. Via a separate household survey, the national unemployment rate rose to 9.1% in May from 9.0% in April.
-- The ECB, the European Union (EU), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) indicated additional bail-out funds for Greece will become available by early July, as Greece was making good progress on economic reforms. Greece received the €110B (US$159.40B) bailout last year as it neared default.

Comments and contributions from Update no.493:
Comment to the Blog:
“I have two primary reasons for continually harping on the financial aspects of government-funded repression rather than the deeper moral issues. One is obvious: I pay taxes. I am thrifty by nature, which does not mean that I spend no money but does mean that I want to get the best value for my spending. I do not resent taxation so long as I believe I get reasonable value for my money. Roads, police and fire protection, air traffic control, and mail delivery are all valuable services. The moral regulation we both oppose is no value and in fact requires me to pay for something repugnant. In addition, I suspect corruption accompanies all of these attempts to regulate personal behavior for the same reason it accompanied Prohibition of alcohol. People will do what people will do, regardless of others’ official or unofficial disapproval; those charged with carrying out these laws can only choose between corruption or futility. The corruption further increases the waste of money spent on law enforcement, prosecution, and imprisonment or other punishment of those who are caught and unable to buy their way out.
“The other important reason for my focus on the money cost of all this wrongness is a communication issue. People listen to economic arguments much more than to moral persuasions. The Republican Party has used that fact to great effect in recent decades. They keep saying things like, ‘Keep more of your money’ as if tax dollars went for nothing.
“Bill Clinton, technically a Democrat, won elections by saying, ‘It’s the economy, stupid!’ In the eyes of a majority of U.S. voters, he was right.
“Those of us who remain opposed to the removal of our Constitutional rights will make more headway by pointing out the waste and the unavoidable corruption than we ever have by pointing out the harm done to Americans by removing our freedoms. The problem with pointing out the wrongness of these abuses is that people in general believe it will not happen to them until it happens. Wasted tax dollars are far easier to understand.
“Incidentally, I agree with your statement that a ban on circumcision is an imposition on personal choice from ‘my side’ of the political spectrum. I oppose such a law due to its trampling on religious and personal freedom at the same time I also disagree with circumcision as a practice. As is usual with me, I favor education and discussion over regulation. In this case, my strong personal preference is to let the boy make that decision as part of becoming a man. That’s not a choice that belongs to society.
“I am not familiar with your other commenter’s source on Harold Camping’s fundraising in connection with his Rapture prediction, but if this is correct, I would happily dedicate tax dollars to confining him for the remainder of his lifetime. If his backup prediction for the end of the world on October 21 should happen, he will be released by the event. If not, he gets what he has earned by duping his followers.”
My reply to the Blog:
“[H]arping” does not seem like the appropriate word, as it implies an irrational persistence on a particular issue. In your context, your persistence is anything but “harping.”
Re: paying for moral projectionism. Indeed . . . spot on . . . and do I hear an amen, brother. Yet, we continue to tolerate and pay for the government’s imposition upon our most precious freedom of choice and our “pursuit of Happiness.” I will add to your eloquent words that the government’s place is regulation of the public domain for our common good. What substances a citizen chooses to ingest in private, or whether he contracts with another citizen for sexual pleasure, or whom he chooses to share his private life with are beyond the authority of the State, granted to it by We, the People, in our magnificent Constitution. The corruption that inherently accompanies prohibition is equally spot on – yet one more reason to repeal prohibition.
FYI: I’m reviewing yet another Supreme Court case of 4th Amendment violation in the name of the bogus war on drugs. More to follow.
Re: “Wasted tax dollars.” You struck resonance; very well said, indeed.
Re: “circumcision ban.” Exactly the point! Such a proposed law is a perfect example of something the State should not, must not, be involved in whatsoever. The proper medical procedure does not harm the infant boy [routinely performed for many decades in the U.S., and for many millennia for believers], and Diane Cole points out, the medical benefit outweighs the emotional queasiness of adults. It is NOT a choice that belongs in the public domain and certainly not to the State.
Re: “Harold Camping.” Estimates of donations to his “ministry” have ranged from US$10-80M. If they were spontaneous, voluntary donations, then I am afraid there is not much we can or even should do, as it represents a personal, private exercise of a citizen’s freedom of choice. However, if he solicited or suggested any goods or services to be derived from any donation, then it was indeed felonious fraud and prosecutable regardless of any faux-religious trappings. “[R]especting an establishment of religion” does not shield fraud, anymore so than “freedom of speech, or of the press” does. Like many citizens, I hope Camping’s actions are investigated, and if appropriate, prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law. Religion is not and cannot be an excuse for fraud.

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