Update from the Heartland
No.499
4.7.11 – 10.7.11
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,Congratulations to the American women. What a fantastic quarterfinals match!! A perfect header in the last minute of stoppage time, on injury time, on extra time (121:19) to tie it up; then 5-3 in penalty kicks to defeat the Brazil side. I think the world must have heard me yell! I scared the dogs . . . poor things. It was an ugly match, not pretty, but the ladies got ‘er done.
The follow-up news items:
-- On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals removed their stay of a district court’s permanent injunction of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the case of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States [456, 457, 461], which means the appeals court de facto ordered an immediate end to enforcement of the law. This ruling may well push the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The final launch of the space shuttle program was not without drama. Despite weather concerns, a near flawless countdown stopped at T-00:00:31 – the moment ground computers were to hand off launch control to Atlantis’ on-board computers. They needed to use movable video cameras to confirm the proper retraction of the Gaseous Vent Arm (GVA) – the cap and gantry arm at the top of the external fuel tank. As a result, they took off three minutes late. The 12-day delivered a resupply module with consumables for one year of operations. The STS-135 mission is the 33rd flight for Atlantis. I witnessed the end of the Apollo Moon missions in 1972. There was doubt about the future of manned space flight back then, just as there is today. Space exploration will continue; it must continue.
A URL for a video montage of shuttle history:
http://www.cnn.com/video/ - /video/us/2011/02/23/nat.132.launches.132.seconds.cnn?iref=allsearch
Our 14-year-old granddaughter Aspen Shae observed, “Didn’t report her daughter missing until 31 days after it happened, yet still not guilty? That’s crap!” Well said, Aspen Shae. However, being found “not guilty” by a jury of our peers does NOT mean the accused is innocent; it simply means the State did not present sufficient evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt” to find her guilty. It also means the accused cannot be tried for that crime, again – double jeopardy. Such is the risk using only circumstantial evidence in capital murder cases. I would bet a dollar to donuts the jury believes she probably murdered little 2-year-old Caylee, but they know the State did not offer sufficient evidence to overcome “reasonable doubt.” The judicial system worked properly, as it should for the protection of all of us. Nonetheless, I hope “that woman” lives a long and very hard life. I also suspect (like O.J.) she will violate the law again (and hopefully, not get away with it).
A friend and regular contributor sent along this essay for comment:
“Why Do the Police Have Tanks? The Strange and Dangerous Militarization of the US Police Force – The federal government has supplied local police departments with military uniforms, weaponry, vehicles, and training”
by Rania Khalek
AlterNet.org
Posted: July 5, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/world/151528
To which, I replied:
Interesting perspective.
As I am want to do in such situations, I try to check pivotal details as much to test the veracity of the author’s statements as the structure of her argument, and of course, I always learn.
Khalek claims the turning point was “the Posse Comitatus Amendment on December 1, 1981 (Public Law 97-86).” Well, PL 97-086 is actually the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1982 [95 Stat. 1099], and I can find no reference to the “Posse Comitatus Amendment,” or “Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Act,” or anything even remotely close to “military use in drug enforcement.” Now, on the flip side, I remember press reports to that effect from that era, so I’m sure there is some interpretation out there; I just cannot find it in the law.
Khalek also points to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 [PL 104-201, 110 Stat. 2422], which does include Title X — General Provisions; Subtitle C — Counter-Drug Activities, which in turn includes Sec. 1033 – Transfer of excess personal property to support law enforcement activities. In the language of the law, I do not see anything untoward or even remotely conspiratorial. There is no “Law Enforcement Support Program” in the law that I could find.
My degree of skepticism mounts rapidly when I read liberal interpretations of the law or worse erroneous representations of the law, since most folks will not read the law for themselves, and if so inclined, they will accept the arguments based on those misrepresentations, with nothing to challenge the veracity of the overlaying opinions.
Police have been “up-gunning” for quite some time when faced with criminals using automatic weapons, rocket grenades and explosives. Like the circular argument in gun control, military equipment is simply a tool; how the police use the tool is the issue, not the type of tool they use. I want the police to have the best tools available, and I want them trained well to use them properly.
[Just an FYI side note: I suspect there is much more to the Aiyana Mo'Nay Stanley-Jones story than we have been told. I have a hard time digesting Khalek’s coloration of the event.]
Khalek said, “We have created circumstances under which the American people are no longer individuals protected by the Bill of Rights, but rather ‘enemy combatants.’” Really? “Enemy combatants?” She went on to conclude, “What might the end result be if the distinction between police and military ceases to exist? The answer is a police state -- and certain segments of our society are already living in one.” I share her concern for our most fundamental freedoms and rights; however, I cannot accept her translation of that concern. Are there bad police? Yes, as there are bad citizens. Regardless, to color all police as hell-bent on oppressing We, the People, is simply a gross overstatement and flat wrong.
Another article for comment:
“Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore Using Dodgy Statistics to Fuel Child Sex Slavery Panic – Throwing wildly inflated numbers around doesn't help young people avoid falling into the horrific world of prostitution”
by Joshua Holland
AlterNet.org
Posted: July 5, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/news/151530
To which I replied:
Holland makes a very good point that applies to so many social topics. So many advocates seem to feel the only way to punctuate their arguments is with exaggerated statistics. The technique works well, especially on those citizens who do not care about fundamental details, or are predisposed to the object of the argument, or have not taken the time to think through the particular issue at hand.
I have no doubt there are children who are truly abducted or forced into slavery . . . for common labor or sexual servitude. Yet, exaggeration does not serve any cause well in the information age. Like so many issues, so much hangs upon definitions, context, conditions and perceptions.
I also recognize and acknowledge that American society is extraordinarily uncomfortable talking about sex . . . any aspect about sex. Since the days of the Salem witch trials (1692), American society has been schizophrenic about sex. Since the time of Anthony Comstock (1844 – 1915) and the Victorian era, moralists among us have imposed their schizophrenia on We, the People, via the law, often via federal law, e.g., Comstock Act of 1873 [PL 43-258], White Slave Traffic Act of 1910 [PL 61-277], et al. My opinions of all the morality laws in this Grand Republic are well known; ‘nuf said.
I share Holland’s objection, but I must declare he did not go after the root cause – parental accountability. I suspect that some children in this country are truly forced into sexual slavery. Yet, instead of focusing on the genuine abducted and enslaved, we expand our outrage to all children exposed to sex prior to their 18th birthday. What is missing is parental accountability in this equation. Further, we must mature as a culture to support a citizen’s right to choose their “pursuit of Happiness,” to accept that sex is an important and relevant part of life, and to allow parents to make decisions for their children, even those we may not like or agree with ourselves. We may be offended by even the thought of minors exposed to sex, but that does not give us the right to impose our offense on other families who view life differently. We must focus on the genuine injury, not our moral effrontery.
A relevant opinion from a noted author:
“Is Sex Passé?”
by Erica Jong
New York Times
Published: July 9, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/opinion/sunday/10sex.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212
In 2005, California Assembly Bill 1179 made the sale of violent video games to minors (<18yo) a felony. The gaming industry preemptively sought an injunction against enforcement, based on their opinion that the law was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. A Federal district court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared CA AB1179 unconstitutional. The divided Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ judgment – Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association [564 U.S. ___ (2011); no. 08–1448]. Associate Justice Scalia wrote for the Court and stated, “No doubt a State possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm . . . but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.” The Entertainment Merchants case illuminated a critical and significant dichotomy with the Supreme Court and as a reflection of American society. Associate Justice Thomas dissented and went into an uncharacteristically expansive treatise on childhood development and parental responsibility. He used the argument to justify the State’s interjection into the child’s life and education on behalf of the child and the parents. Interesting argument. Although he did not explicitly state it, his reasoning clearly implies that he is quite comfortable with the substitution of the State’s moral values for those of the parents. Associate Justice Breyer also dissented and noted, “But what sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her? What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman--bound, gagged, tortured, and killed--is also topless?” Breyer also offers long appendixes of reported scholarly studies that document the damage done on youthful development by violent video games. While I concur with the Court’s conclusion, I do not agree with their reasoning. In fact, I am disappointed with how meagerly shallow the Court was in its logic. Several justices noted parental dominance in childhood development; however, none of the justices even acknowledged the importance of parental accountability. Some parents teach their children to differentiate between violence for hunting sustenance versus the violence of war versus violence upon the public. Like so many things, some children learn to make good decisions, to respect other human beings and animals for that matter, to use firearms properly and safely, and to differentiate between video animation and real life. The issue in this instance is actions – not thoughts, entertainment, or exposure. I will argue it is far better to actively teach children how to evaluate and discern topics of life, like alcohol, violence, drugs, sex, politics, et al.
Another relevant opinion:
“Sex and the Supremes”
by Timothy Egan
New York Times
Published: July 7, 2011, 8:30 pm
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/sex-and-the-supremes/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1
Egan’s opinion is starkly supported in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.
News from the economic front:
-- The People's Bank of China announced it will raise the one-year yuan lending rate to 6.56% from 6.31%, and the one-year yuan deposit rate to 3.50% from 3.25%, as the central bank seeks to reign in growth with its fifth rate increase in the latest round of tightening.
-- The Department of Labor reported the U.S. economy added only 18,000 jobs in June. Private company, nonfarm payrolls added 57,000 jobs in June, from a revised gain of 73,000 in May, while government agencies have been shedding jobs as they grapple with budget pressures. The unemployment rate rose to 9.2 percent from 9.1 percent in May. The report showed the continuing jobs challenges, two years after the official end of the longest economic downturn since the Great Depression.
No comments and contributions from Update no.498.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/opinion/sunday/10sex.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212
In 2005, California Assembly Bill 1179 made the sale of violent video games to minors (<18yo) a felony. The gaming industry preemptively sought an injunction against enforcement, based on their opinion that the law was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. A Federal district court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared CA AB1179 unconstitutional. The divided Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ judgment – Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association [564 U.S. ___ (2011); no. 08–1448]. Associate Justice Scalia wrote for the Court and stated, “No doubt a State possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm . . . but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.” The Entertainment Merchants case illuminated a critical and significant dichotomy with the Supreme Court and as a reflection of American society. Associate Justice Thomas dissented and went into an uncharacteristically expansive treatise on childhood development and parental responsibility. He used the argument to justify the State’s interjection into the child’s life and education on behalf of the child and the parents. Interesting argument. Although he did not explicitly state it, his reasoning clearly implies that he is quite comfortable with the substitution of the State’s moral values for those of the parents. Associate Justice Breyer also dissented and noted, “But what sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her? What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman--bound, gagged, tortured, and killed--is also topless?” Breyer also offers long appendixes of reported scholarly studies that document the damage done on youthful development by violent video games. While I concur with the Court’s conclusion, I do not agree with their reasoning. In fact, I am disappointed with how meagerly shallow the Court was in its logic. Several justices noted parental dominance in childhood development; however, none of the justices even acknowledged the importance of parental accountability. Some parents teach their children to differentiate between violence for hunting sustenance versus the violence of war versus violence upon the public. Like so many things, some children learn to make good decisions, to respect other human beings and animals for that matter, to use firearms properly and safely, and to differentiate between video animation and real life. The issue in this instance is actions – not thoughts, entertainment, or exposure. I will argue it is far better to actively teach children how to evaluate and discern topics of life, like alcohol, violence, drugs, sex, politics, et al.
Another relevant opinion:
“Sex and the Supremes”
by Timothy Egan
New York Times
Published: July 7, 2011, 8:30 pm
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/sex-and-the-supremes/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1
Egan’s opinion is starkly supported in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.
News from the economic front:
-- The People's Bank of China announced it will raise the one-year yuan lending rate to 6.56% from 6.31%, and the one-year yuan deposit rate to 3.50% from 3.25%, as the central bank seeks to reign in growth with its fifth rate increase in the latest round of tightening.
-- The Department of Labor reported the U.S. economy added only 18,000 jobs in June. Private company, nonfarm payrolls added 57,000 jobs in June, from a revised gain of 73,000 in May, while government agencies have been shedding jobs as they grapple with budget pressures. The unemployment rate rose to 9.2 percent from 9.1 percent in May. The report showed the continuing jobs challenges, two years after the official end of the longest economic downturn since the Great Depression.
No comments and contributions from Update no.498.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment