Update from the Heartland
No.526
9.1.12 – 15.1.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Every so often, a rare event occurs that might escape public or Press attention. With little acknowledgment, the Montana Supreme Court directly confronted the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The underlying case at issue in this instance was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [558 U.S. ____ (2010); 21.January.2010] [424]. On 5.November.1912, the voters of Montana passed a citizen created initiative, §25 of which became known as the Corrupt Practices Act (CPA), part of which survives as Montana Code Annotated §13-35- 227. As a consequence of Citizens United, two Montana corporations, and a rather misty group incorporated in Colorado in 2008 and registered to do business in Montana, filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the CPA based on Citizens United and a corporation’s First Amendment freedom of speech. The district court declared the CPA unconstitutional, citing Citizens United as the basis for his ruling. On 30.December.2011, in a 5-2 decision, the Montana Supreme Court overturned the district court in Western Tradition v. Montana [MT SC 2012 MT 328; DA 11-0081 (2011)] and thus directly challenged SCOTUS. Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court Michael “Mike” McGrath wrote for the court. He recounted the history behind the CPA law, and tried to differentiate between their decision and Citizens United. McGrath illuminated the historic as well as the potential impact of unrestrained corporate spending in affecting elections and the political legislative process. His argument seems to boil down to one sentence, “While corporations have first amendment rights in political speech, they do not have the vote.” Associate Justice James C. Nelson wrote a blistering dissent. He noted early in his dissenting opinion, “I thoroughly disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. I agree, rather, with the eloquent and, in my view, better-reasoned dissent of Justice Stevens. As a result, I find myself in the distasteful position of having to defend the applicability of a controlling precedent with which I profoundly disagree.” Nelson carefully parsed and differentiated the rights of an individual citizen and that same citizen as an incorporated entity, as if they were two entirely separate units. Citizens United gave corporations essentially equivalent rights as a citizen; thus, when the Court gets around to it, corporations will be able to vote, which in turn will give a singular human being more than one vote, verging on infinite since there is no limit to how many different ways an individual may incorporate himself. Why the Supremes cannot see the absurdity of granting corporations the rights of citizenship is simply beyond my comprehension. Anyway, while Nelson defended the Supreme’s binding precedent of Citizens United, he amplified his disgust with the position in which he was placed. “Corporations are artificial creatures of law.” He noted, “Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creations of government,” and concluded, “Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.” Therein lies my strong objection to Citizens United. From Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court in Citizens United, “The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule.” We . . . well, actually, it is only the Supremes who seem to confuse money with speech, i.e., actual words of presentation or argument. As we have seen all too often, money has an extraordinarily high potential for corruption of anyone’s moral values. It is the anonymity or duality of corporate money that continues to bother me, especially after reading Citizens United, meaning corporations are NOT alive; they are comprised of human beings, usually citizens who have the right to vote. In essence, Citizens United vastly amplifies the political leanings of the leaders, owners, boards of corporations by giving them access to massive resources with virtually no consequences. To illustrate that point, one of the plaintiffs in Western Tradition was Champion Painting, Inc., “a single proprietor painting and drywall business with no employees or members, and its sole shareholder is Kenneth Champion.” The title corporation, Western Tradition Partnership, Inc., “claims to be a foreign corporation but it is not a business corporation. Its purpose, according to un-rebutted evidence submitted to the District Court by the State, is to solicit and anonymously spend the funds of other corporations, individuals and entities to influence the outcome of Montana elections.” Reading Western Tradition, I think every citizen can and would appreciate the stand the Montana Supreme Court has taken, but . . . . The Supremacy Clause remains the law of the land. Nonetheless, just as we needed laws to bring order to the Wild Wild West, we need some order to the political money. When I know a corporation has chosen to malign one political ideology and support a competing agenda, I can put that corporation’s actions in perspective and decide to avoid that corporation’s products. The problem is hidden or camouflaged, massive expenditures by anonymous citizens (and foreign entities, including nation-states), operating through façade corporations. I am absolutely convinced the Founders / Framers would be convulsing in stupefied incredulity at the insanity the Supremes have unleashed within this Grand Republic.
Another perspective of the infamous Supreme Court case:
“This Is Citizens United
by Andrew Rosenthal
New York Times
Published: January 10, 2012, 11:12 am
http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/this-is-citizens-united/?nl=opinion&emc=tyb1
In addition to the controversial authorization for unlimited detention of battlefield combatants during the War on Islamic Fascism, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 [PL 112-081; 31.Dec.2011] elevates the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to full membership on the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). General Craig Richard McKinley, USAF, is the current Chief and now newest member of JCS. The National Guard pegs its founding to 13.Dec.1636, when the Massachusetts Bay Colony ordered the organization of three regiments of militia for the protection of the community; thus, the Guard is the longest serving military branch. The state militias were formed into the National Guard by the Militia Act of 1903 [PL 57-196; 32 Stat. 775; 21.Jan.1903] as a consequence of the Spanish-American War. The National Guard Bureau, which unified command of the Army National Guard and Air National Guard, came into existence by §904, Title IX, of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 [PL 103-337; 108 Stat. 2663, 2824; 5.Oct.1994]. Considering the extraordinary contributions and sacrifices of the National Guard throughout the War on Islamic Fascism, the elevation of the Guard is quite appropriate. We are most grateful for their extended augmentation of the thin regular forces over the long haul in this war and their continued contributions to this day.
As a retire Marine officer and concerned citizen, I am far more disturbed by the Press coverage and yammering of the talking heads about the images and video clip of four Marine in Afghanistan urinating on two dead Taliban fighters. The articles, essays, opinions and other drivel are far too numerous to acknowledge or list. I shall offer only two:
“The Real Tale Of The Tapes”
New York Post
Published: January 13, 2012; pg. 24
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/the_real_tale_of_the_tapes_Om6PzDobxyhc7cYEJWJiqK
and
“Reprehensible Behavior Is A Risk Of Combat, Experts Say”
by James Dao
New York Times
Published: January 14, 2012; pg. 8
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/world/reprehensible-behavior-is-a-risk-of-combat-experts-say.html
First, the conduct illustrated in the video and captured still images is unacceptable. The only purpose it served for those Marines was a little tension relief; the consequences serve the Taliban and Islamo-fascists to a far great extent. Thus, the relevant question is, why? Nonetheless, let us all keep things in perspective. This is equivalent to an unnecessary roughness penalty in American football – regrettable, but hardly a reason to pull the offending player. I imagine but I do not know every combat commander must have issued orders that cell phones, digital cameras or any other visual or audio recording device is prohibited during operations. If so, the idiot who took that video and the even-bigger-idiot who disclosed that video should be court-martialed for intentional, purposeful disobedience of a direct order. Yes, those four Marines deserve an appropriate penalty; I would suggest an informal letter of reprimand. Lastly, I urge all citizens to avoid watching the sausage being made. War is an ugly, nasty business. That particular video is a gnat in a hailstorm. Unfortunately, the rampant political correctness of the warm, cushy, armchair quarterbacks of the politicos will overwhelm the wisdom of the professional generals and those good Marines will be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness. I (I cannot say we) can only hope the Commandant will stand up to the political pressure and save those good Marines. God bless them for their service to this Grand Republic. I can only hope that We, the People, will put our sanctimonious indignation aside and find the courage to stand-up for these Marines.
“Religious leaders: Gay marriage a ‘peril’ to liberty – Religious coalition says legalization forces changing of thousands of laws”
by Cheryl Wetzstein
The Washington Times
Published: Thursday, January 12, 2012
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/12/religious-leaders-gay-marriage-a-peril-to-liberty/
The opening statement: “Nearly 40 religious leaders, including Catholic, evangelical, Jewish and Mormon figures, issued an open letter Thursday that argues that the battle against same-sex marriage is a fight on behalf of religious freedom.” OK, I understand the emotions. What I do not understand is the logic and rhetoric. Clerics seek power and control, to dictate the private choices and conduct of all citizens. These clerics apparently do not understand or appreciate the significance and importance of “unalienable rights” and “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.” The implication of this clerical statement is that individuals who make private choices relevant only to themselves will somehow be turned around or coalesced into imposition upon the religious beliefs and choices of the clerics and other believers. I stand for and will defend the right of these clerics to their homophobia and even to their dicta to their believers. They get crosswise with me, and presumably with every freedom-loving citizen, when they stoke the fires of religious emotion in an overt effort to impose their will upon all citizens. I object! Regardless, once again, I ask anyone to help me understand why these clerics are so convinced that oppressed people will turn to deny the very freedom they seek for all citizens? Their supposition simply does not make sense to me, so perhaps it is because I am not perceptive enough to appreciate their worries. Help me!
News from the economic front:
-- Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services passed judgment on the unsolicited long-term sovereign credit ratings of 16 euro-zone countries, after downgrading U.S. sovereign debt from AAA to AA+ (5.August.2011) [503]. Among the countries touched in this round:
Germany: affirmed its AAA rating, with a stable outlook.
France: downgraded to AA+ from AAA.
Italy: downgraded two notches to BBB+ from A.
Austria: downgraded to AA+ from AAA.
Spain: downgraded two notches to A from AA-.
Portugal: downgraded by two notches to BB from BBB- (junk status).
Slovakia: downgraded to A from A+.
Slovenia: downgraded to A+ from AA-.
Cyprus: downgraded two notches to BB+ from BBB (junk status).
Malta: downgraded to A- from A.
Ireland: affirmed its BBB+ rating.
Greece: previously downgraded to B from BB- (junk status).
The Stanford Fraud [375]:
-- Robert Allen Stanford, the founder of Stanford Financial, is scheduled to go on trial on 23.January in Houston, three years after he was arrested. He is charged with 21 federal criminal counts of defrauding investors, and stands accused of encouraging investors to buy certificates of deposit at a Stanford bank in Antigua. Instead of being invested, Stanford allegedly used much of the money to maintain his lavish lifestyle. As with most events, timing is everything. On Friday, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas announced a “deal” with Spencer C. Barasch, who served as the enforcement director for the SEC’s Fort Worth regional office from 1998 to 2005, to pay a civil settlement, US$50,000 fine – the maximum fine for a violation of federal conflict-of-interest rules. Barasch allegedly shielded Stanford from government investigations until the bottom fell out. I sure as hell expect the government extracted a commitment to cooperate in the prosecution of Stanford; if not, then I will scream FOUL!
Comments and contributions from Update no.525:
Comment to the Blog:
“First, I want to apologize for not following up your last reply last week. The combination of illness, graduation, and work pretty much overwhelmed all else. I do, however, remember pointing out more politely in an earlier reply that “scientific proof” is an oxymoron, not a possibility, due to the nature of science.
“I will agree that the case you mentioned should be renamed SEC + Citigroup v US District Court. That combination of arrogance and audacity comes back to the concept of willful blindness. It matters very little whether they consciously know what they do; they should be held accountable either way.
“I read those two articles on the ‘right to die.’ After all is said and done, I don’t see that as viable in its current form. I simply do not trust heirs, particularly where substantial money or property bends people’s opinions. Ending someone’s presumed suffering becomes a much more important motivation when one’s subconscious or conscious mind knows that the bills are mounting or when envy and all the rest set in. Even beyond that, doctors have not learned to pronounce people terminal with any degree of reliability. There is a legend in my family that my grandmother was pronounced terminal eight times and outlived seven of the doctors who so pronounced her. Even if it was only two or three of the doctors, you get my point. If Sir Terry Pratchett wishes to commit suicide while he remains capable of doing so and has a clear head, he has that option in the UK. If he chooses to wait until he cannot, so what?”
My response to the Blog:
First, I do not agree that “scientific proof” is an oxymoron. Second, I just sought to understand cause & effect within an important, relevant example.
Willful blindness certainly is a major factor in the banking crisis. I absolutely agree regarding accountability. First, I do not think those bankers were ignorant of the law. Second, even if they were, ignorance of the law is no defense. Third, based on the SEC’s performance in Citigroup and others, the USG does not seek accountability, only the image, the façade, of accountability. US$285M to Citigroup is a parking ticket. We can only hope Judge Rakoff’s message gets through to the USG.
Re: “Death with Dignity.” Your concern is valid, appropriate and worthy of our calm, careful contemplation. I share your concern. The key is mental competency of the individual. Using Oregon’s law as a worthy example, Death with Dignity can only be available when two independent medical professionals can assert: 1.) the mental competency of the individual, 2.) the terminal phase of the individual’s illness or condition, and 3.) the independent free choice of the individual devoid of undue influence. It sounds like your grandmother would not have sought that capability, which of course was her choice entirely. On the other side, my mother sought that ability, but it was denied her, and she had to endure a long, lingering death. If we truly believe in those unalienable rights, then we must respect every individual’s freedom of choice to that last decision. As with all sensitive topics & decisions, let us seek and find a reasonable, contemporary compromise to protect the individual and his/her freedom of choice.
. . . with a follow-up comment:
“Scientific proof is not finally possible, although mathematical proof is in theory. Scientific disproof is possible, but not proof. (That is learning from one of my recent courses.) However weighty scientific evidence becomes, new evidence always remains a possibility.
“Insofar as Citibank and the SEC defying the law, I remain hopeful that Judge Rakoff will succeed in rebuffing them and perhaps be joined by other honest judges.
“I will leave the ‘death with dignity’ debate alone beyond reiterating my opinion that doctors cannot reliably predict the future of a given patient.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Ahso, the philosophical view of “scientific proof.” Yes. Agreed. New data refines the scientific view. Just a few decades ago, the Moon was just a large nighttime orb and Mars was a distant red dot. We have learned more since then. We will continue to learn more as we go. The “scientific proof” is only as good as the data available. When it comes to human traits, interactions, and experiences, the best we can do is observations and opinions. Thus, my questions about your friend & her daughter; I would like to learn more.
Re: Rakoff. Agreed. We can only hope there are more judges that demand proof. I am currently reading a ruling by the Montana Supreme Court that attempts to constrain Citizens United. There is hope.
Re: Death with Dignity. The issue is not the doctor’s ability to predict the future for a given patient, but rather the individual’s un-coerced freedom of choice. This is not about the science of medicine. It is entirely about respecting an individual citizen’s unalienable right to “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.” The involvement of the doctors is to have independent attestation to the individual’s free choice and the terminal phase of his life.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
Every so often, a rare event occurs that might escape public or Press attention. With little acknowledgment, the Montana Supreme Court directly confronted the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The underlying case at issue in this instance was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [558 U.S. ____ (2010); 21.January.2010] [424]. On 5.November.1912, the voters of Montana passed a citizen created initiative, §25 of which became known as the Corrupt Practices Act (CPA), part of which survives as Montana Code Annotated §13-35- 227. As a consequence of Citizens United, two Montana corporations, and a rather misty group incorporated in Colorado in 2008 and registered to do business in Montana, filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the CPA based on Citizens United and a corporation’s First Amendment freedom of speech. The district court declared the CPA unconstitutional, citing Citizens United as the basis for his ruling. On 30.December.2011, in a 5-2 decision, the Montana Supreme Court overturned the district court in Western Tradition v. Montana [MT SC 2012 MT 328; DA 11-0081 (2011)] and thus directly challenged SCOTUS. Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court Michael “Mike” McGrath wrote for the court. He recounted the history behind the CPA law, and tried to differentiate between their decision and Citizens United. McGrath illuminated the historic as well as the potential impact of unrestrained corporate spending in affecting elections and the political legislative process. His argument seems to boil down to one sentence, “While corporations have first amendment rights in political speech, they do not have the vote.” Associate Justice James C. Nelson wrote a blistering dissent. He noted early in his dissenting opinion, “I thoroughly disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. I agree, rather, with the eloquent and, in my view, better-reasoned dissent of Justice Stevens. As a result, I find myself in the distasteful position of having to defend the applicability of a controlling precedent with which I profoundly disagree.” Nelson carefully parsed and differentiated the rights of an individual citizen and that same citizen as an incorporated entity, as if they were two entirely separate units. Citizens United gave corporations essentially equivalent rights as a citizen; thus, when the Court gets around to it, corporations will be able to vote, which in turn will give a singular human being more than one vote, verging on infinite since there is no limit to how many different ways an individual may incorporate himself. Why the Supremes cannot see the absurdity of granting corporations the rights of citizenship is simply beyond my comprehension. Anyway, while Nelson defended the Supreme’s binding precedent of Citizens United, he amplified his disgust with the position in which he was placed. “Corporations are artificial creatures of law.” He noted, “Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creations of government,” and concluded, “Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.” Therein lies my strong objection to Citizens United. From Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court in Citizens United, “The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule.” We . . . well, actually, it is only the Supremes who seem to confuse money with speech, i.e., actual words of presentation or argument. As we have seen all too often, money has an extraordinarily high potential for corruption of anyone’s moral values. It is the anonymity or duality of corporate money that continues to bother me, especially after reading Citizens United, meaning corporations are NOT alive; they are comprised of human beings, usually citizens who have the right to vote. In essence, Citizens United vastly amplifies the political leanings of the leaders, owners, boards of corporations by giving them access to massive resources with virtually no consequences. To illustrate that point, one of the plaintiffs in Western Tradition was Champion Painting, Inc., “a single proprietor painting and drywall business with no employees or members, and its sole shareholder is Kenneth Champion.” The title corporation, Western Tradition Partnership, Inc., “claims to be a foreign corporation but it is not a business corporation. Its purpose, according to un-rebutted evidence submitted to the District Court by the State, is to solicit and anonymously spend the funds of other corporations, individuals and entities to influence the outcome of Montana elections.” Reading Western Tradition, I think every citizen can and would appreciate the stand the Montana Supreme Court has taken, but . . . . The Supremacy Clause remains the law of the land. Nonetheless, just as we needed laws to bring order to the Wild Wild West, we need some order to the political money. When I know a corporation has chosen to malign one political ideology and support a competing agenda, I can put that corporation’s actions in perspective and decide to avoid that corporation’s products. The problem is hidden or camouflaged, massive expenditures by anonymous citizens (and foreign entities, including nation-states), operating through façade corporations. I am absolutely convinced the Founders / Framers would be convulsing in stupefied incredulity at the insanity the Supremes have unleashed within this Grand Republic.
Another perspective of the infamous Supreme Court case:
“This Is Citizens United
by Andrew Rosenthal
New York Times
Published: January 10, 2012, 11:12 am
http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/this-is-citizens-united/?nl=opinion&emc=tyb1
In addition to the controversial authorization for unlimited detention of battlefield combatants during the War on Islamic Fascism, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 [PL 112-081; 31.Dec.2011] elevates the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to full membership on the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). General Craig Richard McKinley, USAF, is the current Chief and now newest member of JCS. The National Guard pegs its founding to 13.Dec.1636, when the Massachusetts Bay Colony ordered the organization of three regiments of militia for the protection of the community; thus, the Guard is the longest serving military branch. The state militias were formed into the National Guard by the Militia Act of 1903 [PL 57-196; 32 Stat. 775; 21.Jan.1903] as a consequence of the Spanish-American War. The National Guard Bureau, which unified command of the Army National Guard and Air National Guard, came into existence by §904, Title IX, of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 [PL 103-337; 108 Stat. 2663, 2824; 5.Oct.1994]. Considering the extraordinary contributions and sacrifices of the National Guard throughout the War on Islamic Fascism, the elevation of the Guard is quite appropriate. We are most grateful for their extended augmentation of the thin regular forces over the long haul in this war and their continued contributions to this day.
As a retire Marine officer and concerned citizen, I am far more disturbed by the Press coverage and yammering of the talking heads about the images and video clip of four Marine in Afghanistan urinating on two dead Taliban fighters. The articles, essays, opinions and other drivel are far too numerous to acknowledge or list. I shall offer only two:
“The Real Tale Of The Tapes”
New York Post
Published: January 13, 2012; pg. 24
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/the_real_tale_of_the_tapes_Om6PzDobxyhc7cYEJWJiqK
and
“Reprehensible Behavior Is A Risk Of Combat, Experts Say”
by James Dao
New York Times
Published: January 14, 2012; pg. 8
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/world/reprehensible-behavior-is-a-risk-of-combat-experts-say.html
First, the conduct illustrated in the video and captured still images is unacceptable. The only purpose it served for those Marines was a little tension relief; the consequences serve the Taliban and Islamo-fascists to a far great extent. Thus, the relevant question is, why? Nonetheless, let us all keep things in perspective. This is equivalent to an unnecessary roughness penalty in American football – regrettable, but hardly a reason to pull the offending player. I imagine but I do not know every combat commander must have issued orders that cell phones, digital cameras or any other visual or audio recording device is prohibited during operations. If so, the idiot who took that video and the even-bigger-idiot who disclosed that video should be court-martialed for intentional, purposeful disobedience of a direct order. Yes, those four Marines deserve an appropriate penalty; I would suggest an informal letter of reprimand. Lastly, I urge all citizens to avoid watching the sausage being made. War is an ugly, nasty business. That particular video is a gnat in a hailstorm. Unfortunately, the rampant political correctness of the warm, cushy, armchair quarterbacks of the politicos will overwhelm the wisdom of the professional generals and those good Marines will be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness. I (I cannot say we) can only hope the Commandant will stand up to the political pressure and save those good Marines. God bless them for their service to this Grand Republic. I can only hope that We, the People, will put our sanctimonious indignation aside and find the courage to stand-up for these Marines.
“Religious leaders: Gay marriage a ‘peril’ to liberty – Religious coalition says legalization forces changing of thousands of laws”
by Cheryl Wetzstein
The Washington Times
Published: Thursday, January 12, 2012
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/12/religious-leaders-gay-marriage-a-peril-to-liberty/
The opening statement: “Nearly 40 religious leaders, including Catholic, evangelical, Jewish and Mormon figures, issued an open letter Thursday that argues that the battle against same-sex marriage is a fight on behalf of religious freedom.” OK, I understand the emotions. What I do not understand is the logic and rhetoric. Clerics seek power and control, to dictate the private choices and conduct of all citizens. These clerics apparently do not understand or appreciate the significance and importance of “unalienable rights” and “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.” The implication of this clerical statement is that individuals who make private choices relevant only to themselves will somehow be turned around or coalesced into imposition upon the religious beliefs and choices of the clerics and other believers. I stand for and will defend the right of these clerics to their homophobia and even to their dicta to their believers. They get crosswise with me, and presumably with every freedom-loving citizen, when they stoke the fires of religious emotion in an overt effort to impose their will upon all citizens. I object! Regardless, once again, I ask anyone to help me understand why these clerics are so convinced that oppressed people will turn to deny the very freedom they seek for all citizens? Their supposition simply does not make sense to me, so perhaps it is because I am not perceptive enough to appreciate their worries. Help me!
News from the economic front:
-- Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services passed judgment on the unsolicited long-term sovereign credit ratings of 16 euro-zone countries, after downgrading U.S. sovereign debt from AAA to AA+ (5.August.2011) [503]. Among the countries touched in this round:
Germany: affirmed its AAA rating, with a stable outlook.
France: downgraded to AA+ from AAA.
Italy: downgraded two notches to BBB+ from A.
Austria: downgraded to AA+ from AAA.
Spain: downgraded two notches to A from AA-.
Portugal: downgraded by two notches to BB from BBB- (junk status).
Slovakia: downgraded to A from A+.
Slovenia: downgraded to A+ from AA-.
Cyprus: downgraded two notches to BB+ from BBB (junk status).
Malta: downgraded to A- from A.
Ireland: affirmed its BBB+ rating.
Greece: previously downgraded to B from BB- (junk status).
The Stanford Fraud [375]:
-- Robert Allen Stanford, the founder of Stanford Financial, is scheduled to go on trial on 23.January in Houston, three years after he was arrested. He is charged with 21 federal criminal counts of defrauding investors, and stands accused of encouraging investors to buy certificates of deposit at a Stanford bank in Antigua. Instead of being invested, Stanford allegedly used much of the money to maintain his lavish lifestyle. As with most events, timing is everything. On Friday, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas announced a “deal” with Spencer C. Barasch, who served as the enforcement director for the SEC’s Fort Worth regional office from 1998 to 2005, to pay a civil settlement, US$50,000 fine – the maximum fine for a violation of federal conflict-of-interest rules. Barasch allegedly shielded Stanford from government investigations until the bottom fell out. I sure as hell expect the government extracted a commitment to cooperate in the prosecution of Stanford; if not, then I will scream FOUL!
Comments and contributions from Update no.525:
Comment to the Blog:
“First, I want to apologize for not following up your last reply last week. The combination of illness, graduation, and work pretty much overwhelmed all else. I do, however, remember pointing out more politely in an earlier reply that “scientific proof” is an oxymoron, not a possibility, due to the nature of science.
“I will agree that the case you mentioned should be renamed SEC + Citigroup v US District Court. That combination of arrogance and audacity comes back to the concept of willful blindness. It matters very little whether they consciously know what they do; they should be held accountable either way.
“I read those two articles on the ‘right to die.’ After all is said and done, I don’t see that as viable in its current form. I simply do not trust heirs, particularly where substantial money or property bends people’s opinions. Ending someone’s presumed suffering becomes a much more important motivation when one’s subconscious or conscious mind knows that the bills are mounting or when envy and all the rest set in. Even beyond that, doctors have not learned to pronounce people terminal with any degree of reliability. There is a legend in my family that my grandmother was pronounced terminal eight times and outlived seven of the doctors who so pronounced her. Even if it was only two or three of the doctors, you get my point. If Sir Terry Pratchett wishes to commit suicide while he remains capable of doing so and has a clear head, he has that option in the UK. If he chooses to wait until he cannot, so what?”
My response to the Blog:
First, I do not agree that “scientific proof” is an oxymoron. Second, I just sought to understand cause & effect within an important, relevant example.
Willful blindness certainly is a major factor in the banking crisis. I absolutely agree regarding accountability. First, I do not think those bankers were ignorant of the law. Second, even if they were, ignorance of the law is no defense. Third, based on the SEC’s performance in Citigroup and others, the USG does not seek accountability, only the image, the façade, of accountability. US$285M to Citigroup is a parking ticket. We can only hope Judge Rakoff’s message gets through to the USG.
Re: “Death with Dignity.” Your concern is valid, appropriate and worthy of our calm, careful contemplation. I share your concern. The key is mental competency of the individual. Using Oregon’s law as a worthy example, Death with Dignity can only be available when two independent medical professionals can assert: 1.) the mental competency of the individual, 2.) the terminal phase of the individual’s illness or condition, and 3.) the independent free choice of the individual devoid of undue influence. It sounds like your grandmother would not have sought that capability, which of course was her choice entirely. On the other side, my mother sought that ability, but it was denied her, and she had to endure a long, lingering death. If we truly believe in those unalienable rights, then we must respect every individual’s freedom of choice to that last decision. As with all sensitive topics & decisions, let us seek and find a reasonable, contemporary compromise to protect the individual and his/her freedom of choice.
. . . with a follow-up comment:
“Scientific proof is not finally possible, although mathematical proof is in theory. Scientific disproof is possible, but not proof. (That is learning from one of my recent courses.) However weighty scientific evidence becomes, new evidence always remains a possibility.
“Insofar as Citibank and the SEC defying the law, I remain hopeful that Judge Rakoff will succeed in rebuffing them and perhaps be joined by other honest judges.
“I will leave the ‘death with dignity’ debate alone beyond reiterating my opinion that doctors cannot reliably predict the future of a given patient.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Ahso, the philosophical view of “scientific proof.” Yes. Agreed. New data refines the scientific view. Just a few decades ago, the Moon was just a large nighttime orb and Mars was a distant red dot. We have learned more since then. We will continue to learn more as we go. The “scientific proof” is only as good as the data available. When it comes to human traits, interactions, and experiences, the best we can do is observations and opinions. Thus, my questions about your friend & her daughter; I would like to learn more.
Re: Rakoff. Agreed. We can only hope there are more judges that demand proof. I am currently reading a ruling by the Montana Supreme Court that attempts to constrain Citizens United. There is hope.
Re: Death with Dignity. The issue is not the doctor’s ability to predict the future for a given patient, but rather the individual’s un-coerced freedom of choice. This is not about the science of medicine. It is entirely about respecting an individual citizen’s unalienable right to “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.” The involvement of the doctors is to have independent attestation to the individual’s free choice and the terminal phase of his life.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
You and I agree on the wrongness of the Citizens United ruling. The ability of individual citizens to multiply their vote by creating corporations is a new thought to me. It seems at present to be a minor point, but remember that some attorneys can create corporations easily and quickly, so the one-man-one-vote facet of the issue could become important quickly. Let us not forget the Presidential election of 2000. The more important issue today is the “money as speech” assumption that includes the potential for foreign corporations to vote with their wallets. The plaintiff Western Tradition apparently embodies both of these. We shall see whether the Supreme Court applies the Supremacy Clause or takes some other tack, as we shall also see in the Arizona and other immigration laws. Certainly Citizens United matters more to me than any immigration law to date. Of course, the purity of the Supreme Court is again in question with Justice Thomas’s issues, and that may be an influence on any corporate “rights” issue. It seems to me that protecting the powerful from the weak stands the Constitution on its head, but nobody is bound by my opinion.
As a practical matter, technology has made the keeping of secrets has become almost impossible. Every so often in recent years, the public gets a glimpse of what war really involves. That will become more frequent regardless of orders. Now we get to view soldiers urinating on corpses. Soon some other reality will surface. That is the nature of this century.
The radical clergy who claim gay marriage will do them harm deliberately distort the nature of marriage. Marriage is a legal contract and may be solemnized by clergy at their discretion or by civil or military officials. The central false premise in this particular article is that these people (the forty clergy people who signed this open letter) will be obligated “to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct.” Note the distortion of the issue; if same-sex marriages become legal their sexual conduct will in fact be marital, and most of these people also disagree with a great deal of marital sexual conduct. However, their attitudes will certainly drive same-sex couples far away from their congregations or counseling practices. Beyond that, their claim is nonsense. To make a truly obvious comparison, drinking alcohol in any amount and smoking cigarettes are legal behaviors in most of the United States, but neither I nor anyone else has an obligation to treat drinking or smoking as appropriate behavior. The fact that these forty people would rather not have their bigotry pointed out to them means nothing. I would rather not have my short stature, excess weight, or balding scalp pointed out to me, but they are just as real as these people’s bigotry and will be pointed out. They could change their bigotry if they wished, in much the same way that I could lose weight if that was a higher priority with me. So what? Please note that not all clergy habitually lie or support bigotry; I am clergy.
Several editions back, I discussed the inappropriateness of Standard & Poor’s rating system to sovereign debt and the fact that their involvement in the economic crash aggravates that. I have not changed my mind. I find it truly sad that Angela Merkel seeks to obey them without question.
We may hope that Mr. Stanford receives his just desserts. Unfortunately, his offenses are not a part of the central corruption of Wall Street.
In re the comment thread on death with dignity and several others: I encourage you to study the concept of “scientific proof” for this and many other reasons. Science has a higher standard of proof than law. That seems very appropriate in life-and-death issues. Also, you may want to study prognosis versus actual results in medicine generally and in particular in relation to the pronouncement of terminal conditions.
Calvin,
Re: Citizens United. Agreed . . . turning the Constitution on its head . . . spot on!
Re: Western Tradition. As I read the ruling, I was torn, and found affinity for Justice Nelson’s argument. SCOTUS will undoubtedly negate Western Tradition as incompatible with Citizens United by the Supremacy Clause. I cannot imagine the Supremes overturning Citizens United so soon after their decision, but they most assuredly should do so.
Re: technology & combat. A valid point . . . we are placing webcams in the sausage factory, and then, howling our disgust with how sausage is made. If we don’t like the images of war, don’t send our warriors into harm’s way.
Re: radical clerics & same-sex marriage. Well said and agreed! Unfortunately, social conservatives appear to be so fragile in their beliefs that they must validate those beliefs by imposition & enforcement upon everyone else. We saw this exact same behavior in the run-up to Prohibition and endured the devastating social consequences of attempting to prohibit predominately private conduct in a free society. The tragedy of that mindset continues to this very day across a myriad of issues. Worse, we bear witness to their persistence in the Republican primaries as the social issues seem to be dominating the debates and selection criteria. The clerics are entitled to their bigotry, no matter how irrational, but they are not entitled to impose their beliefs on other citizens. If a citizen or any group of citizens freely chooses to adopt and adhere to the dicta of their clergy, then likewise, that is their choice to make entirely. I also agree that not all clergy are bigoted; some actually understand and embrace the requirement for separation between church and State. Unfortunately, it is the theocrats who usually howl the loudest and attract the most attention, e.g., that cleric letter.
Re: debt rating services. I understand and appreciate the conflict and dilemma associated with the rating services. The weakness and flaws in their processes were graphically demonstrated by the mortgage and banking crisis. Yet, we need an accurate view of risk, and for better or worse, they attempt to provide that view.
Re: Stanford. No, he was not a Wall Street robber baron. He is just a sophisticated common swindler. In a bygone era, he would have swiftly felt the rope before the drop. I expect him to join his buddy Bernie. I am just offended by the duplicity of his direct government enabler. Barasch took an oath to enforce SEC regulations; no only did he choose not to abide his oath, he helped Stanford avoid the law. An accomplice to murder is just as quilty. Barasch deserves the same punishment as Stanford.
Re: “scientific proof.” I understand the reasoning. Yet, the refinement or accuracy of the medical profession is irrelevant to my argument for Death with Dignity. The issue is not medical “proof,” only the individual’s free will. Your grandmother had a unique will to live; undoubtedly, she would not have chosen to exercise her right until perhaps the last round. Please remember, if an individual is incapable of making a free choice for any reason, then he does not qualify. Even if the doctors are wrong in their diagnosis, I certainly would not exercise my right to Death with Dignity until I have other validating signs – the risk is always passing the threshold of mental competence and ability to communicate. No one else can make that decision – only the individual; it cannot be delegated by medical power-of-attorney, living will, or any other instrument (legal or otherwise). The reality is, we are all terminal; the only question is when. Let me know to pass with dignity rather than the lingering uncertainty my Mom had to suffer & endure.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Have a great day. Take care and enjoy.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment