Update from the Heartland
No.527
16.1.12 – 22.1.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. officials have discovered an effort by the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) to help Syria hide its oil exports and evade an American and European embargo. The IRI operation is designed to quietly ship Syrian crude oil to Iran, where it can be sold on the international market, with revenue going back to Damascus. Transit records suggest this process may have moved more than 91,000 metric tons of crude in just the last month. The IRI campaign to bolster Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his regime would be in direct conflict with the actions of the Arab League and the International Community. Adding more gravity to the situation in Damascus, the U.S. has issued orders to the embassy staff and American citizens still in the country to prepare to evacuate with short notice as conditions on the ground in Syria continue to deteriorate. None of these are positive signs. We must watch.
I suspect most of us noticed numerous website blackouts on Wednesday, 18.January.2012, as an Internet protest of two proposed laws intended to punish those who are purveyors of pirated, copyrighted material, e.g., videos, music, books, and other merchandise -- S. 968, PROTECT IP Act of 2011 (PIPA); and H.R. 3261, Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) – came to a head as PIPA approached a floor vote. PIPA was withdrawn from the Senate agenda; future unknown. SOPA was referred to several other committees to slow it down. These actions may kill the proposed legislation, but they are not dead yet. Wikipedia completely blacked out its site for 24 hrs. Google blacked out their header logo. Other sites redacted portions of their content as symbolic censorship as most Internet savvy folks believe would be inevitable with passage of either PIPA or SOPA. This legislation is not just about government intrusion upon a free and open forum as the web protest demonstration would suggest. As Bill Maher recently said, “People just want to steal.” I think he is correct. Far too many people around the World want to see the latest or their favorite movies, or listen to their favorite music without paying for the right to do so. It is stealing from the copyright holders, plain and simple. There is also prevalent piracy of movies, music, books, and other material that pirates turn around and sell undercutting legitimate sources. The issue of copyright piracy is real, tangible and destructive. I do not want my work stolen. Nonetheless, PIPA and SOPA are not the proper way to accomplish piracy eradication. We managed to deal with the music-sharing site Napster, but that was a U.S. based company. Many piracy sites are foreign and largely beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement. PIPA and SOPA did accomplish one thing; they raised public awareness of a very real international problem.
In the wake of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 [PL 107-056; 115 Stat. 272; 26.October.2001] and the continuing War on Islamic Fascism, I remain sharply focused on the Fourth Amendment, and warrantless search and seizure. The latest from my reading folder was Katz v. United States [389 U.S. 347 (1967)]. The case involved the FBI warrantless recording of a telephone booth conversation. The Supreme Court, in a 6-1 decision, determined the FBI’s actions were an unconstitutional violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights and overturned the durable precedent of Olmstead v. United States [277 U.S. 438 (1928)] [296]. Associate Justice Hugo Lafayette Black offered the sole dissent, “A conversation overheard by eavesdropping, whether by plain snooping or wiretapping, is not tangible and, under the normally accepted meanings of the words, can neither be searched nor seized. Rather than using language in a completely artificial way, I must conclude that the Fourth Amendment simply does not apply to eavesdropping.” The differentiation between eavesdropping as a public nuisance and the warrantless recorded surveillance by law enforcement proved too stimulating to my inherent curiosity. When the Fourth Amendment was passed (1791), there were no electronics, and no means for the state to intrude upon the privacy of a citizens activities. Black referred to the law against eavesdropping as noted in Blackstone Commentaries, Book IV, Chapter 13, page 169 [1769], which in turn identifies the original law as 9 & 10 W. III. c. 7 (a law from the 9th & 10th year in the reign of King William III (1689–1702), chapter 7). [NOTE: I tried to find the British law with no joy.] If we look at the principle involved in the Fourth Amendment, it is to protect the citizen against governmental intrusion. Modern technology has enabled unprecedented, more powerful tools for intrusion. This is precisely the fallacy of Black’s reasoning. He is stuck on the literal words rather than the meaning of the words. I thought the Olmstead ruling was wrong even for 1928. Fortunately, the Katz decision reversed the trend. What Justice Black seems to have missed is the issue is not eavesdropping, but rather the requirement for a warrant and independent judicial acceptance of probable cause for the USG to use the power of the State to listen in on what would otherwise be considered a private conversation by a citizen. The Court has continued to build upon restricting the government’s use of technical means to invade the privacy of citizens in cases like Kyllo v. United States [533 U.S. 27 (2001)] [313] and Davis v. United States [564 U.S. ___ (2011)] [500].
News from the economic front:
-- Adding insult to injury, Standard and Poor's Rating Service downgraded its credit rating on Europe's rescue fund – European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) -- to AA+ from AAA. S&P also stated it could cut the rating further, if member states' creditworthiness is further eroded amid the euro zone's prolonged crisis. The two other large ratings firms, Moody's and Fitch, still rate the EFSF at AAA.
-- The People’s Republic of China (PRC) National Bureau of Statistics reported the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose to 8.9% in the fourth quarter of 2011, from a year earlier, but it was slower than the 9.1% expansion in the third quarter.
-- Before dawn on Wednesday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) tried to arrest former hedge-fund executive Anthony Chiasson at his Manhattan home. Chiasson was not home when FBI agents entered his apartment building. His lawyer did not immediately comment. Chiasson was co-founder of the hedge-fund firm Level Global Investors, one of several firms raided in November 2010, in a rapidly expanding federal insider-trading investigation. Could it be we have our first fugitive from justice in the aftermath of the 2008 banking crisis?
-- These events are always sad, but they are part of a normal process. Eastman Kodak filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after the 131-year-old, pioneer, film company failed to raise fresh cash to fund a long-sputtering turnaround. The company struggled for decades to cope with the rise of digital imaging technology. The final straw -- an attempt to transform itself into a company selling printers -- proved too costly amid declining film sales and expensive obligations to its retirees.
Comments and contributions from Update no.526:
“My understanding of your Montana v. SCOTUS (which I found difficult enough) was compounded by my lap-top closing down for an unannounced 'update'! Why does Mr Gates do that? He is a countryman of yours so thought you might have the answer...
“As for your Marines, I, or any of my colleagues both male and ladies of the female persuasion were either shocked or surprised by their actions. Indeed war is a dirty game. Who knows what disgusting acts the Taliban might enjoy over the bodies of our dead boys and girls? Like you though, I fear they will be sacrificed in the name of political awareness by the very people who sent them into battle and should therefore be supporting our brave soldiers no matter what. If that can't be done them bring them home.”
My reply:
I understand the difficulties with these court cases, especially in my rather limited space – hard to do them justice, but I try. While this whole Citizens United fiasco created by SCOTUS is uniquely American, I believe such court pronouncements bear upon all freedom-loving peoples. Corporations as citizens should be anathema to all of us.
Re: Marines. “Surprised,” perhaps; “shocked,” we shouldn’t be. Far worse things go on in ground combat. I respectfully submit that urinating on enemy corpses is an error in judgment, not a war crime, as so many have alleged. I urge perspective, resilience and loyalty, as well as strong resistance to the forces of political correctness. Combat is not about Roberts’ Rules of Order, or the Marquess of Queensberry etiquette. It is about killing our enemies. Those Marines made a dreadful mistake; they deserve a yellow card, not a red card.
I agree precisely. If we do not have the stomach to support our warriors properly, then withdraw them now! We need not expose our patriot-citizens to further rigors of combat with a merciless enemy.
Sorry for my stronger than usual language; I get fired up sometimes.
. . . a follow-up contribution:
“Good to see you 'fired up' buddy. We need that attribute from time to time. 'The truth is out'.
“PS: We were looking at a cruise this summer...the ship in the news this week is quite well known to us as we used to see her regularly sailing out of Venice. The accident is beyond comprehension, my car Sat. Nav. can put me within a yard of my front door, surely these vessels have a great more sophistication in their navigation equipment than my £90 GPS. It certainly looks like gross misconduct by the bridge crew. We shall see.” . . . my follow-up reply:
Well, OK then, so long as you are not offended by my strong words.
I don’t remember ever seeing MS Costa Concordia, but I do remember numerous cruise ships undergoing renovations in Genova. I cannot imagine a ship of that class not having sophisticated SatNav (GPS). Many military air vehicles (manned & unmanned) have electronic 3D terrain maps to correlate with GPS for rather accurate spatial positioning. I do not know if ships have 3D sub-surface data to correlate with GPS. They may be relying on accurate geographic location and human interpretation of conventional nautical charts for their depth clearance. If so, I suspect more than one person made a series of tragic errors. Further, I cannot imagine why a ship that size was so close to the coastline. They may have had an on-shore wind involved. Who knows? I suspect the investigators will make quick work of the navigation failure; I just hope they tell us.
Comment to the Blog:
“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.”
My reply to the Blog:
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 guilty. 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 now to pass with dignity rather than the lingering uncertainty my Mom had to suffer & endure.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. officials have discovered an effort by the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) to help Syria hide its oil exports and evade an American and European embargo. The IRI operation is designed to quietly ship Syrian crude oil to Iran, where it can be sold on the international market, with revenue going back to Damascus. Transit records suggest this process may have moved more than 91,000 metric tons of crude in just the last month. The IRI campaign to bolster Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his regime would be in direct conflict with the actions of the Arab League and the International Community. Adding more gravity to the situation in Damascus, the U.S. has issued orders to the embassy staff and American citizens still in the country to prepare to evacuate with short notice as conditions on the ground in Syria continue to deteriorate. None of these are positive signs. We must watch.
I suspect most of us noticed numerous website blackouts on Wednesday, 18.January.2012, as an Internet protest of two proposed laws intended to punish those who are purveyors of pirated, copyrighted material, e.g., videos, music, books, and other merchandise -- S. 968, PROTECT IP Act of 2011 (PIPA); and H.R. 3261, Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) – came to a head as PIPA approached a floor vote. PIPA was withdrawn from the Senate agenda; future unknown. SOPA was referred to several other committees to slow it down. These actions may kill the proposed legislation, but they are not dead yet. Wikipedia completely blacked out its site for 24 hrs. Google blacked out their header logo. Other sites redacted portions of their content as symbolic censorship as most Internet savvy folks believe would be inevitable with passage of either PIPA or SOPA. This legislation is not just about government intrusion upon a free and open forum as the web protest demonstration would suggest. As Bill Maher recently said, “People just want to steal.” I think he is correct. Far too many people around the World want to see the latest or their favorite movies, or listen to their favorite music without paying for the right to do so. It is stealing from the copyright holders, plain and simple. There is also prevalent piracy of movies, music, books, and other material that pirates turn around and sell undercutting legitimate sources. The issue of copyright piracy is real, tangible and destructive. I do not want my work stolen. Nonetheless, PIPA and SOPA are not the proper way to accomplish piracy eradication. We managed to deal with the music-sharing site Napster, but that was a U.S. based company. Many piracy sites are foreign and largely beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement. PIPA and SOPA did accomplish one thing; they raised public awareness of a very real international problem.
In the wake of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 [PL 107-056; 115 Stat. 272; 26.October.2001] and the continuing War on Islamic Fascism, I remain sharply focused on the Fourth Amendment, and warrantless search and seizure. The latest from my reading folder was Katz v. United States [389 U.S. 347 (1967)]. The case involved the FBI warrantless recording of a telephone booth conversation. The Supreme Court, in a 6-1 decision, determined the FBI’s actions were an unconstitutional violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights and overturned the durable precedent of Olmstead v. United States [277 U.S. 438 (1928)] [296]. Associate Justice Hugo Lafayette Black offered the sole dissent, “A conversation overheard by eavesdropping, whether by plain snooping or wiretapping, is not tangible and, under the normally accepted meanings of the words, can neither be searched nor seized. Rather than using language in a completely artificial way, I must conclude that the Fourth Amendment simply does not apply to eavesdropping.” The differentiation between eavesdropping as a public nuisance and the warrantless recorded surveillance by law enforcement proved too stimulating to my inherent curiosity. When the Fourth Amendment was passed (1791), there were no electronics, and no means for the state to intrude upon the privacy of a citizens activities. Black referred to the law against eavesdropping as noted in Blackstone Commentaries, Book IV, Chapter 13, page 169 [1769], which in turn identifies the original law as 9 & 10 W. III. c. 7 (a law from the 9th & 10th year in the reign of King William III (1689–1702), chapter 7). [NOTE: I tried to find the British law with no joy.] If we look at the principle involved in the Fourth Amendment, it is to protect the citizen against governmental intrusion. Modern technology has enabled unprecedented, more powerful tools for intrusion. This is precisely the fallacy of Black’s reasoning. He is stuck on the literal words rather than the meaning of the words. I thought the Olmstead ruling was wrong even for 1928. Fortunately, the Katz decision reversed the trend. What Justice Black seems to have missed is the issue is not eavesdropping, but rather the requirement for a warrant and independent judicial acceptance of probable cause for the USG to use the power of the State to listen in on what would otherwise be considered a private conversation by a citizen. The Court has continued to build upon restricting the government’s use of technical means to invade the privacy of citizens in cases like Kyllo v. United States [533 U.S. 27 (2001)] [313] and Davis v. United States [564 U.S. ___ (2011)] [500].
News from the economic front:
-- Adding insult to injury, Standard and Poor's Rating Service downgraded its credit rating on Europe's rescue fund – European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) -- to AA+ from AAA. S&P also stated it could cut the rating further, if member states' creditworthiness is further eroded amid the euro zone's prolonged crisis. The two other large ratings firms, Moody's and Fitch, still rate the EFSF at AAA.
-- The People’s Republic of China (PRC) National Bureau of Statistics reported the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose to 8.9% in the fourth quarter of 2011, from a year earlier, but it was slower than the 9.1% expansion in the third quarter.
-- Before dawn on Wednesday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) tried to arrest former hedge-fund executive Anthony Chiasson at his Manhattan home. Chiasson was not home when FBI agents entered his apartment building. His lawyer did not immediately comment. Chiasson was co-founder of the hedge-fund firm Level Global Investors, one of several firms raided in November 2010, in a rapidly expanding federal insider-trading investigation. Could it be we have our first fugitive from justice in the aftermath of the 2008 banking crisis?
-- These events are always sad, but they are part of a normal process. Eastman Kodak filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after the 131-year-old, pioneer, film company failed to raise fresh cash to fund a long-sputtering turnaround. The company struggled for decades to cope with the rise of digital imaging technology. The final straw -- an attempt to transform itself into a company selling printers -- proved too costly amid declining film sales and expensive obligations to its retirees.
Comments and contributions from Update no.526:
“My understanding of your Montana v. SCOTUS (which I found difficult enough) was compounded by my lap-top closing down for an unannounced 'update'! Why does Mr Gates do that? He is a countryman of yours so thought you might have the answer...
“As for your Marines, I, or any of my colleagues both male and ladies of the female persuasion were either shocked or surprised by their actions. Indeed war is a dirty game. Who knows what disgusting acts the Taliban might enjoy over the bodies of our dead boys and girls? Like you though, I fear they will be sacrificed in the name of political awareness by the very people who sent them into battle and should therefore be supporting our brave soldiers no matter what. If that can't be done them bring them home.”
My reply:
I understand the difficulties with these court cases, especially in my rather limited space – hard to do them justice, but I try. While this whole Citizens United fiasco created by SCOTUS is uniquely American, I believe such court pronouncements bear upon all freedom-loving peoples. Corporations as citizens should be anathema to all of us.
Re: Marines. “Surprised,” perhaps; “shocked,” we shouldn’t be. Far worse things go on in ground combat. I respectfully submit that urinating on enemy corpses is an error in judgment, not a war crime, as so many have alleged. I urge perspective, resilience and loyalty, as well as strong resistance to the forces of political correctness. Combat is not about Roberts’ Rules of Order, or the Marquess of Queensberry etiquette. It is about killing our enemies. Those Marines made a dreadful mistake; they deserve a yellow card, not a red card.
I agree precisely. If we do not have the stomach to support our warriors properly, then withdraw them now! We need not expose our patriot-citizens to further rigors of combat with a merciless enemy.
Sorry for my stronger than usual language; I get fired up sometimes.
. . . a follow-up contribution:
“Good to see you 'fired up' buddy. We need that attribute from time to time. 'The truth is out'.
“PS: We were looking at a cruise this summer...the ship in the news this week is quite well known to us as we used to see her regularly sailing out of Venice. The accident is beyond comprehension, my car Sat. Nav. can put me within a yard of my front door, surely these vessels have a great more sophistication in their navigation equipment than my £90 GPS. It certainly looks like gross misconduct by the bridge crew. We shall see.” . . . my follow-up reply:
Well, OK then, so long as you are not offended by my strong words.
I don’t remember ever seeing MS Costa Concordia, but I do remember numerous cruise ships undergoing renovations in Genova. I cannot imagine a ship of that class not having sophisticated SatNav (GPS). Many military air vehicles (manned & unmanned) have electronic 3D terrain maps to correlate with GPS for rather accurate spatial positioning. I do not know if ships have 3D sub-surface data to correlate with GPS. They may be relying on accurate geographic location and human interpretation of conventional nautical charts for their depth clearance. If so, I suspect more than one person made a series of tragic errors. Further, I cannot imagine why a ship that size was so close to the coastline. They may have had an on-shore wind involved. Who knows? I suspect the investigators will make quick work of the navigation failure; I just hope they tell us.
Comment to the Blog:
“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.”
My reply to the Blog:
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 guilty. 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 now to pass with dignity rather than the lingering uncertainty my Mom had to suffer & endure.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
The Middle East is a continuing example of “you can’t make this stuff up.” As of this morning, Yahoo was reporting that the EU is cutting off Iran’s oil sales. That renders their support of Syrian oil sales mostly irrelevant.
I write enough to have concern about copyright issues. I believe a deep and serious examination of copyright as a multi-faceted issue is in order. What I do not believe is that PIPA/SOPA or any other law designed by only one party has any chance of being a net benefit to society, to creators, or even to the corporate owners of copyrights.
The Supreme Court (what you refer to as SCOTUS) has surprised me by actually defending Americans’ privacy. The Katz decision and one featured today in newscasts that ruled warrantless use of GPS trackers to be unconstitutional may be a light at the end of our tunnel. I certainly hope so.
I have no notion of the usage of “yellow card, not a red card.” I suspect you are attempting to excuse the brutality of war by citing its commonness. That one does not reach me. Urinating on a corpse and all the rest of it is wrong in any situation, regardless whether your fellow soldiers do it or whether the other side is equally brutal.
Calvin,
Re: IRI. I do believe the PRC and other countries do not ascribed to or support the U.S./EU sanctions against the IRI, i.e., the IRI still has ample customers for their oil, to include the laundered Syrian oil.
Re: copyright. I am not sure what your point is relative to PIPA/SOPA?
Re: privacy. This week’s ruling – United States v. Jones [565 U.S. ___ (2012); no. 10–1259] – was actually an appeal by the USG of the reversal for Antoine Jones in the Davis ruling mentioned in the Blog. I know it is a bit complicated; I expect to review the latest ruling in this week’s Update. Nonetheless, you are correct; the Supremes added another notch in favor of a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy. The USG does not have the authority to conduct general, warrantless searches, and they established that covertly attaching a GPS tracker to a citizen’s vehicle and recording his every move 24/7 for a month is an invasion of his privacy.
Re: war crimes. Yellow card/red card is used in international futball (soccer). I could have said penalty versus ejection in an American football analogy. I am excusing nothing. What those Marines did was wrong and a lapse of discipline; it was NOT a war crime and certainly does NOT deserve a court-martial. If we continue on this path, pretty soon we will be insisting upon humane killing of our enemies, and if that continues further, to abolishing killing all together. Those who seek to do us harm will simply kill us as we turn the other cheek. War is killing, plain & simple; there is no way to sweeten the image; the quicker, more efficiently it is done, the better.
“That is just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment