27 February 2012

Update no.532

Update from the Heartland
No.532
20.2.12 – 26.2.12
To all,

The follow-up news items:
-- The Maryland State Senate passed [25-22] a same-sex marriage bill [110 & sub]. The legislation now moves to Governor Martin Joseph O'Malley, who is expected to sign it. The Maryland law marks the first time an East Coast state, south of the Mason-Dixon line, has supported non-heterosexual marriage.
-- The tragedy of the BP Macondo well, Deepwater Horizon drilling rig disaster [436, 442, 456, 471, 474] continues as the Federal civil case against BP opens on Monday. Federal prosecutors accuse BP of making a series of decisions that caused it to be grossly negligent in the deadly well blow-out and the 87-day oil spill in 2010. I imagine the judiciary proceeding will not be a short affair, and presumably, we will learn more about the genesis of the accident and its aftermath.

From the comments in Update no.531, I read Texas v. White [74 U.S. 700 (1868)]. Chief Justice Salmon Portland Chase wrote the Court’s opinion. The most interesting aspect of this ruling by the Supremes strikes me as perspective. If we read the Constitution as a federalist document, i.e., the Union is paramount and inviolate, then we arrive at the decision that once Texas ratified its ordinance of secession on 4.March.1861, it entered a state of rebellion and insurrection within the Union, and thus forfeited or at least suspended her authority under the Constitution. If, however, our perspective is staunchly Jeffersonian, then the Union is an instrument of convenience for use by free and independent states as they choose to exercise those instruments for their purposes. The historical key would seem to be the threat and handling of Shay’s Rebellion. The Articles of Confederation were inadequate for dealing with the rebellion in Massachusetts; a stronger federal government was warranted. Texas v. White indirectly validated President Lincoln’s actions and the efforts of the Federal government in preserving the Union. Texas signed up for the federal union on 29.December.1845. Associate Justice Robert Cooper Grier wrote a dissenting opinion in which he noted that Texas acted as a state, conducted its secession from the Union as a state, and enacted legislation in accordance with the laws and processes of its state constitution; thus, the state’s legally constituted military board acted within its power to dispose of the coupon bonds, payable to the State of Texas or bearer, with interest at 5% semi-annually and redeemable after 31.December.1864. Yet, it seems there is only one reality. If the Confederate States had been successful in their separation from the Union, we would be rationalizing the dominance of the states and subservience of the Federal government. They did not; we are not; so it is; so it shall be.

News from the economic front:
-- After haggling into the early hours of Tuesday, Euro-zone finance ministers agreed on a long-awaited accord to secure the next round of €130B (US$172B) funding of the debt-restructuring effort for Greece. The agreement will decrease Greece's debt to just of 120% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2020. Greece is a long way from out of the woods in this crisis. According to some officials, private-sector creditors agreed to take a write-down on their bonds of 53.5% – more than the 50% write-down that had been conceded before the meeting.
-- The Wall Street Journal interviewed European Central Bank (ECB) President Mario Draghi, who said, “The idea of backtracking on fiscal targets or on fiscal consolidation, and that one would get benefits out of that, is doubtful because the market would immediately react.” Darghi delivered a stern message to Europe’s debt-laden countries, insisting that the region’s worsening economic malaise was not an invitation to relax deficit targets, as the public debate intensifies in Europe over whether deeper austerity is wise for countries facing substantial economic contraction

Comments and contributions from Update no.531:
Comment to the Blog:
“I share your assessment of Rick Santorum. If I were to meet him somewhere without knowing anything about him, I would think from the quotes you gave that he had some mental condition. I would never dream that he would be allowed to run for President.
What you call “moral projection” is, I think, what I mean by “self righteousness.”
I am not a Constitutional scholar, so I will skip that debate. However, I will share my opinion that the Gettysburg address was a political/motivational speech, not intended for a legal debate.”
My response to the Blog:
Anyone who qualifies can run for president. Santorum meets the constitutional qualifications. I defend his right to speak his mind and to espouse his personal beliefs, just as you and I do every week. I cannot imagine giving him my precious vote on some nebulous trust that he would seek compromise solutions to our social issues.
Moral projection is far more serious than self-righteousness in my mind. The latter is an inner confidence or even an evangelical preaching element. The former is using the power of the State, the weight of the law, to impose and enforce his moral choices upon every citizen. The latter is very much steeped in our freedom of speech; the former is contrary to the very essence of this Grand Republic and the Constitution.
You are a citizen. You do not need to be a constitutional scholar to develop and debate the issue of Union and secession. The contributor used the Gettysburg Address as a vehicle, an agent, to debate the larger question of secession. I also held up Lincoln’s motivational speech as admirable words – a convenient target. The question of debate remains secession.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“The fact that it is not illegal for someone to run for President does not mean that he will be allowed to do so in the usual way, under the banner of one of the two major political parties. That fact that the Republicans have not disowned or otherwise stopped Santorum from running for President in their name is the meaning of ’allowed’ as I used it. It is not illegal for me to run for President, but if I represented myself as a Republican, given my views and personal history, something would be done to prevent me from achieving success, and rightfully so. Nothing has been done about Santorum.
“I would like to find a common term for what you call ‘moral projection.’ I find it difficult to discuss the subject with other people given that others do not understand the term.
“My refusal to discuss the Constitution in all possible depth has nothing to do with my rights. I do not discuss nuclear physics, several realms of biochemistry, or the Ba’hai religion in any depth either. Debating subjects on which I have little knowledge will not serve my purpose. It just makes me look like an ass.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Like him or not, more than a few Republicans like Santorum. It is their choice so far. Collectively, We, the People, shall have our say this coming November.
To me, the term “moral projection” is the most descriptive . . . people who “project” their “moral” values into the lives of other citizens, and especially for those who use the instruments of State to enforce their values. But hey, I’m open to a better descriptor. I’m sure there must be a better term, but I have not thought of it. So, how would you describe the process of imposing my moral values on you, to create a body of laws that make it a felony for you to violate my moral values? What term would you use for that?
I shall not push further. It is just that the Constitution and the law affect us all every day of our lives. I certainly appreciate any reticence to look like an ass. That is not desirable for you or for me.

Another contribution:
“RE: Santorum- remember that when he left the Senate, he was described as one of the three most corrupt people in Congress. Inter alia, he got a $600,000 mortgage, that he didn't meet the criteria for - but because of his position in the Senate, he got it from the bank. Also he got over $100,000 from the State of PA to educate his kids--but they were home-schooled in VA. He has gotten very wealthy through his political position. He is very sanctimonious, but is not the most honest. And for a supposedly very Christian person, he is lacking some things. He gave 1.2% to charity, about the lowest of any major political figure – Obama gave over 13%, the most of any.”
My reply:
Saying Santorum was one of three most corrupt people in Congress is saying quite a lot when placed against the likes of Jack Murtha, “Dollar Bill” Jefferson, and such. Regardless, stuff as you note will come out eventually and will not bode well. I was simply responding to his statements, which by themselves, I find them reprehensible in a contemporary, free society. I could not let those statements pass unchallenged.
. . . a follow-up contribution:
“Two [Washington] Post op-eds on Santorum- and the first is by the far-right op-ed writer, amazingly enough. She has gone 180 on Herr Santorum:
“It’s not conservative, It’s reactionary”
by Jennifer Rubin
Washington Post
Posted at 10:40 AM ET, 02/21/2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/its-not-conservative-its-reactionary/2012/02/21/gIQA3n0FRR_blog.html?hpid=z2
And Gene Robinson on the GOP’s nightmare:
“Rick Santorum could take Republicans down with him”
by Eugene Robinson
Washington Post
Published: February 20, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rick-santorum-could-take-republicans-down-with-him/2012/02/20/gIQA8Af8PR_story.html?hpid=z2

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

20 February 2012

Update no.531

Update from the Heartland
No.531
13.2.12 – 19.2.12
To all,

I have tried to avoid commenting on the political pandering of this year’s silly season, but this week proved to be too much for me to resist. As former senator and presidential nominee Richard John “Rick” Santorum of Pennsylvania has gained ground on front-runner, leadership-supported, presumed nominee, former governor and presidential nominee Willard Mitt Romney, the Press has illuminated a number of Rick’s little tidbits of what to expect with his leadership.
Santorum said (9.February.2012, in Plano, Texas):
“They are taking faith and crushing it. Why? Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God-given rights, then what’s left is the French Revolution. What’s left is the government that gives you right, what’s left are no unalienable rights, what’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do and when you’ll do it. What’s left in France became the guillotine. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re a long way from that, but if we do and follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.”
Implicit in his statement is faith by his definition remains the only acceptable belief. He is quite comfortable donning the robes of sanctimonious Christian fundamentalist evangelism. Yet, for him to diminish and dilute the French Revolution to the guillotine is historic sacrilege. He likes to accuse the Obama administration of transgression, and yet, I am left with the question: do I want him deciding what is correct for me and every other citizen in this Grand Republic?
Santorum said (18.October.2011, in an interview with the evangelical BLOG CaffeinatedThoughts.com):
“One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.’
“It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.
“Again, I know most Presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues. These have profound impact on the health of our society.”
How things are supposed to be? Really? This reasoning scares the bloody hell out of me, on so many levels. I respect his right, as my right, to his personal opinions, beliefs and positions. However, he is not speaking as a common citizen like me; he is a candidate for President of the United States of America. It is this type of reasoning that is the essence of moral projection. He is claiming the path of righteousness, and implicitly stating emphatically that any other than his “path” must be deviant, injurious, abnormal and otherwise contemptible. Yes, I think we should talk about these issues. I appreciate his courage to put his personal beliefs on the table. However, what I expect from a leader is guiding us to solutions, not the imposition of his beliefs; a leader must represent all citizens, not just those who believe as he does.
Santorum said (August.2006, in an interview with Comcast, during his unsuccessful senatorial re-election campaign):
“I vote and have supported birth control because it is not the taking of human life. But I’m not a believer in birth control and artificial birth control. I think it goes down the line of being able to do whatever you want to do without having the responsibility that comes with that. I think it breaks that … this is from a personal point of view of, from a governmental point of view I support that Title X.
“I guess it is and have voted for contraception, although I don’t think it works. I think it’s harmful to women. I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated …, particularly among the young and it has I think we’ve seen very, very harmful long-term consequences to the society. Birth control to me enables that and I don’t think it’s a healthy thing for our country.”
The audacity and misogynistic paternalism is incomprehensible for anyone who believes in every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice. Santorum wants us to trust him, to believe on faith, that he will not impose his personal beliefs on his decisions as a potential president. I respect his right to his personal opinions, but I do not, I cannot, trust him with such authority. We have just to look at the unilateral action of Governor Christopher James “Chris” Christie of New Jersey as he vetoed the action on a new law passed by both chambers of the state legislature, because he disapproved of their action morally and denied equal treatment under the law to a minority of state residents; this is precisely why electing a moral projectionist to a position of power is wrong. I want solutions, not imposition.

As much as I disapprove of Rick Santorum’s opinions on social issues and disagree with Chris Christie’s action this week, I must note two particular quotes from an interview of Governor Christie on Oprah’s Next Chapter, Oprah Winfrey’s Network (OWN), Sunday, 22.January.2012:
Christie’s boss: “It is a lot harder to hate up close.” So true!
and
Christie’s Mom: “If you have a choice, between being respected or being loved, always pick being respected; because, if someone respects you, love may come; but, if they love you without respect, it will go.”
There is wisdom, even among the socially conservative, moral projectionists.

As you may recall, I reviewed the district court case of Rick Glen Strandlof (AKA Rick Duncan) and his felonious claim of having been awarded both the Purple Heart and the Silver Star, attaining the rank of captain in the United States Marine Corps, serving three tours of duty in Iraq, and graduating from the United States Naval Academy, in violation of the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 [PL 109-437; 102 Stat. 3266; 20.December.2006] [450, 454] – United States v. Strandlof [USDC CO 1:09-cr-00497-REB (2010); 16.July.2010] [450]. A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decided the district court erred and declared the Stolen Valor Act constitutional – United States v. Strandlof [10CCA no. 10-1358 (2012)]. The 2-1 decision was written by Circuit Judge Timothy Michael Tymkovich with a dissenting opinion by Circuit Judge Jerome A. Holmes. Neither was a particularly compelling judicial pronouncement. Next week, the Supremes will hear arguments on a similar case in the appeal of United States v. Alvarez [9CCA no.08-50345 (2010); 17.August.2010] [454], which will probably decide the Strandlof case as well. The law hangs upon the State’s interest in defending the integrity of military service and decorations. The 10th Circuit did not definitively answer that question – perhaps the Supremes will finally settle the issue.

News from the economic front:
-- Moody's Investors Service joined Standard & Poor's and Fitch Ratings to downgrade six European nations, including Italy, Spain and Portugal, and warned that France, Britain and Austria were at risk of being downgraded. Moody's cited concerns with how the debt crisis is being handled and the impact on the region's various economies.

Comments and contributions from Update no.530:
“I write mostly about your words about no provision for secession in founding documents.
“I will have to be a sea lawyer on this, so please forgive me. Suppose you had a purple shirt you wanted to wear on Wednesday. How do you know it is OK to do so? Does there have to be a law that reads "Citizens may wear purple shirts on Wednesdays"? I say as long as there is no law prohibiting you wearing the shirt, it is OK. There is an infinite number of things that lawmakers would have to do if giving permission, or making a provision, to do things was the way society functioned. Let's say a new park was in your city, and you took your dog to it. Does your dog have to be on a leash? I say no unless a park rule covers that. Same thing with parking on the grass. Now consider some things less trivial than your shirt, your dog and parking.
“The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution starts ‘Congress shall make no law respecting . . .’ To me, that means Congress may not make a law dealing with people assembling peaceably, either making a provision to do so or prohibiting it. So in the absence of a law dealing with this, is it OK for folks to assemble peaceably or not? You and I both "know" that folks may assemble peaceably. No provision exists for that except the absence of a prohibition.
“Now consider the 18th and 21st Amendments. The 18th Amendment is a prohibition of the sale and transporting of intoxicating liquors. What provision was there before 1920 for the sale and transporting of intoxicating liquors? My guess is there wasn't any. It was understood that as long as there was no prohibition of this, it was OK. The 21st Amendment starts "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." Note that it does not give permission to sell liquors again except by repealing the prohibition. It does not read "Citizens may now . . . "
“So I say this applies to everything, including secession. If folks did not want states to secede from the Union, then that should have passed a law prohibiting that. No such prohibition exists. There was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1869, White versus Texas, with a majority opinion that opined that secession was illegal. The majority included the words " a more perfect Union" in their writing. I disagree with that majority opinion. I think a more perfect Union is where a state is free to leave if they do it right, that is, using a republican process. You and most U.S. citizens like having captive states. I still think Virginia is a free and independent state. The 56 secessionists who signed the Declaration declared it so, and I like that. I will appreciate you letting me know when you think Virginia ceased to be a free and independent state and what happened on that date to make it so. I will venture a guess that you think it is when Virginia's delegates ratified the Constitution.
“In addition to my thinking that secession is OK due to an absence of any prohibition, I happen to think that there is provision in the Constitution for secession. I know you are going to disagree with this, but here goes: the 9th and 10th Amendments.
“Hey Cap, this debate could go on and on.”
My response:
Re: secession. I did not intend to connote any relationship between a paucity of reference and permission, or vice versa. I am suggesting President Lincoln’s interpretation of the Constitution might have been based on the lack of any provision for secession . . . the Union was the Union, for better or worse. I am not aware of any reference to dissolution of the Union other than the indirect reference in the Declaration – “[I]t is the Right of the People to alter or abolish [Government], and to institute new Government . . . .” The lack of process does not confer authority. Nonetheless, we could argue, the right of secession is inherent in the 10th Amendment. Regardless, President Lincoln chose to defend the Union as it was, not as the Confederacy intended or wished. I will also argue we are far better off together than we ever would have been apart, especially with the issue of slavery dividing us at the time.
Re: peaceful assembly. Are you suggesting secession was a simple extension of the 1st Amendment protection of assembly?
Re: Prohibition. Interesting topic, of which I have written extensively, and which I shall continue to write. I know that was not your point, only your example. Yes, I do agree, the absence of permission does not connote prohibition, either. If anyone is of the mind convinced secession is the desired course, validation can be found in the 10th Amendment. I am not arguing one way or the other; I am only addressing your line of inquiry, why did President Lincoln choose the words he did?
Re: White v. Texas. I’ve not read the case, but it is now on my reading list.
Re: “a more perfect Union.” If states are free to secede, then there is no union; it is at best a loose confederation. Virginia was never a “free and independent state [i.e., nation-state]”; it never existed as such, thus cessation cannot occur for what did not exist. It was a colony of Great Britain until it joined with 12 other colonies as the United States of America to declare themselves independent from the Crown; not as independent nations, but independent states within the larger Union. Virginia had its opportunity to go its separate way during the interim years under the Articles of Confederation and prior to ratification of the Constitution. Virginia chose to join the Union.
Re: 9th & 10th Amendments. I agree. If there was ever a path to dissolution of the Union, it would be through those omnibus amendments. That said, I respectfully submit, there is no evidence in any of the supporting documents of even a hint of such action, not even hypothesized or envisioned. Dissolution was never considered an option.
. . . follow-up comments:
“I will try to comment on some things you wrote in the order you wrote them.
“About the indirect reference in the Declaration: Here is something, maybe not verbatim, Congressman Lincoln said in a speech to Congress. ‘Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government.’ That would have been about 1848.
“You wrote that you think we are far better off together than apart. Consider a 22 year marriage, or union, and think of the husband as the U.S.A. and the wife as the C.S.A. The wife wants a divorce. The husband and wife listen to their friends and family members who offer advice. They go to counseling. Some of those people tell the wife that they think she is better off staying married. I say the wife is an adult. She may listen to this advice, but only she knows if she will be better off or not. Nobody else.
“As to your question about secession being an extension of assembling peaceably, my answer is no. I could have used any of the other things listed in the 1st Amendment, say, the abridgement of the press or an establishment of religion.
“As to Virginia not being a free and independent state, let me tell you about my short vacation to Savannah about 3 years ago. This involves Button Gwinnett, one of the 3 delegates from Georgia who signed the Declaration. There is a cemetery, Colonial Cemetery, where Button is buried. Do you know who the 2nd President of Georgia was? It was Button. Did you know Georgia even had presidents? The first was, I think, a man named Bulloch. He is buried about 30 feet from a brass(?) plaque that lists some things about Button. This plaque has the claim that Button was the 2nd President of Georgia. Nobody knows exactly where Button is buried, but he is somewhere in Colonial Cemetery. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, ‘. . .the intention of the lawgiver is the law.’ Now the Declaration is not exactly a law, but I claim if Button thought of himself as a president of Georgia, he understood that Georgia was a free and independent state, which is what is stated in the Declaration.
“As to Virginia having the opportunity to go its separate way under The Articles of Confederation, I say you are wrong. The words 'perpetual' and 'perpetuity' are used about 5 times in the Articles, as in the Union shall be perpetual. The full title is "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union", or something like that. I was taught that during the convention in Philadelphia where the Constitution was written and discussed, the delegates went thru the Articles and kept what they liked and discarded what they didn't. So I pose this question to you: Why isn't there anything about the Union being perpetual in the Constitution like there was in the Articles? My answer is not that the delegates overlooked this topic, but they purposely omitted it. That is a guess. It may be that this is something lost to history. The delegates were not supposed to keep a record of their discussions as I recall.
“Here is something from President Lincoln's first inaugural address that interests me: ‘I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual.’ Nobody has ever been able to tell me about this universal law. Do you have any information, or even a hunch, about it? I hope it is not ‘Might makes right.’ Please reconsider my mentioning that the Czechs and Slovakians mutually decided to secede. Did they break this universal law? Or how about in 2008 when the U.S. and other countries supported Kosovo when they seceded? Was this universal law broken by all those countries? I remember reading about some Serbian politician, whose name I don't recall and couldn't pronounce if I did, claiming that the secession of Kosovo broke some international law. He sounded very much like Abraham to me. Abe used the adjective 'universal', and the Serb used 'international'. Do you have any thoughts on this?
“That's all the news that's fit to print, except it isn't really news.”
. . . my follow-up comments:
Re: Lincoln quote. I am not familiar with that statement. I would have to do more research to understand the context of the statement. Certainly, the statement is not consistent with his presidential actions.
Re: better off. Your analogy is appropriate; yet, there are monumental differences between a marriage of individuals and the Union of states. Taken to the logical terminus, there would be no nations remaining, only sovereign individuals, families or tribes. I understand and appreciate the desire of the Confederate states to preserve their dependence on slavery. The intransigence of that debate can be seen in today’s political discord. Hopefully, we will re-learn the art of compromise and problem-solving some day.
Re: secession. We are agreed. However, apparently, I still do not comprehend the connection you are trying to make with secession and individual rights.
Re: Button Gwinnett. A touch of history . . . thank you. I did not know any of that. Nonetheless, I cannot make the jump to a free & independent nation based on what the leader calls himself.
Re: Perpetual Union. My answer to your question: I do not know. I cannot find any reference in the Federalist Papers, or any other definitive document regarding codification of this Grand Republic. The essential reality of any law is perspective. If we want the Union to be dissolved, I am certain we can convince ourselves it must be dissolved. While I am ideologically a long way from a Federalist, I remain convinced and committed to this Grand Republic, as a whole. I am proud of the history the Confederacy brought to our collective history, and as I believe the Republic is stronger for the trial.
Re: universal law. Well, I do not know what Lincoln meant by “universal law”; however, my guess would be the law of “unalienable rights” that are indirectly reflected in the 9th & 10th Amendments. The dissolution of Yugoslavia is an appropriate example; however, I would like to point out that Yugoslavia was a federation created by force of arms, not freedom of assembly. The same argument could be made for the Soviet Union.

Comment to the Blog:
“The Washington Post story on earmarks to which you linked has backfired with me. The story apparently intends to arouse concern about corrupt earmarks. I consider myself cynical about government, and I went to that story prepared to find another scandal or a series of them. Instead, I found exoneration for almost all of Congress’s earmarks. The potentially corrupt earmarks they found amounted to “more than $300 million” (they don’t say how much more), “most of it” since 2008. “Most of it” could be anything above 50%, but to simplify I will assume that all of it was in 2008, 2009, and 2010. Further along in the story, they give a total for all earmarks in 2010 alone as $34 billion. Thus, the figure for potentially corrupt earmarks over a three-year period amounts to less than 1% of a single year’s earmarks. That’s great news. They continue with examples, most of dubious value to their cause. In particular, they seem to completely exonerate Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), who sold his property prior to asking for an earmark nearby and then proceeded to go bankrupt along with his family’s business. This guy is not getting rich based on his Congressional position. The article also cites the example of Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI), whose alleged offense is using an earmark to add a bike lane to a locally-planned bridge replacement near her home. Ok so far, but the story goes on to say, “That lane is a critical link in the many miles of bike paths that Miller has championed for many years.” Whether or not one favors bike facilities, this earmark is simply the continuation of Rep. Miller’s ongoing cause. It even lets her off the hook for wanting a decent place to ride because this particular unit is an important link in a large network that serves many people.
“I still favor transparency in government workings, especially spending, but I no longer see earmark corruption as an issue that matters. I will note that reading more than the first two pages of this article requires the reader to create a “free” account.
“The insider-trading bill as passed by the Senate, the STOCK Act, was apparently a reasonable first step. The House of Representatives diluted that bill. The account I read on the Internet somewhere focused on an amendment allowing lobbyists and others to profit from the inside knowledge of Members of Congress. We shall see what comes out of the House-Senate conference committee that determines the final result and whether both houses can pass whatever that committee crafts. I have little optimism for this type of legislation. People, even well-meaning people, find it difficult to limit their own prerogatives.
“President Obama’s budget will not cause paralysis in Congress because Congress has been paralyzed for years. The budget discussion will merely become the latest subject of irresponsible rhetoric and inaction.
“I was happy to see Prop H8 blocked, and particularly happy with the reasoning that the state Constitutional process may not be used to deny a disfavored group the rights given to all others. Gay marriage initiatives seem to be gaining momentum despite the self-serving rants of Tea Party/fundamentalist busybodies. Besides, I see no reason gay people should escape what most of the rest of us go through. Justice Scalia’s list of “laws based on moral choices” carries no weight to me. If he cannot show how those choices damage someone other than the people making the choices, I would rather not bother. This nation has better things to do than poke its nose into people’s bedrooms. Beyond that, the Constitution allots rights not otherwise granted to the people, not to any unit of government.
“Before commenting further on Greece, you might want to check on actual conditions there.
“I find your other commenter’s criticisms of the Gettysburg Address incredibly trivial and I will not address them. Also, this comment has grown to over 600 words, which is too many.”
My reply to the Blog:
Re: earmarks. Wow! I never, at any moment, had even a remote sensation of legitimacy as I read the article. Further, I suspect the reporters had to constrain their analysis to some digestible level, i.e., direct benefit – improved property valuation, relatives, friends, et cetera. They did not touch upon the much larger and usually less identifiable quid pro quo factor. I recognize and freely acknowledge there must be good, supportable, public projects that are accomplished via earmarks. Yet, I respectfully submit, ANY appropriation done outside the normal, established, checks & balances of legislative action is inherently and fundamentally flawed and ripe for abuse. The few good projects simply cannot overcome the corrosive and corrupting potential of earmarks. Lastly, if a project is that beneficial for the public good, then why shouldn’t it go through the same scrutiny as any other appropriation? Why must it circumvent the system and processes intended to minimize corruption? Why take the risk?
Re: STOCK Act. I thought the Senate version did not go far enough, so you can imagine how I feel about the House version. As you say, we shall see.
Re: budget. LOL OK, you got me there. It is hard to paralyze further what is already paralyzed to near inaction.
Re: Perry v. Brown. I was encouraged by the 9th Circuit’s decision. However, it was not a particularly well-written or compelling, judicial pronouncement. As I noted in my review, I think the 9th Circuit’s opinion is a pre-cursor for what we are likely to see from the Supremes. I would laugh at Antonin-the-Impaler’s listing and reasoning, if it was not so sad. Our society has a long history of moral projection, dictating by force of law how people are to conduct themselves in private. With the 4th Amendment, such moral projection becomes a matter of happenstance and prosecutorial zealousness. The object of Lawrence was, in fact, an erroneous entry and happenstance discovery; but, the private lives of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner were exposed to the world for what was truly a private, consensual activity, simply because a willful minority, or even a majority, disapproved of such conduct. As the Supremes ultimately decided, the State could not demonstrate any proper interest for such a law other than moral disapproval. The same is true for masturbation, adultery, obscenity, et cetera; there is no proper State interest. I can argue there is a proper State interest in regulating prostitution – the health and welfare of both customers and providers, as well as the fair and equitable treatment of providers. None of those activities is injurious to the individual or the State.
Re: Greece. You apparently perceive that I am not aware of conditions in Greece. If so, how so? What am I missing?
Re: “Gettysburg Address.” I am sorry you feel the exchange was trivial. I do not. The larger question in that exchange is secession and the Union; neither is trivial.
. . . follow-up comments:
“I had not thought I used any unusual skills or insights in reaching my conclusions about the earmarks story. It took no special effort to notice the two major figures given, and the two examples I mentioned were not the only weak ones. I still contend that story you linked disproved the very point it set out to prove. Yes, any corruption is wrong, but we must set some sort of priorities. By the figures given in the story the corruption in earmarks is somewhat less than 1% of the earmarks. The authors used a sound research method but did not find what they must have expected. They wrote the story anyhow, perhaps to meet a deadline or satisfy editorial demands, and they used emotional words to convince the reader even though the facts they gave did not match those words. Other priorities matter more than earmarks, especially as the potential corruption figure amounts to a very small part of the Federal budget. The reason earmarks cannot go through the same scrutiny as other appropriations is the lack of time. Hundreds of items, most amounting to less than one tenth of 1% of the budget, cannot be examined by the number and variety of people who discuss and debate larger items. Beyond that, the debate cannot be as well informed about local issues as about, for example, military appropriations. Nobody knows the entire country that well.
“I mentioned Greece because you seemed to find it easy to dismiss the Greek protestors as “hooded, anarchistic youth” who might harm the tourism industry. Here is a link to an NPR story on conditions there:
. . . my follow-up comments:
We must be an optimistic society. We choose to see the good, even in bad situations, and rationalize to ourselves that it’s not so bad. It is our nature. As they so eloquently said in the Declaration, “[M]ankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable.” So it is, so it shall be.
Peaceful assembly is an essential right of free people. My point was not to condemn the majority of peaceful protesters, who have every right to take to the streets to protest the enormous failure of the Greek government, but it is the “hooded, anarchistic youth” that subvert, contaminate and corrupt what should be peaceful assembly. Regardless, the street protests do not lessen the failure of the Greek government. Worse above the intra-national events, apparently a large number of Greek citizens expect, nay demand, the Germans cover the shortfall in their largesse as some form a guilt reparations for the Nazi transgressions of 70 years ago. I do not give the Greeks a pass for what they have done to themselves.

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

14 February 2012

Update no.530


Update from the Heartland
No.530
6.2.12 – 12.2.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
I had the distinct honor of being invited by our Granddaughter Shalee Lynn to escort her to the annual Daughter/Daddy Dance. Dad was in California on an extended business trip. The dance committee had a very nice dessert bar. Shalee was a perfect date. We both enjoyed the special dance on a cold evening. I think I was the only grandfather there. I am very proud of her, but I think I wore her out. She spent the night with us and went to bed as soon as we got home. Well, truth be told, she wore ME out. LOL We had a great time.
Shalee Lynn and her oh so proud Poppie
[file: Shalee_Poppie 120211B1.jpg]

The follow-up news items:
--The inherent and implied, if not outright, corruption that congressional earmarks represent remains a persistent, if not perpetual, problem for We, the People, of this Grand Republic [257 & sub]. The Washington Post has given us an unprecedented look at this corrosive, contemporary, political practice.
“Congressional earmarks sometimes used to fund projects near lawmakers' properties”
by David S. Fallis, Scott Higham and Kimberly Kindy
Washington Post
Published: 6.February.2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2012/01/12/gIQA97HGvQ_story.html?
The reporters analyzed public records on the holdings of all 535 members of Congress and compared them with earmarks, members had sought for pet projects, most of them since 2008. The process uncovered appropriations for “work” in close proximity to commercial and residential real estate owned by the lawmakers or their family members, with 33 members of Congress allocating more than US$300M in earmarks and other spending provisions to dozens of public projects that are next to or near property own by them, and 16 lawmakers who sent precious tax dollars to companies, colleges or community programs where their spouses, children or parents work as salaried employees or serve on boards. Worst of all, under current congressional ethics rules, this is both legal and hidden. And, they wonder why we are so angry.
-- The struggle for equal rights [237 & sub] took another step forward on Tuesday. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued their 2-1 decision in the state’s appeal of Perry v. Schwarzenegger [452]. They affirmed Judge Walker’s original decision and declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional – Perry v. Brown [9CCA nos. 10-16696, 11-16577 (2012)]. Please see the review below. We also learned this week that the Washington state legislature passed and sent to the governor a new law enabling same-sex marriage.
-- President Obama submitted his last budget request to Congress before the fall election. The new budget request projects a US$1.33T deficit for FY2012 and includes hundreds of billions of dollars of proposed spending on the nation's infrastructure. The projected deficit is higher than the US$1.296T deficit in FY2011, and is also slightly higher than a roughly US$1.15T estimate released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) last week [529]. The stage is set to paralyze Congress and supercharge the upcoming presidential election.
-- On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed [417-2-x-x(16)] a seriously, scaled-back version of an insider trading bill passed by the Senate [529]. The amount of publicly available information on either bill is unusually thin given the stage of the legislation. Press reports suggest the House bill stripped out several key reforms that the Senate had easily approved, and wouldn’t you know it, our noble representatives agreed to use the thinner House version to enter a joint conference committee to produce the final bill.

The California equal rights odyssey began years ago. We could peg the genesis with any one of a series of events. The judicial phase came into sharp focus with the California Supreme Court’s decision In re Marriage Cases [SC CA S147999 (2008); 43 Cal.4th 757; 15.May.2008] [336], which in turn galvanized a voter-initiative, constitutional amendment that became Proposition 8 narrowly passed in the following November election [4.November.2008]. After the California Supreme Court subsequently affirmed Proposition 8 – Strauss v. Horton [SC CA S168047 (2009); 26.May.2009] [389] – California residents Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier along with Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo filed suit in Federal court claiming their Equal Protection rights had been violated by Proposition 8. District Judge Vaughn Walker agreed with the plaintiffs – Perry v. Schwarzenegger [USDC CA(ND) no. C 09-2292 VRW (2010); 704 F.Supp.2d 921 (N.D.Cal.2010); 4.August.2010] [452]. As noted above, on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rendered judgment in the appeal of Judge Walker’s ruling – Perry v. Brown [9CCA nos. 10-16696, 11-16577 (2012)] – and affirmed the district court judgment. Circuit Judge Stephen Roy Reinhardt wrote for the court. One sentence distilled out the essence of the 9th Circuit’s decision, “The People may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry.” The U.S. Supreme Court stated that moral disapproval by itself is not sufficient to justify an abridgement of rights for other citizens {Lawrence v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003); 26.June.2003} [082, 188]. Judge Reinhardt also noted, “Disapproval may also be the product of longstanding, sincerely held private beliefs. Still, while ‘[p]rivate biases may be outside the reach of the law, the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect’” {citing: Palmore v. Sidoti [466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984)]}. The dissenting opinion focused on the level of scrutiny the case deserved under the law. The majority used “strict scrutiny,” which demands the government demonstrate a compelling interest with the focused issue. Circuit Judge Norman Randy Smith argued that the Perry case did not warrant strict scrutiny and deserved only rational basis review – the lowest level. I do not know whether the Prop H8 proponents will appeal to the full 9th Circuit bench or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, as is their right. Nonetheless, I think the 9th Circuit has framed the basis of appeal and the essence of what we are likely to hear from the Supremes. Judicial pronouncements aside, I will argue the State does not have the authority to regulate private morality; that is the responsibility of parents, and judges/justices should be defending the fundamental right to privacy of citizens. In his dissenting opinion in Lawrence, Antonin the Impaler cited a short list of what he believes are legitimate state laws “against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity [that] are likewise sustainable only in light of validation of laws based on moral choices” [Lawrence at 590]. In some of that list, there are issues of public health and safety that demand state regulation; private morality is not one of those issues and thus public laws are not justified. At this stage, we can only hope the Supremes recognize the fundamental right to privacy of every citizen as well as the right of every citizen to freedom of choice for their individual “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.” We live and learn.

News from the economic front:
-- Greece’s so-called troika of foreign lenders – the European Commission (EC), the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – demanded and obtained austerity measures from the Greek government in exchange for the next US$170B in bailout money. The troika also insisted on a condition that private creditors must take voluntary losses of up to 70% on Greek debt. After passage by the Greek Parliament, hooded, anarchistic youths torched shops and battled police in the streets of Athens, which will do nothing but further harm Greece’s tourism revenue.

Comments and contributions from Update no.529:
Comment to the Blog:
“I will note that your source for the Kashmiri Christian story makes no attempt at objectivity. Her story assumes motivation for the government action without any support for her statement and finishes with an editorial. Please note that the self-appointed sharia court that made most of the noise is not a government body, and also that most governments would respond to pressure from a group with a credible claim to represent 97% of the population on a given issue.
“Your point that separation of church and state is essential to a free society is indeed valid. Does the Indian government seek a free society? A law allowing conversions can be seen as an attempt to maintain order rather than an endorsement of freedom. Certainly India’s neighbors in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran would just as soon not follow the US model. If an orderly society is Kashmir’s goal, they ought to follow the lead of other Indian States and regulate conversions more closely. If they actually want a free society, that is another matter.
“The Senate has acted rationally and ethically in passing the STOCK Act, which attempts to prevent insider financial-market trading by members of Congress. Should the House pass a matching bill, that would constitute progress. However, following up with appropriate enforcement would still be necessary and difficult.
“I am not sure that the hardest-hit US States are a good comparison to Greece in the economic collapse. Greece’s issues are things like minimum wage that are regulated by national rather than provincial governments whereas the US States you mentioned were affected by job losses and housing issues. While I know little about Greek tax-collection methods, I can understand the more prosperous nations’ concern with imposing and collecting taxes. They enjoy a high standard of living that is largely dependent upon government programs and regulations, hence the need for stable income.
“We will see what we see with the deficit. Apparently, deficit spending is not the bogeyman it has been painted to be. I will point out that putting people to work automatically increases tax revenues, and that the primary economic sector still bleeding jobs is government. Such simple logic seems not to reach the minds in Congress.
It is nice that the government is finally pursuing a few of the offenders in tax evasion. The key economic issue is still ‘too big to fail’ banks.
“While people continue to discuss the Geneva Conventions, another treaty carries a far clearer standard. The Convention Against Torture (“Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”), signed by Reagan and ratified by Congress in 1994, allows no excuses about the conditions or locations where torture takes place. The US has prosecuted Charles Emmanuel, the son of former Liberian President Charles Taylor, under that treaty, but has yet to carry out its obligation to prosecute US nationals under the Convention and has pressured Spain and Britain to stop prosecutions. I’ll have a book review soon on my blog that discusses a source of information on this, but I feel certain that an Internet search would reveal more information.
“I’ll say it again: my point about who took the pictures of those Marines is a legal issue, but not a functional issue. In the 21st Century, expecting any event that involves more than one person to remain secret has become unrealistic. People today take pictures constantly and typically cannot be prevented from taking them or sharing them. Once these particular pictures landed on the Internet, the whole thing blew up. Clearly a great many people do not see this as a “local leadership discipline issue.” I suspect that your underlying point is that people do not understand the nature of war. These events are lessons in the nature of war. It appears that the more people understand about war, the less they approve of it.”
My response to the Blog:
Re: Sharia. Noted and quite appropriate. Yet, as in this instance, when Sharia is placed above secular law, you get the oppression of a minority – the non-believers or infidels. Religious law is inherently unequal.
Interesting observations regarding conversions. I’m not so sure.
Re: STOCK Act. Good observations. Congress notoriously likes the façade of propriety to obscure business as usual. Money is too tempting even for vaunted congressmen, who are just ordinary, flawed, weak men.
My use of states of this Grand Republic was not intended as a comparison, but rather an indicator. There are far more differences between Greece in the European Union than the states in the U.S.; however, fiscal mismanagement within one state can adversely affect the whole. Problems in Greece are multifaceted and multileveled. I picked on taxes because that is the most fundamental and basic. I have no problem with Greeks retiring at 50 yrs on a government paid 80% pension for life, as long as their taxes pay for it. When they must ask for Germany to pay for their largesse, that crosses the line. Reform in Greece will not be easy since they have become quite comfortable with the government providing everything they need without the slightest concern for where it comes from.
Re: deficit spending. Every government uses deficit spending when the situation warrants. So do each of us. From the Revolutionary War to the War on Islamic Fascism, our government has used deficit spending; but the bills are always paid. Government make-work jobs are at best a temporary, transient solution; sure, their income produces more tax revenue, but it is government paying the government, which is an unstable condition. I will argue that government should continue to contract as the private sector adds jobs. The key to revenue has been and will always be private sector employment.
Re: “Too big to fail.” No argument; agreed.
Re: My opinion regarding the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) [18.April.1988] presented in Update no.384 remains valid and applicable.
Re: battlefield photographs. Yes, that is my point. Let us keep things in perspective.
. . . round two:
“I will only follow up one point of your reply. If government continues to contract, who will repair our crumbling infrastructure, fight fires, teach our children (please don't pretend that proprietary schools will do a good job), and all the other jobs government is already beginning to fail at due to lack of funds?”
. . . my response to round two:
I am not an ideologically committed libertarian. I do not advocate for the contraction of government to the detriment of public safety, national security, and the common good. We need law enforcement, fire fighters, law makers, et cetera. I DO advocate for removing government from our private affairs, e.g., drugs, guns, and all those other moral projection laws we suffer today. We can and will argue about where the proper threshold lies. Yet, I think we can all agree far too much of our precious tax dollars go to projects that have nothing to do with the common good or public safety.
. . . round three:
“I certainly agree that we as a nation are wasting money on drug law enforcement and prisons, as well as other attempts to impose morality, but one must needs be specific in complaints about government. Government performs useful and necessary functions as well as those that are a waste of money and/or harmful.”
. . . my response to round three:
There is no question that we need a strong Federal government, working in conjunction with strong state governments. I have not the slightest doubt the Federal government is bloated well beyond reasonable. Nonetheless, we are agreed; the Federal government performs vital, essential functions for a well-ordered society. There are bad people among us and the international community; we need law enforcement in its myriad forms. We can argue about what should be cut in the Departments of Defense, Treasury, Education, Agriculture, Transportation, Commerce, et cetera. I would be happy to get all levels of government out of our private affairs. Any suggestions or ideas?
. . . round four:
“The only suggestions I have are the obvious ones. Regulating and taxing drugs in a manner similar to alcohol would eliminate funding for long-failed programs. Related to that, making our sentencing and prison systems resemble more successful nations' operations would improve our financial results and probably our societal ones as well. Taking prisons out of private hands would reduce their cost; private corporations must make a profit, and we pay for that regardless of what their marketers say. We have disagreed before and presumably still do so on whether to reduce military spending and on the value or dangers of the Department of Homeland Insecurity. I still say that if you really want the government out of people's personal lives, the powers of the spy agencies must be much more closely supervised and must reduce to fit within the Constitution.”
. . . my response to round four:
I think I can agree with all of those ideas. I certainly support the elimination of the DEA and prison out of the for-profit domain. I also agree that the Defense budget has plenty to be trimmed; I am just not too keen on reducing the combat arms and especially the special operations groups. I do have mixed views of DHS and DNI, but point taken regarding the need for warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens. There are many other opportunities.

Another contribution:
“I write for 3 reasons. First, to let you know you are still a person of interest on the subject of prostate cancer. I hope you are doing well. I have not read much about your condition in your weekly update, so I hope this is a case of 'no news is good news'.
“Next, I noticed a mistake in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution at your web site. I read at the bottom of your site that I am supposed to cut you some slack. OK, cutting you all the slack I can muster, I hereby notify you that the word 'of' near the end of the preamble should be the word 'for', as in 'for the United States of America'.
“Lastly, I saw you had the Gettysburg Address on your site as something you think is glorious. I am not a Lincoln lover, so you and I have different values about him. I know 5 things I don't like about the Address. If you are interested in knowing what they are, please let me know and I will inform you what they are.”
My reply:
1. Yes, no news is really great news, actually. Had another follow-up visit on Monday. My progress appears to be well ahead of average. I still have a ways to go, but so far so good. Next PSA in May.
2. Good catch. Not sure how I missed that for all these years. Thx for the attention to details. It is actually a significant detail.
3. I do not write my opinions for agreement, but rather for debate. Democracy demands debate. Yes, please let me have it regarding the Gettysburg Address and President Lincoln. I always enjoy a good debate. Do you want to keep this private or can I include this in the Update . . . with your contribution anonymous of course. If not, I have problem keep our exchanges private. Your choice.
. . . the follow-up contribution:
“I am glad to write you with my opinion about President Lincoln's address. These are original thoughts. I am a person who likes to know if I am wrong about something, so please correct me if you think I am wrong. I don't want to go thru life making the same mistake over and over. I am not good at brevity and clarity, so feel free to edit anything I write. Do with this as you like. Here goes.
“1. ‘Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, . . . ‘. 1863 minus 87 is 1776. So Lincoln was referring to the signing and publishing of the Declaration of Independence. Here are some words in the title: ‘The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America.’ If 'United States of America' is interpreted as one nation, then the words 'unanimous' and 'thirteen' make no sense. I say our fathers brought forth 13 new nations, not one. Lots of U.S. citizens, when asked what they celebrate on July 4, say they are celebrating America's birthday, meaning the country that is today called the United States of America. I disagree. What I celebrate is the secession of the 13 colonies from the British crown and their change of status from colonies to countries.
“2. ‘Now we are engaged in a great civil war, . . .’ I say the Civil War was not a civil war. To me, a civil war is when 2 factions are fighting each other for the control of one country. The Confederates were not trying to wrest control of the U.S. from anyone. They were doing the same thing that their grandpappies and greatgrandpappies did in the 1770s. Nobody has ever been able to give me an answer that I like to these 2 questions: Why was it OK for the colony of Massachusetts to secede from the British crown, but not OK for the free and independent state of Virginia to secede from the Union? If one war was a civil war, then why weren't both wars civil wars? I have heard the Civil War called 4 things: the Civil War, the War Between the States, the War for Southern Independence and the War of Northern Aggression. Of those 4, I think Civil War is the least correct. Some civil wars were The War of the Roses in England, the Spanish Civil War in 1937 and the war in Russia starting in 1918 when the Communists fought the Whites. All those involved one country, 2 factions.
“3. ‘. . . for those who gave their lives that that nation might live.’ U.S. warriors did not give their lives that the U.S. might live. They gave their lives to destroy the Confederacy. The U.S. was in no danger of being wiped off any world maps. During the Revolutionary War, John Adams and Ben Franklin were not trying to destroy the British crown. I know of no country that experienced unilateral secession that was destroyed. East Timor seceded in 2002 from Indonesia. Indonesia is still around. Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan in 1971. Pakistan is still around. Peruvians seceded from Colombia in 1827, and Panamanians seceded from Colombia in 1903. Colombia is still on world maps. Ethiopia is still around. Singapore seceded from Malaysia in 1965. Malaysia is still with us. If the Dalai Lama leads his fellow Tibetans in seceding, he will not be trying to destroy China. Even in Biblical days, when the 10 tribes seceded, with the blessing of God, from King Rehoboam, the 2 countries lived side by side for a while without either trying to destroy the other. I digress a little here, but in first Kings 12:24, God commands King Rehoboam and his warriors not to fight with their brothers, but to return to their houses. I bring this up because I have heard the U.S. referred to as a country with a Judeo-Christian heritage. I don't think God would have been pro-secession if He thought the 10 tribes would try to wipe Israel off the map. There is a reason they are called Founding Fathers instead of Destroying Fathers. Yes, Czechoslovakia is no longer with us, but that is because the secession of the Czechs and Slovakians from each other in 1993 was mutual. So they each named their countries the way they wanted. That was more of a name change than an example of one faction trying to conquer the other. I don't think anyone was killed when Czechoslovakia ceased to exist.
“4. ‘. . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom;’ What a hypocrite Lincoln was! During the Civil War, about 300 U.S. newspapers were shut down for one thing, dissension. U.S. soldiers were used to do it. I think I read that Benito Mussolini shut down about 30 newspapers for dissension. I am amazed that folks take Benito to task for what he did and Honest Abe gets a free ride. So much for freedom of the press. The politician, Clement Vallandingham from Ohio, was banished for dissension. So much for freedom of speech. In the U.S. Constitution, Article 1 is where the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is specified. Article 1 covers the legislative branch of the federal government. It seems to me the Framers meant for Congress to control the suspension, not the executive branch. I don't know the number of folks that were jailed in the U.S. by the Executive Department during the Civil War, but I think it was in the thousands. So lots of folks were jailed not knowing what they did wrong and for how long they were going to be in jail. Of course, what they did wrong is think differently from the President. Congress was not involved with this to my knowledge. But hey, Honest Abe knows all about a rebirth of freedom. In case you are wondering how many Confederate newspapers were shut down for dissension, it was none. No Confederate politicians were banished for dissent that I know of. I don't know about the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in the Confederacy.
“5. ‘and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.’ At the end of the Preamble are the words ‘for the United States of America." Not for the people. In Article 7 are these words: Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the States present, . . .’ Not the consent of the people. Rhode Island did not send any delegates to the Constitutional Convention, which is why nobody from Rhode Island signed the Constitution. So I say the Constitution is a government of the states, except Rhode Island, by the states, except Rhode Island, for the states, even Rhode Island. So let me see if I understand this. The Constitution was made for the benefit of the states. So President Lincoln must have thought that waging war against states that he claimed never left the Union somehow benefited those states. Amazing! I don't see how anyone can take President Lincoln's wish of government by the people not perishing seriously when they look at what he did to some members of the Maryland legislature. During his debates with Stephen Douglas, it was Douglas who was for popular sovereignty, not Lincoln. Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution states that every state shall be guaranteed a republican form of government. All eleven of the seceding states seceded by a republican process. Representatives of the people met in state capitals, debated the issue of secession and then voted. That is what is meant by a republican form of government where it is understood that the majority wins. President Lincoln wanted the minorities to win. So much for either government of the states or of the people.
“I think that covers it. I probably left some things out, but this will do for now. I don't know if your readers will be interested in this, but I am. Thanks for inviting me to write to you about this. I vaguely remember something from Reef Points about burning letters written the night before. I hope that doesn't come back to haunt me.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
As with most topics, perspective is critical, and definitions are essential. I am not an expert on President Lincoln or the Gettysburg Address. I am just a common, ordinary citizen with opinions. I do not presume to know why President Lincoln chose the words he did, but I can offer my guess. As you say, here goes.
1. I suspect he picked 1776 as opposed to 1788, 1620, or 1775 for that matter. He picked the date I think most Americans would pick – the Declaration of Independence. We need to take the broader view, rather than constrain ourselves to the literal interpretation, e.g., “. . . all men are created equal . . . .” In that day, they meant Anglo-Saxon, male landowners; while today, we see the use of “men” as the generic mankind regardless of the social factors. In a historic sense, the United States of America did not exist until 1788. I cannot agree with the notion of 13 independent nations. The Declaration was endorsed by representatives from each of the 13 states, and they clearly banded together in their separation from the Crown. As Ben Franklin so succinctly and eloquent said, “We must hang together, or we shall surely hang separately.”
2. Civil war = war between organized groups within a nation. There are many motivating reasons groups choose to fight. In our case, it was to seek separation. I shall take a shot at your two sub-questions.
A. “Why was it OK for the colony of Massachusetts to secede from the British crown, but not OK for the free and independent state of Virginia to secede from the Union?” First, Virginia was not an independent nation, it was one of 34 states of the Union in 1861. There was no provision for secession in any of the founding documents. The Union was the Union. Each colony did not secede from the Crown; they banded together and seceded as a whole, not as individual states.
B. “If one war was a civil war, then why weren't both wars civil wars?” Per the definition, civil war is 2 or more factions with a country; we were a colony of Great Britain; we were not part of the United Kingdom. We can quibble over the definitions, if that is productive.
The Civil War fits the definition, it seems to me.
3. Perspective. You say toe-may-toe; I say toe-maw-toe. I cannot argue against your perspective. Yet, from my perspective, U.S. soldiers fought to preserve the Union, while the CSA soldiers fought to secede from the Union and form a confederation separate from the Union. The U.S. was not trying to destroy the confederate states, just the confederacy. The U.S. in fact paid for reconstruction and rehabilitation of the secessionist states. There are myriad examples of break-ups: the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Roman Empire, and now the Scots are moving closer to withdrawing from the United Kingdom. We chose a Union, not a confederation.
4. I am afraid I need a more convincing argument to even consider Lincoln as a hypocrite. If your argument rests solely upon his suppression of dissent in the Press, I am afraid you will find similar actions by Presidents in virtually every war in which this Grand Republic has been engaged. The Civil War was the first major conflict since the Founding that involved significant legal questions, not least of which was the suspension of The Great Writ (of habeas corpus). Unfortunately, I do not know about the possible suspension of habeas corpus in the Confederacy either [perhaps this exchange will instigate the lawyers within the forum to inform us].
5. Re: “consent of the People.” We are by definition a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy . . . by design and purpose. By my understanding of history, Rhode Island did indeed ratify the Constitution on 29.May.1790 [after formal ratification by ¾ of the states]. I do not believe the Constitution was made “for the benefit of the states.” The Constitution created the Federal government, bounded its authority, and codified the rights of all citizens. Our Constitution did not establish majority rule. In fact, quite the contrary, the document established a burdensome, some might say tortuous, process for amending the Constitution and even for passing basic common law. Our system of governance has always been to protect the rights of all from the tyranny of the majority. That said, and as noted earlier, there are NO provisions for dissolution of the Union – it was that simple fact that President Lincoln acted upon for the common good. Many have attempted to argue that secession was not about slavery, but rather about states’ rights – lipstick on a pig, it seems to me.
This is a big topic, worthy of our debate. I think the readers of this humble forum will be interested; the hard part is stimulating them to tinkle the keys and offer up their views & opinions. Thank you for sharing your views; you are always welcome on any topic.

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

06 February 2012

Update no.529

Update from the Heartland
No.529
30.1.12 – 5.2.12
To all,

One of the many news groups I subscribe to (in some feeble attempt to remain informed) distributed this little item:
“Conversion row torments Kashmiri Christians”
by Sudha Ramachandran
Asia Times
Published: February 1, 2012
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/NB01Df01.html
After all, an item like this has no meaning to or bearing upon our lives. What, me worry? Well, to me, this report represents far more than the oppression of a local religious minority. This is precisely why the separation of church and State is so bloody vital to a free society and individual Liberty. I ask whether our religious beliefs are strong enough to withstand scrutiny, criticism, ridicule or even debasement? If our religious beliefs are that weak or that shallow that they can be subverted, how can prohibition of dissent ever be successful? The actions of Mufti Mohammed Bashiruddin are classic signs of weakness and reversion to parochial prohibition for their intolerance, i.e., the protectors of the faith ensuring the purity of their believers for their own aggrandizement. Their faith is not strong enough to sustain itself. That flaw sounds all too familiar, as I consider history.

After years of delay, subterfuge, obfuscation and slight-of-hand, Congress finally moved toward approving legislation to ban lawmakers from trading stocks based on information they pick up in their investigations, hearings and legislative work-ups. The Senate voted overwhelmingly, 96-3-0-1(0), to pass the Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge Act (STOCK Act) [S.1871]. The bill now moves to the House, where Republican leaders have promised to approve some version. It is about time, but they have an awful long way to go in ending the ethos of rationalized corruption and all for me, none for all. Far too many representatives and senators become wealthy in Congress and that was never the intention of the Founders / Framers.

News from the economic front:
-- Monday night, the leaders of 25 European Union governments agreed on the details of a permanent bailout fund for the euro zone. The agreement was hailed as a historic pact that will move their fiscal union closer to a federal system. Yet, Greece’s debt crisis threw a rather dark cloud over the summit, so it was reported. We have the same vulnerabilities. States like California, Michigan, Ohio and others weathered the storm of the Great Recession, but their predicament as the Recession worsened cast a similar shadow as Greece on this Grand Republic. There are numerous differences between Greece and Germany, not least of which is their respective enforcement of tax collection. We may criticize Greece for its rather laid back, laissez-faire, approach to tax collection, yet it took the United States several decades to evolve into our current system. The 16th Amendment [3.February.1913] enabled a Federal income tax, and the Revenue Tax Act of 1913 [PL 63-016; 38 Stat. 114; 3.October.1913] established the Federal income tax system. The monthly payment process was replaced with an annual payment by the Revenue Act of 1916 [PL 64-463; 39 Stat. 756; 8.September.1916]. Eventually, the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943 [PL 78-068; 57 Stat. 126; 9.June.1943] set up the Federal income tax withholding system in each month’s payroll as we know it today. Despite at-the-source, withholding process, more than a few citizens try to avoid paying their taxes. The Internal Revenue Service is charged with vigorous enforcement of tax collection. The point of this little trip down memory lane is, until the Greek’s promote and enforce a tax code to pay their bills. Germany, France and the other disciplined countries of the European Union will be asked to pay the bills of Greece, Portugal, and the other slacker nations.
-- The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected the Federal government’s expenditures will exceed tax collections by nearly US$1.1T for 2012 – the fourth straight year above the “T” threshold. That said, the CBO’s estimate the smallest deficit since the Great Recession began taking a heavy toll on the federal budget in 2009. The CBO also predicted the deficit would continue to fall, dropping sharply in 2013 and throughout the remainder of the decade, if lawmakers follow through with the changes in both tax policy and government spending now on the books.
-- Former Credit Suisse Group employee David Higgs surrendered to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Manhattan, in connection with planned criminal charges alleging misstatements in mortgage-bond valuations during the financial crisis; more to follow, so they say.
-- Thursday, the Justice Department indicted the Swiss private bank Wegelin & Co. on charges that it facilitated tax fraud by U.S. taxpayers. The allegations suggest Wegelin, Switzerland's oldest bank, conspired with U.S. taxpayers and others to hide more than US$1.2B in secret bank accounts. The Justice Department also said the U.S. government has seized more than US$16M from Wegelin's correspondent bank account in the U.S. And, the super- and hyper-wealthy wonder why us common folk despise their shenanigans. I do not fault them their wealth, only that they do not pay their share of taxes. Good on the Feds for going after everyone who aids or abets tax cheats.
-- The Labor Department reported that the U.S. economy added 243,000 jobs in January. The unemployment rate dropped to 8.3%, the lowest it has been since February 2009.

Comments and contributions from Update no.528:
“Re your latest and the Marines urinating on the bodies of dead Taliban.
“Actually , urinating on the body of an enemy is both a violation of the UCMJ and a grave breach of the LOAC (Laws of Armed Combat)- formerly Law of War-- doing it and taking pictures or video of it is criminally stupid and will get fellow Marines and soldiers killed. Whether they should courts-martials or not is up to the CA.”
My reply:
I suspect we are back into a definitions do-loop as we were with torture. Urinating on a dead body is hardly cutting off an ear or extracting gold teeth. I take a narrow definition of desecrating battlefield dead. Pardon my ignorance, but I am not aware of urination in that definition, but rather an interpretation; I admit, I could be wrong. It is definitely an Article 134 violation. Yes, it is a CA (Convening Authority) decision. My caution comes in the likely extraordinary political pressure to be applied to the CA to “ensure” the correct decision.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“LGEN Scaparotti, the commander said:
“‘Defiling, desecrating, mocking, photographing or filming for personal use insurgent dead constitutes a grave breach of the LOAC (laws of armed conflict), violate basic standards of human decency and can cause serious damage to relations with the Afghan government . . .’
------------------------------------
“Article 15, para.1 of Geneva Convention I seems to apply in this situation:
At all times, and particularly after an engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
First, I must restate, what those Marines did was wrong and brought discredit on the Marine Corps and the United States of America.
Second, I truly hope Scaparotti’s comments were based on more than that video.
Despoil = to strip of possessions, things of value, etc.; rob; plunder; pillage. I do not believe that is what those Marines did. Yes, they did not show basic human decency for the dead, but that is not a war crime.
I only urge we keep things in perspective. Those Marines deserve our loyalty even though they screwed up. As I said before, they deserve to be punished; they do not deserve prison or DHD, or even a BCD; but, that’s just my opinion. I want to dilute the lynch-mob mentality exhibited by far too many folks in powerful positions.

Another contribution and comment to the Blog:
“First, one last comment on the thread about Marines urinating on corpses. Nowadays, it matters little who took the pictures. (That’s a functional point, not a legal issue.) Anyone can upload files today, and the story takes off from there. In any case, the print and broadcast press (no capital P for me) has pretty much lost their credibility.
“The State of the Union address holds academic interest for me but carries little to no meaning as far as predicting the future. While I noted that the President tried to conciliate disappointed progressives like me and include military/patriotic stuff for others, I spent most of my watching time noting his expertise in delivering the speech. His timing was downright musical, his pitch and tone precise and persuasive, and his delivery confident.
“I think I get your point about the Texas redistricting issue. Here in Ohio, we have a redistricting issue of our own, but I believe they made a deal without actually holding another referendum. Our last referendum was over a government-worker labor law and was a disaster for our Republican Governor.
“Somehow, the Supreme Court seems to have turned to protecting the rights granted to the people in the Constitution. I have not seen enough to feel confident this will continue, but I have begun to hope it will.
“Predicting the world economy has gone from difficult to impossible. Thus far, China and India look like the future leaders but many hurdles lie ahead of them. One of those is a particularly interesting riddle: if your economy depends on foreign trade, do you not need the rest of the world to share the prosperity in order to have markets for your products?”
My response to the Blog:
Re: photos. Who took them does matter to me. That video took what should have been a local leadership disciplinary problem and exploded it into a massive international event, which in turn will not serve those Marines fairly or well.
Re: POTUS SOTU address. Oratory has the power to influence. He gave a masterful speech. However, when one portion of the audience refuses to listen, those words or their elegant delivery matter not. Yes, it is fun to listen to him.
Re: Texas. The problem for the state is, they have nothing. They cannot use the old districts, and they cannot get new districts defined. How are they to vote?
Re: Rights. The IX Amendment recognizes “other rights” retained by the People, outside the Constitution. The fundamental right to privacy is one of those rights.
Re: economic forecasting. Spot on! However, doing something is better than doing nothing. At least they are trying to predict the future; but, it is just that . . . a WAG.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Texas is indeed in a pickle. I wish them well but have no real idea how they should respond to the consequences of their leaders' actions. I find it cheering, however, that gerrymandering has apparently run into resistance at long last.
“The 9th Amendment is a very important item in U.S. governance. It points out that the purpose of the Constitution is to limit, not grant, powers to government. My surprise comes from the unexpected change of direction by the Supreme Court from protecting corporations and governments to limiting their power. If it holds up, that will be a major turning point.
. . . and my follow-up response:
I think the only legal approach available is to reschedule the primary and re-do the redistricting plan for Judicial approval. I’m with you; gerrymandering has always been just another form of corruption. The complication is the civil case raised by Perez, et al. The Judiciary will have to satisfy or dismiss the case.
As a good friend and constitutional scholar reminded me many times, the Supreme Court has largely avoided the 9th Amendment, principally due to its inherent ambiguity. What are those rights retained by the People? If those rights are beyond the Constitution, and Article III of the Constitution establishes the Court’s authority, then by definition, the Court does not have any jurisdiction over those extra-constitutional rights. The fallacy in that argument, as you appropriately noted, is in the Constitution as a limit or boundary of Federal authority. The Court deals with the question indirectly every time is must assess the “public need.” As we have seen far too many times, the Supremes take a VERY liberal view of “public need,” e.g., private drug use, same-sex marriage, abortion, prostitution, adultery, sodomy, ad infinitum ad nauseum.

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