Update from the Heartland
No.532
20.2.12 – 26.2.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
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 :-)
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 :-)
2 comments:
Cap,
Just to emphasize an important point: if at any time in any situation the Constitution is “an instrument of convenience,” then all Constitutional arguments, principles, etc., become meaningless and the US legal system collapses. I am still not a lawyer, but I think that overrides all details.
I noted that the target deficit figure (not current number, the target figure) in the Greek tragedy is 120% of GDP, noticeably higher than the current US figure of 102%. (Be suspicious of all figures in this debate; mine comes from USDebtClock.org, of which I know nothing.) Of course, the US could still improve its position by dropping pointless waste such as marijuana enforcement and Defense Department programs that are opposed by the Defense Department. I noted gladly that private lenders to the Greeks are taking a hit; pain changes behavior.
I cannot see extreme austerity as a solution to a crashed economy. That notion is usually based on Adam Smith’s work, but Smith opposed the limited liability that is the foundation of corporations; his ideas were never meant to be applied to the current world economy. If the owners (shareholders) of corporations were held personally liable for the actions of the corporations, that would change the economy beyond belief, probably in a harmful way. Smith’s theories worked well in the England of his time, the quintessential “nation of shopkeepers,” but the scale and the limited liability factor of today’s economy defeat them.
I think the correct common term for “moral projection” is “theocracy.” At least, that’s what I derived from the links in the follow-up contribution at the end of today’s blog. Santorum’s overstepping in even bringing up the concept of “theology” as right or wrong in a politician is a clear clue, and it scares relatively legitimate Republicans to death. They are well aware that a majority of voters know better than to listen to the ravings of this lunatic. The Tea Party has become the tail wagging the GOP dog, as predicted by many.
Calvin,
Re: Constitution, an “instrument of convenience.” Exactly, which is precisely why I disagreed with Justice Grier’s dissenting opinion in Texas v. White.
Re: Greek debt. Your admonition to be wary of statistics is valid and appropriate, but also works both ways. The Debt-to-GDP ratio may actually understate the severity of the Greek tragedy. Greece has become the paramount example of the consequences of spending beyond your means. Greece was not invaded; this was an self-inflicted wound.
Re: austerity. Indeed! Crushing Greece, or other debt-ridden nations, into the Dark Ages serves no one. Conversely, borrowing money far beyond its means to fuel its socialist largesse and corruption may have been a suicidal bluff that is being called by the responsible nations who are expected to pay for such fiscal irresponsibility.
Re: moral projection vs. theocracy. If theocracy is defined as a system of government by clerics claiming a divine commission, then I would disagree. If we broaden the definition to say a willful majority of citizens claiming divine guidance enforcing their moral values by creating common law, then perhaps we can agree. To me, it is the projection of one set of moral values into the lives of all citizens . . . by whatever name we wish to use to describe that process.
Side note: I find it most bizarre that Santorum (and other social conservatives) rails against the government getting into our private affairs vis-à-vis PPACA, and in virtually the same breadth he wants to prohibit birth control, abortion, divorce and a myriad of other private, personal choices for all citizens . . . well at least for female citizens. As our British cousins so eloquently say, I am gobsmacked! To me, Senator Santorum’s evangelism is not fundamentally different from Senator John Morris Sheppard of Texas, a century Santorum’s predecessor. He is no different, and to me, just as objectionable as Sheppard.
Bottom line: I cannot imagine Sanctorum garnering sufficient support to win the national presidential election.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment