Update no.536

Update from the Heartland

No.536

19.3.12 – 25.3.12

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

“Murder Is Not an Anomaly in War”
by Chris Hedges
Truthdig | Op-Ed
Published: Monday 19 March 2012
http://www.truth-out.org/murder-not-anomaly-war/1332165061
The premise is correct. The conclusions are not. Hedges used nice little catch phrases like, “To decry the butchery of this case and to defend the wars of occupation we wage is to know nothing about combat”; or, “The scale of our state-sponsored murder is masked from public view”; or, “War perverts and destroys you”; or, “War is necrophilia.” Hedges does a fairly succinct job of describing the adverse consequences of war. I doubt there are many who would argue against Hedges’ portrayal of the brutal price of war. It is for this reason that most warriors know and acknowledge that war must be the last resort. What he does not discuss is the necessity of war, or the terrible consequences of painting lipstick on a pig with respect to war fighting. War is all about killing. Our objective, when war becomes necessary, should be to inflict that injury in the most efficient and effective manner humanly possible . . . to win the war as quickly as possible. Yet, there are examples in every war when a man breaks and crosses the line from the necessary killing to murder. If Staff Sergeant Bales did what he is accused of doing, then he crossed the line and deserves the full weight of the law in his punishment. However, I have not seen the factual evidence that I need to join the popular, public condemnation of Bales; there is more to this story we have not heard. Let us all keep things in perspective. War is NOT necrophilia; it is a necessary evil when diplomacy fails, or as Generalmajor Carl von Clausewitz described war as diplomacy by other means.

Another relevant opinion:
“Sustaining success in Afghanistan”
by John McCain, Joseph I. Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham
Washington Post
Published: March 21, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/steps-to-ensure-we-achieve-success-in-afghanistan/2012/03/20/gIQAJiNXSS_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions

“Reclaiming Our Rights From HR 347”
by Phil Rockstroh
Consortium News | Op-Ed
Published: Monday 19 March 2012
http://www.truth-out.org/reclaiming-commons/1332166749
In these tumultuous times, we tend to question anything and everything the government does. Reading the Rockstroh article, one might easily and understandably deduce the jack-boot of the oppressive regime has been placed upon our throat. The recently signed-into-law Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 [PL 112-098; H.R.347; House: 388-3-0-42(2); Senate: unanimous consent; 126 Stat. xxxx; 8.March.2012] amends 18 USC §1752. As an example of where doubt arises, §1752 – Restricted building or grounds, (a) says whoever, (3) “knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds” shall be punishable. Prima facie, this sounds reasonable, i.e., protect sensitive buildings and persons. Yet, as we have seen with other well-intentioned laws, zealous interpretation leads to unacceptable abuses. We do not need more examples like the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 [PL 107-056; 115 Stat. 272; 26.October.2001]. I understand the concern protectors have for the Occupy movement and the potential impact on their task and principals, but this is not the way. We do not need more ambiguous laws rife for “generous interpretation” and concomitant abuse at the unilateral discretion of the Secret Service . . . as much as I admire the Secret Service and the professional work they do for all of us.

Apparently, U.S. Attorney General Eric Himpton Holder Jr. signed new guidelines for the National Counterterrorism Center (NCC) ostensibly to improve intelligence sharing and to focus on thwarting terrorism threats. The NCC and its charter along with the National Intelligence Directorate were created by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 [PL 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638; 17.December.2004] [343, 468]. The guidelines increase the NCC’s ability to retain collected information, including private data, about Americans when there is suspicion that they are tied to terrorism, from 180 days to five years. The change is expected to increase the potential for and ability of the NCC to carry out data-mining, using complex algorithms to search for patterns that could indicate a threat. Under the previous rules, the NCC had to promptly destroy any information about U.S. citizens or residents unless a connection to terrorism is evident. At face value in the War on Islamic Fascism, this is a reasonable, understandable and appropriate action. However, weak and flawed men must faithfully execute these new guidelines. As such, unfortunately, we continually endure abuses of well-intentioned laws and rules. As noted above, this is yet one more sliver off our protections against an oppressive State. Freedom and privacy are too precious and fragile to sacrifice even little bits for the perception of security. Unilateral power is rarely a good thing.

Associate Justice Samuel Freeman Miller wrote for a unanimous Court in The Ku Klux Cases (AKA ex parte Yarbrough) [110 U.S. 651 (1884)]. “It is as essential to the successful working of this government that the great organisms of its executive and legislative branches should be the free choice of the people, as that the original form of it should be so. In absolute governments, where the monarch is the source of all power, it is still held to be important that the exercise of that power shall be free from the influence of extraneous violence and internal corruption. In a republican government, like ours, where political power is reposed in representatives of the entire body of the people, chosen at short intervals by popular elections, the temptations to control these elections by violence and by corruption is a constant source of danger. Such has been the history of all republics, and, though ours has been comparatively free from both these evils in the past, no lover of his country can shut his eyes to the fear of future danger from both sources. If the recurrence of such acts as these prisoners stand convicted of are too common in one quarter of the country, and give omen of danger from lawless violence, the free use of money in elections, arising from the vast growth of recent wealth in other quarters, presents equal cause for anxiety. If the government of the United States has within its constitutional domain no authority to provide against these evils, if the very sources of power may be poisoned by corruption or controlled by violence and outrage, without legal restraint, then, indeed, is the country in danger, and its best powers, its highest purposes, the hopes which it inspires, and the love which enshrines it, are at the mercy of the combinations of those who respect no right but brute force on the one hand, and unprincipled corruptionists on the other.” While Justice Miller’s concluding opinion dealt with a particular voting rights issue of his time, the principles he illuminated are just as applicable today. Let us all heed his words.

L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- On Monday, the owners of the New York Mets baseball team, Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, settled the lawsuit brought against them by Irving H. Picard, the trustee for the victims of Bernard L. Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, for US$162M. The fallout from the tragic crime continues to unfold, and yet here is one more example where we will probably never know the true culpability of Wilpon and Katz.

Comments and contributions from Update no.535:
Comment to the Blog:
“The fact that our nation and the institution of the Supreme Court have survived such decisions as Hall v DeCuir and the Dred Scott decision and that the Court has returned to sanity in time gives me hope that time will also change the current Court.
“Thank you for that excellent description of religious liberty. The notion that someone else’s religious liberty depends upon their ability to impose their beliefs or values on the rest of us is an oxymoron of the worst kind.”
My response to the Blog:
Re: SCOTUS. Well said! We could throw in Plessy v. Ferguson [163 U.S. 537 (1896)] and a few others in that infamous lot.
Re: religious liberty. Again, well said! It is so sad, and not a function of modern theocratic thought, that the induced parochialism of the revealed religions is so bloody intolerant of freedom and diversity . . . just one more burden we must bear.

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

Update no.535

Update from the Heartland

No.535

12.3.12 – 18.3.12

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
It was a busy family week. A week ago Sunday, we had a family & friends celebration – Shalee Lynn’s 11th Birthday (early), Tracy’s successful surgery, Stephanie & Tom’s welcome home, and Aspen Shae’s selection as a left forward starter for her high school varsity soccer team as a freshman [Image 1]. Then, Thursday evening, we gathered again to watch Aspen Shae play her first high school futball match with her hot pink shoes and an excellent header [Image 2]. The next morning, we left for Austin to visit the southern branch of our family. There is something very special about grandchildren running up to you for a hug & kiss. Life is good. Judson James had a mild case of the chicken pox, so he was confined to quarters. This was also the week of Austin’s famous South By Southwest music celebration (AKA SXSW). Tyson took us to see a good friend, Trinidad Leal, who is the drummer and lead singer of the hard rock band Dixie Witch, at Trophy’s Bar & Grill on South Congress Avenue, along with band mates – Curt “CC”' Christensen, bass guitarist & vocalist, and J.T. Smith, lead guitarist [Image 3]. We had a fantastic time with the Austin branch of our family [Image 4], just never enough time. Family is the reward to life. Am I a proud grandfather or what!

Image 1

Gathering of family & friends

[file: Gathering120311.jpg]

Image 2

Aspen Shae’s excellent header

[file: Aspen header 120315.jpg]

Image 3

Dixie Witch [CC, Trinidad, JT]

[file: Dixie Witch 120317.jpg]

Image 4

Austin family

[Austin 120318.jpg]

Occasionally, court rulings I come across leave me gobsmacked and thoroughly flummoxed; such is the most unusual Hall v. DeCuir [95 U.S. 485 (1877)] case. Sometime after Louisiana was readmitted to the Union (25.June.1868) and they revised their state constitution (1869) to include Article 13: “All persons shall enjoy equal rights and privileges upon any conveyance of a public character,” Mrs. Josephine DeCuir boarded the steamboat Governor Allen, with a paid ticket for passage from New Orleans up the Mississippi River to Hermitage Landing, Louisiana. While the steamboat’s route was New Orleans to Vicksburg (interstate), DeCuir’s ticket was intrastate, which would normally validate state authority. The steamboat captain denied DeCuir admittance to her assigned berth because of the natural pigment in her skin – no other reason. Both the Eighth District Court for the Parish of New Orleans and the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana found in favor of DeCuir in that the steamboat captain (Benson, by then deceased and represented by Hall) violated Article 13 of the state constitution. Astonishingly, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, reversed and remanded. Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite wrote for the Court and Associate Justice Nathan Clifford wrote a concurring opinion. Incredibly, the Supremes ignored the 13th and 14th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 [PL 39-031; 14 Stat. 27], and the Enforcement Act of 1870 [PL 41-114; 16 Stat. 140] [448], invoking the Commerce and Supremacy Clauses, i.e., the state had no authority to regulate interstate commerce; the right of a citizen had no bearing on constitutional authority. Their reasoning: if Congress had intended to desegregate interstate commercial transportation, they would have passed an appropriate law, as if all the laws above had been repealed or had never been passed. The DeCuir ruling struck me quite like the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford [60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856)] [322] case – the rationalization of the status quo ante. Decisions like these serve to remind us how terribly fragile freedom is even in this Grand Republic.

News from the economic front:
-- The Federal Reserve conducted another stress test of the nation's financial system in a crisis that saw the markets plummet and the unemployment rate rise above 13 percent. The Fed reported that 15 of the 19 largest U.S. banks would remain healthy through such a crisis; four banks failed at least one of four criteria in the test: Ally Financial, Citigroup, Suntrust Banks, and the insurance giant Metlife.

Comments and contributions from Update no.534:
Comment to the Blog:
“On this week’s review of the Supreme Court decision on gerrymandering, Mr. Justice Harlan, while a renowned jurist, apparently made human errors on occasion just like the rest of us.
“I live and vote in Ohio. If it were some other place and time, this redistricting might be a comedy. I’m not able to get that perspective so far. The Republicans who make those decisions right now first proposed a plan that never would have withstood testing in the courts. Following a successful drive to place a referendum on the State ballot in order to defeat that plan, a “compromise” (I guess we call it that) passed, thus creating the current mess. The district that pitted Rep. Kucinich against Rep. Kaptur runs along Lake Erie from Cleveland to Toledo, and in places remains contiguous only by means of a strip of beach. That district’s design endeavored only to defeat Mr. Kucinich, and has succeeded. Apparently, the Republicans had no candidate with a chance of beating Kucinich, so they pitted him against another popular Democrat. Kucinich has a history of comebacks, so if I were the Republicans causing him to be at large, I would worry about that.
“My own district has benefitted from the redistricting, though. We will lose a Tea Party Republican of no particular distinction and gain the winner of a four-way primary among the Democrats, Joyce Beatty, who has performed capably at the State Legislature level and is a progressive.”
My comment to the Blog:
Re: Justice Harlan. We are all flawed human beings; some would say sinners all. The Supremes past, present and future are no different.
Re: re-districting. What happened as a consequence of the 2010 census and the demise of the Ohio 10th District is a near perfect example of why the census and redistricting processes are so bloody important.
Re: Kucinich. He has been defeated before . . . true; but, he is not getting any younger. I suspect he will not go quietly into the night.
Re: your district. There are always two sides to every event. Good luck in the fall election.

Another comment to the Blog:
“Huh? I certainly didn't say criticism of Limbaugh infringes on his religious liberty. The policy for which Fluke is acting as spokesman is an attack in religious liberty.”
My response to the Blog:
Thank you so kindly for your contributions to the public debate. The majesty of the English language never ceases to amaze and dazzle me.
You may well be correct that the Sandra Fluke affair was a contrived, planned and manufactured event. Unfortunately, el-Rush-bo took the bait – hook, line and sinker. Perhaps where we disagree or at least differ rests in perspective. Perhaps our differences exist in the opinions we hold regarding the place of religion in our lives.
Your use of the term “religious liberty” in virtually any context of public debate appears to center upon the belief that religion is an essential instrument in that public debate. To me, religion is a rather private, soul-soothing, framework for conversing with God, thus a very private affair. As so often seems to be the case these days, religion is used like a bludgeon to intimidate, cow and implicitly threaten those with whom we disagree. Sandra Fluke did not impose upon your religious liberty or mine. She offered her opinion regarding an important health care issue; she sought equal treatment under the law. Georgetown University is as much a public institution as the theater, or the Smithsonian Museum, or the corner store. By framing the debate on this topic as religious liberty versus freedom of choice, you implicitly, or perhaps intentionally, truncate the exchange. Let us focus on the power of persuasion essential to a vigorous public debate rather than return to the bad old days of the century-gone temperance movement.
Instead of attempting to overwhelm or intimidate those we disagree with and further deepen the political chasm between factions, let us seek compromise and mutually acceptable solutions.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

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

Update no.534

Update from the Heartland

No.534

5.3.12 – 11.3.12

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- After our discussion of the vortex swirling around the Fluke-Limbaugh fiasco [533], I forgot that James Taranto added the term “religious-liberty” to our debate, as if those who condemn Limbaugh’s crass, insensitive, personal attack on Sandra Fluke are somehow infringing upon his religious liberty. I love the logic. Another citizen’s freedom of choice somehow imposes upon his religious liberty. Taranto in some way believes or has convinced himself that it is fair and reasonable for social conservatives to impose their values upon everyone else, after all they are correct, but absolutely objectionable for others to disagree. Further, anyone who objects to being imposed upon is somehow guilty of infringing upon the religious liberty of social conservatives.

As you may recall, we discussed a few weeks back the current judicial pronouncement regarding the perpetual issue of redistricting and gerrymandering – Perry v. Perez, [565 U.S. ___ (2012); no 11-713] [528]. Just an FYI, the term “gerrymandering,” used to describe the actions of a legislature to draw wildly contorted, electoral district boundaries to gain or preserve political power came into our lexicon circa 1812. Anyway, Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution recognizes the responsibility and authority of state legislatures to establish those electoral districts. The process evolved over many years to the current system. The constitutionally mandated decennial census determines the population distribution and allocates the 435 seats in the House of Representatives among the 50 states by their share of national population. State legislatures divide territory into districts for election of their assigned congressional representatives. Congress exercised its power to regulate elections for the House of Representatives for the first time when it passed An Act for the apportionment of Representatives among the several States according to the sixth census [PL 27-047; 5 Stat. 491; 25.June.1842]; at the time, they allocated one Representative for 70,680 citizens; until the 1842 law required districts, Representatives were elected at large. Congress added further constraints when it passed An Act for the Apportionment of Representatives to Congress among the several States according to the ninth Census [PL 42-011; 17 Stat. 28; 2.2.1872], in which they required the Representatives “shall be elected by districts composed of contiguous territory, and containing as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants.” This little trip down history lane brings us to my latest judicial reading – Wesberry v. Sanders [376 U.S. 1 (1964); no. 22]. In 1962, James P. Wesberry, Jr. led a group of citizens and qualified voters of Fulton County, Georgia, when they initiated a legal action, and claimed the state violated Article I, Section 2, in that their district, Georgia’s Fifth Congressional District, which included Fulton, Dekalb, and Rockdale Counties, had a population of 823,680, according to the 1960 census, while the average population of the allotted ten districts was 394,312, and one district, the Ninth, had only 272,154 people; thus, the residents of the Fifth District believed they were significantly and seriously under-represented in the House of Representatives. The Court agreed and affirmed their interpretation of the Constitution that an essential principle of this Grand Republic is “one person, one vote”; thus, Georgia was not in conformance with the Constitution. Far more stimulating and entertaining was the dissenting opinion of Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan II, not so much for his argument, rather for the implications of his logic. He said, “In short, in the absence of legislation providing for equal districts by the Georgia Legislature or by Congress, these appellants have no right to the judicial relief which they seek.” He also noted, “The constitutional scheme vests in the States plenary power to regulate the conduct of elections for Representatives, and, in order to protect the Federal Government, provides for congressional supervision of the States' exercise of their power. Within this scheme, the appellants do not have the right which they assert, in the absence of provision for equal districts by the Georgia Legislature or the Congress. The constitutional right which the Court creates is manufactured out of whole cloth.” Thus, by Harlan’s interpretation of the Constitution, one party or another once they gained control of the state legislature could apportion districts as they saw fit, and logically do so to perpetuate their power. Taken to the extreme, according to Harlan’s reasoning, a state legislature could define a district as one house and another district as 20 counties – a representative for one or two people versus a representative for a million people. Parties in collusion across the states could well take permanent control of Congress and the state legislatures. Harlan’s argument and interpretation assumes the good will of man. Justice Harlan was appropriately focused on and concerned with the law, not citizens; yet, to ignore the consequences of the law on the lives of citizens defies the most foundational principles of this Grand Republic.

I have not lived or voted in Ohio. I have visited Ohio numerous times, but that does not qualify me to know or understand the subtleties of state politics. Nonetheless, one particular result from Ohio’s Democratic primary on Tuesday, caught my attention. Eight-term, Representative Dennis John Kucinich of Ohio’s 10th District (also, a two-time presidential candidate and icon of the antiwar left) suffered a defeat. The Republican-controlled Ohio legislature eliminated the 10th District, which in turn pitted Kucinich against 14-term Representative Marcia Carolyn “Marcy” Kaptur, the longest serving congressional representative for Ohio. This is precisely why the decennial census and reapportionment are so bloody important, thus the critical nature of the Court’s rulings in Wesberry [above] and Perez [528], among others.

News from the economic front:
-- According to the Wall Street Journal, as of late Wednesday, Greece gained pledges from bondholders for about 52% of the €206B (US$271B) in instruments for bond swaps in the country’s debt restructuring effort. The milestone means Greece is well on its way to getting enough creditors to consent to make the deal binding for any that refuse to take part.
-- European Central Bank (ECB) President Mario Draghi said the euro-zone's economy is likely to contract this year and inflation will likely exceed the bank's target, due to higher-than-expected energy prices, along with increases in various state-administered prices. The ECB forecasts central inflation for 2012 to be 2.4%, up from 2% three months ago. At the same time, ECB forecasters now expect the EC’s economy to shrink by 0.1% this year, and grow 1.1% for 2013, down from the prior forecast of 1.3%.
-- The U.S. Labor Department reported non-farm jobs grew by 227,000 last month, with private companies adding 233,000 jobs in February and government employment contracted by 6,000 job. The unemployment rate remained at 8.3%. The January jobs report was revised up from the initial estimate by 40,000, to 284,000 jobs.
-- By Friday, the Greek government reported that 83% of their private bondholders had “voluntarily” agreed to its bond-swap deal as part of the country’s debt restructuring effort, and then, they invoked the so-called the collective-action clause on the remainder, which in turn triggered payouts on a net US$3.2B of insurance-like contracts designed to protect investors against losses on Greek sovereign debt. The bond-swap deal involves exchanging current bonds for new ones with less than half the face value. As the dust settles, history may record this time as a seminal moment in the Europe Union's long-frustrated efforts to rescue its most financially vulnerable nation. The announcement that the restructuring will go ahead precipitated the largest-ever sovereign-debt default and the first for a Western European country in half a century.

The Stanford Fraud [375]:
-- A Federal Jury in Houston convicted Texas financier Robert Allen Stanford on 13 of 14 counts in his failed US$7B Ponzi scheme. He was found not guilty on one count of wire fraud. Hopefully the judge will sentenced him to join his cohort in crime Bernie, for the rest of Stanford’s natural life.

Comments and contributions from Update no.533:
Comment to the Blog:
“I watched the youtube video on the PPACA (Obamacare) until nausea set in, which took about ten apocalyptic statements. Thank you for illustrating the importance of checking information rather than just swallowing it whole. Information quality matters in any decision a person makes.
“There’s not much to add about Rush Limbaugh except to wonder if he has been abusing pills again.
“I actually read Cal Thomas’s story on the imaginary “God Gap” all the way to the end. Thomas mentioned “God’s instructions” in the first paragraph and waited until much later to mention “those who claim to speak for him.” That fits his pattern; I have seen Cal Thomas on the opposite side from me on other issues. He quotes Rick Santorum and nobody else. That does not surprise me either. He did startle me by missing the point of his own story. His intention, brought out only at the very end, was to point out that the ‘God Gap’ can only be closed by clergy, not by politicians. Of course, I disagree with the notion that clergy can somehow make us be Cal Thomas’s version of Christians. The good news is Cal Thomas seems to be losing his writing skills.
“I’m still looking for an easier term than “moral projectionists.” If ‘theocrats’ will not work, how about ‘moral tyrants’? That is where the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santorum intersect with the Taliban, the Inquisitors, and other radical religionists. They seek to impose their beliefs on others with no regard for anything beyond their own self-righteousness.
“I like your point about the 1944 case where the Supreme Court made the right decision but gave a much lesser reason than the one you, I, and Justice Burton saw. The only thought that comes to mind about Burton’s colleagues is an old saying. ‘Deep down, they’re shallow.’
“In the discussion of Greece, I have come across a dramatically-different figure of 60% for the US debt-to-GDP ratio. I think that one came from the Baseline Scenario, the economics blog I follow. Keep in mind that the 120% Greek figure I mentioned is relatively solid because it’s the proposed goal for Greece’s economy.
“‘Smaller, less intrusive government’ is merely a campaign concept, a way to sell candidates. See ‘moral tyranny’ above.”
My reply to the Blog:
Re: PPACA. Spot on!
Re: el-Rush-bo. Who knows? I don’t really care. I gave up on him a long time ago. Nonetheless, the public reaction is a little over the top, as it was with Keith Olbermann and Don Imus, but no more so than Rush’s faux-morality. He is hardly one to be lecturing anyone on morality or calling any other citizen unwarranted names, which makes his yammerings all the more repulsive.
Re: sanctimony. I am becoming less tolerant of those like Thomas, Taranto, Robertson, and all the others who place their morality above everyone else and condemn those who do not agree with them. Taranto likes the term “religious-liberty,” as if everyone who does not agree with them are seeking to deny them freedom of religion. His freedom of religion has no right whatsoever to impact my life. It is a neat trick with words – claim religious persecution while they advocate for the denial of freedom to everyone else. It is not a new argument. The same approach has been used for centuries by the Catholic Church, the Inquisition, radical clerics of the revealed religions, and a myriad of other despots, religious or otherwise. It was not compatible with freedom centuries ago; it is even less acceptable today.
Re: “moral tyrants.” Works for me . . . all the way around. Well done.
Re: “Morgan v. Virginia.” Justice Burton was the only one to hint at the 14th Amendment approach to breaking down racial segregation, but he also dissented with the Morgan ruling based on the use of the Commerce Clause. Reading his words, I could not tell whether he supported state’s rights and a state’s authority to impose racial segregation upon any citizen within their state, resident or not, for the “public good.”
Re: Greek debt. The current debt-to-GDP ratio in Greece is more like 160%, and only projected to reduce to 120% by 2020, if the debt deal is executed in toto. If the deal does not work, Greece is destined to default, with un-predictable consequences. The EU governments have agreed, but private investors have yet to agree and could squirrel the deal. Greece is not out of the woods yet, and has a long way to go to reach financial stability.
Re: ““Smaller, less intrusive government.” Neither of the two big political parties is for less intrusive government, only for those programs they do not agree with. They are both intrusive, each in their own way. The Libertarians are attractive, but they go too far the other way, in my opinion. We need a blend of all three, a compromise solution.

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

Update no.533

Update from the Heartland

No.533

27.2.12 – 4.3.12

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

Last weekend, we had one of our grand-puppies with us. Jeanne asked, “Where does a not-yet-fully-grown, 120 pound mastiff sit?” Answer: anywhere he wants to sit. Ain’t he cute! Our grand-puppy Archie is such a big sweetie.

Jeanne and Archie

[file: Jeanne_Archie 120226.jpg]

The follow-up news items:
-- Governor Martin O'Malley of Maryland signed into law the state’s Civil Marriage Protection Act [House Bill 438], amending §§2–201 and 2–202 to allow same-sex marriage [532]. Maryland joins seven others and the District of Columbia in allowing same-sex marriages.

The Wall Street Journal reported that President Obama signed an executive order on 28.February.2012, that defies §1031, Subtitle D, Title X, Division A of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 [PL 112-081; 125 Stat. xxxx; 31.December.2011]. I have not found or read the order, yet. According to the WSJ report, the President’s order does not comply with the law signed a mere two months ago. The President has directly challenged Congress on the detention and potential prosecution of battlefield combatants in the War on Islamic Fascism. We have much to learn before we go too far with prognostications.

The Wall Street Journal also reported that the U.S. Treasury Department disrupted a Dubai-based banking operation, believed to be the primary conduit by which the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) evaded the international sanctions and processed its oil sales. The object of the operation was the Noor Islamic Bank, which is partly owned by the Dubai government. The bank’s chairman is Ahmed bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, son of Dubai's ruler, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. Needless to say, the sensitivity and importance of the operations would be difficult to over state. The Journal article reported that the bank handled as much as 60% of the IRI’s foreign oil sales by late last year. The work of the War on Islamic Fascism continues.

The State Department announced a “deal” with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, AKA North Korea) to stop long-range missile launches, nuclear tests and uranium enrichment at its main facility, in exchange for U.S. food aid. We shall see soon enough whether Kim Jung Un will be different and more progressive than his father and grandfather.

Virtually every day during the silly season, we are bombarded by nonsense that is politically and intentionally biased in the grand scheme of Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels. A friend sent this video for my assessment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=HcBaSP31Be8&vg=medium
I receive a lot of these from both sides of the aisle. Rarely do the political antagonists give us enough of a thread to grab a hold of for examination. The video did not offer citations, so corroboration was not easy. I started with the very first statement:
Page 22: “MANDATES The Government WILL audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS who self insure.”
The subject of the video “exposé” is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) [PL 111-148; 124 Stat. 119; 23.March.2010] [432]. The video did not offer associated citations, only implied references. My source is the United States Statutes at Large – Public Laws, Volume 124 (2010), the official public document of U.S. common law. I do not know what the authors of the video used. Doing the best I could, page 22 is actually 124 Stat. 141: Subtitle B – Immediate Actions to Preserve and Expand Coverage; §1101 – Immediate Access to Insurance for Uninsured Individuals with a Preexisting Condition (42 USC 18001). I am sure it cannot be a surprise that there is not one word about mandates, audits, self-insured, nothing that even remotely resembles the statement reported to be on page 22. So, I searched the entire document for the association of those words; no joy – not a good start. So, I moved to the second statement.
Page 29, Lines 4-16: “HEALTHCARE RATIONING – You can only receive so much ‘care’ per year, $5,000 per single, $10,000 per family.”
Page 29 is 124 Stat. 148: §1104. Administrative Simplification (pages 146-154 [pages 27-36]. On that page, there is not one mention of dollars or even numbers of any kind. So, I searched the entire document for $5,000. There were four (4) citations of $5,000; each one dealt with penalties for violations of the law, not rationing or allocation of health care. I imagine, as is often the case, the author took an unreasonably generous interpretation of some unspecified section of the PPACA law.
Two searches took enough of my time. My results are sufficient to portray the subject video for what it is, a clever, implied-authentic, little ditty crafted and intended to play to the emotions of those citizens who are not likely to check the facts. Goebbels would be proud. ‘Nuf said! Let the citizen beware.

1:
“God and Caesar in America – Why Mixing Religion and Politics Is Bad for Both”
by David E. Campbell and Robert D. Putnam
Foreign Affairs
Published: March/April 2012
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137100/david-e-campbell-and-robert-d-putnam/god-and-caesar-in-america
2:
“Failure to communicate across the God gap”
by Cal Thomas
Tribune Media Services
Wichita Eagle
Published: Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2012, at 5:23 p.m
http://www.kansas.com/2012/02/29/2234509/failure-to-communicate-across.html
3:
“The War on Fertility – The left's birth-control fixation is about more than sexual freedom”
by James Taranto
Wall Street Journal

Published: March 2, 2012 -- 8:24 p.m. EST
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203753704577257554162590884.html
The disgusting Rush Limbaugh fiasco swirling around his “slut” – “prostitute” broadcast condemnation of the congressional testimony of Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke along with the Thomas and Taranto opinions above, sparked my fat fingers to pound these little keys. As I have written previously and will continue to write, I appreciate the concerns and arguments. I also respect the opinions of others with whom I disagree. What I absolutely refuse to condone, accept or tolerate is the imposition upon all citizens by a willful, tyrannical majority or influential minority. This whole “God gap,” “war on religion,” “culture war” nonsense has nothing to do with the soul of America, or the sanctity of marriage and the American family. This is solely, purely and simply about power and control. They are desperately defending the walls of THE BOX of the American Dream – conform or else. The sanctimonious hypocrisy remains intellectually repulsive to me. They argue the social issues from what they perceive to be righteous high-ground, while they advocate diametrically opposite states; they want the government out of health care at the very same time they demand the government control a woman’s uterus and reproductive physiology. They emphatically believe anyone who does not believe that they do is immoral, anti-religious, anti-God atheists. To me, the only difference between the moral projectionists in this Grand Republic and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan is violence; they have not resorted to violence to enforce their moral values . . . oh wait, I guess they have – assassinations, bombings, terrorist intimidation; maybe they are not as different as I thought. We simply must get government and the moral projectionists out of our bodies, our bedrooms, our families, and out of our homes. The law should, nay must, focus on public conduct, and we must repeal all these damnable laws that attempt to regulate private behavior. There is no culture clash, or gap, or morality war. Let us all illuminate this nonsense for what it is – a frantic effort to impose their choices on everyone else.

Another court case from my Reading file . . . On 16.July.1944, defense plant worker Irene Morgan (Kirkaldy), then a 27-year-old woman, was arrested in Virginia for failure to comply with §4097 of the Virginia Code of 1942. Her crime you ask? She had dark skin pigmentation! On a crowded bus, while trying to return to her Baltimore home, she refused to give up her seat for a boarding couple with light skin pigmentation. Her conviction worked its way through the state courts up the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Morgan appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court – Morgan v. Virginia [328 U.S. 373 (1946)] – not on Equal Protection grounds but rather under the Commerce Clause. Associate Justice Stanley Forman Reed wrote for the majority and concluded, “As there is no federal act dealing with the separation of races in interstate transportation, we must decide the validity of this Virginia statute on the challenge that it interferes with commerce, as a matter of balance between the exercise of the local police power and the need for national uniformity in the regulations for interstate travel. It seems clear to us that seating arrangements for the different races in interstate motor travel require a single, uniform rule to promote and protect national travel. Consequently, we hold the Virginia statute in controversy invalid.” I learned an interesting little factoid from my reading. The Court noted the ambiguity of an essential definition in the Virginia statute. How does one define “colored” under the law? Well, footnote 28 illuminated the answer. The Virginia Code of 1887, §49, defined “colored” as any person who had one-fourth or more Negro blood. The definition was amended in 1910 (Acts, 1910, p. 581) to read one-sixteenth or more, and amended again in 1930 (Acts, 1930, p. 97), to its form at the time of the case, to “any ascertainable Negro blood.” The Court was not particularly concerned about the ethics of the definition, only its relevance to the Virginia state statute. We look back today with embarrassed incredulity. Yet, I wonder, how did those learned men rationalize such arbitrariness and outright scientific nonsense? Negro blood? Really? “Ascertain” by what means? I defy anyone to quantitatively determine and ascertain “Negro blood,” even with today’s technology. There is no such substance. Serological blood typing cannot establish the race or ethnicity of the donor. Regardless, worse yet, Associate Justice Harold Hitz Burton wrote a dissenting opinion, in which he attempted to validate the Virginia statute on simple grounds that such laws were the sole domain of the state’s and that no constitutional footing had been established. While the Court arrived at the correct judgment – the Virginia “Jim Crow” law was unconstitutional – they arrived at their decision for the wrong reasons. Justice Burton was the only member of the Supremes to note the 14th Amendment, Equal Protection implications; and, he was correct to question the wisdom and validity of striking down the state law under the Commerce Clause. Despite the Court’s decision, segregated Southern states ignored the Court and the Federal Executive failed to enforce it. Taken in the main, the Morgan ruling graphically demonstrates the difficulty with the law or any grouping of words. The judicial ruminations focused on the relationship between the states and the Federal government. Irene Morgan is not mentioned by name in the entire pronouncement (except by her familial name in the title). The insult and violation of her dignity was immaterial, only the authority of the Federal Judiciary was in question. The Morgan case is an excellent example of why understanding the law and the interpretation of the law is so bloody important. There but for the Grace of God go I!

News from the economic front:
-- The European Central Bank (ECB) issued €529.5B (US$712.8B) in low interest, three-year loans to 800 lenders, in the bank’s effort to truncate the financial crisis now entering its third year, as banks struggle to pay off maturing debts, and also to mitigate a sharp pullback in bank lending to customers across the Euro Zone. This latest round comes behind €489B of similar loans dispersed to more than 500 banks in late December. We are not out of the woods, yet.

Comments and contributions from Update no.532:
Comment to the Blog:
“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.”
My response to the Blog:
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 a 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 private 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.

Another contribution:
“There are a couple of targets that even we would have a hard time destroying, actually (we aren't going nuclear) .
“And the Busher reactor is essentially off limits- the Israelis have even alluded to that- as hitting an operating nuclear reactor could spread radiation throughout the region- to friendly countries (think Fukushima). That is why the Israelis were so concerned about it being loaded with fuel and going operational. Once it went operational, it became a non-target realistically
“Hoss Cartwright and Fox Fallon were both very negative on the chances to destroy the Iranian program- both in the meeting and chatting afterwards. Hoss emphasized the heavy costs of a strike- either Isreali or both US and Israeli. The economic costs would be staggering- even if the Iranians couldn't bottle up the Strait of Hormuz for an extended time.
“Also, we have just implemented a very strict action against Iran-- sanctions on the national bank. That had never been done before and already the effects are being painfully felt- the rial has dropped to half its value against the dollar. The Iranians are having tough times importing food and other necessities. Stay tuned, was the message from both Carter and Fallon.
“Below are a couple of other comments- the first from Tom Ricks' column.
-------------------------------------------------------
“The worst possible thing to do is go to war with Iran. The key is the people -- and they are sick of the mullahs. Right now the pressure is working to separate the people from the regime. A limited strike would undercut all that.
“Also, any attack would cause us to maintain a heightened, more expensive defense posture, and give them moral standing to retaliate.
“So an attack is counter to all our long-term objectives. We are having more effect right now through economic pressure than ever before
“There is no doubt [that there is a huge divergence between U.S. interests and those of Israel]. We want to stop Israel from attacking so the issue is how to persuade Israel that we are serious about stopping Iran from having a weapon -- like a congressional finding that we will take all steps necessary to stop Iran. It means we will define red lines that can't be crossed.
“But the bottom line is, I don't know a single person in government, civilian or in uniform, who thinks it is in our national interest to go to war with Iran now.
“If we do go to war, it will not be small. Iran could reconstitute its nuclear program in maybe five years, but if we go after its abilities to project military power, we'd open a 15-year window.”
-------------------------------------
“Ephraim Halevy, the former head of Israel’s secret intelligence service, Mossad, has rightly argued that toppling Assad and weakening Hizbullah is a far more important and strategic opportunity for Israel today than a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Hizbullah has 50,000 rockets aimed at Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem. Syria has hundreds of SCUD missiles tipped with chemical warheads that could end up in Hizbullah’s hands.”

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