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 :-)
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 :-)
4 comments:
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.
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.
Calvin,
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.
Cheers,
Cap
James,
Thank you so kindly for your contributions to the public debate. The majesty of the English languages 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 vigor 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.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment