Update from the Heartland
No.539
9.4.12 – 15.4.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Well, it is rather unusual for our Saturday night excitement to make the national news, but so it is this week. We attended the wedding of the daughter of a close friend to a young man from the British Isles, specifically Devonshire – a delightful ceremony amid tornado warnings of epic proportion. Jeanne was a MOB Mate – Mother of the Bride Assistant. We managed to dodge several bullets during the afternoon and early evening. We even managed to get through the reception and an exceptional dinner, along with delightful speeches of tribute to the bride and groom. Unfortunately, before the cake was cut, the warning sirens blared. The blessing came in that only the bride & groom’s first dance had been completed, and I did not have to embarrass myself on the dance floor. We gathered in a windowless backroom and listened to the weather radio. A three-quarter-mile wide tornado was south of the city and headed our way. The projected path and rate gave us a window to get home to our dogs and our basement. We arrived safely, herded everyone to the basement, watched the weather radar, and called in the precise location to the MOB. The tornado passed through the southeast part of the city. The emergency services were still assessing the damage. The preliminary assessment put the tornado at an EF-3 level. The governor declared a State of Disaster in Kansas. The damage has been placed at US$280M so far.
The follow-up news items:
-- Florida State Special Prosecutor Angela B. Corey announced a charge of second-degree murder against George Zimmerman [537/8] in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman surrendered immediately and peacefully. He remains in custody at an undisclosed location without bond. Apparently, Corey has seen probable cause, and most likely she believes she can prove Zimmerman’s culpability beyond a reasonable doubt. So, the Martin-Zimmerman event shall have its day in court before a jury of peers. I trust the truth shall prevail. If Zimmerman did in fact murder Martin, then he deserves to suffer the full weight of the law and our condemnation. I want justice – equal justice under the law, not mob justice. Also, I do not want any retreat from the Stand Your Ground law in Florida (2011 Florida Statutes §776.012), or any other similar state law for that matter.
“Why Freedom Is Low On Obama's Agenda”
by Fred Hiatt
Washington Post
Published: April 9, 2012; Pg. 13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-lack-of-passion-in-supporting-freedom/2012/04/08/gIQAaXwd4S_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
Ya gotta love the logic . . . or lack of same. These days, anytime we disagree with someone, we accuse them of suppressing our freedom, or not being supportive of freedom. We shroud our opinions in the mantel of freedom. We declare our views, our opinions, our positions to be the only true acknowledgment of freedom. As I pointed out in last week’s Update [538], freedom is what I choose to do, and anyone who disagrees with me is trying to oppress me and deny my freedom. Freedom is not some selective state or tool. We are either free or not. Needless to say, I strongly disagree with Hiatt. Just as he lists some of those events he claims are not supporting freedom, we can list a comparable set of events where President Obama has risked a lot to encourage freedom. President Obama is looking better with each such attempt to discredit him. I wonder if folks like Fred Hiatt think we are blind, deaf or stupid, or all of the above.
A worthy topic for public debate, although I prefer the term Death with Dignity rather than euthanasia:
“Why Do Americans Balk at Euthanasia Laws? – Why is euthanasia more controversial in the United States than, for instance, in the Netherlands? What would need to change before the U.S. would legalize physician-assisted suicide?”
New York Times
Published: April 10, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/10/why-do-americans-balk-at-euthanasia-laws/?nl=opinion&emc=edit_ty_20120411
. . . if we could only get this debate going. This issue is way too important to each and every human being as the day, the moment, inevitably comes to all of us, no matter how rich or poor, powerful or powerless.
The European Union (EU) established the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) in 1993, and opened the agency’s headquarters in Lisbon, Portugal, in 1995. An EMCDDA 2010 study illuminated the societal dilemma surrounding aging addicts – the so-called hippie addicts. To answer the challenge, Johan den Dulk founded a home called Woodstock on Engelenburgstraat, near the center of The Hague, Netherlands, that specializes in support for the unique group. The Woodstock home is the closest facility I am aware of, to the notional support facility I call “isolation camps” – probably not the most attractive name but that is their function. I do not support and do not recommend sending addicts to prison. I also believe there is no such thing as treatment for addicts or any other compulsive behavior; only the individual addict can decide he has had enough and needs to change his life. Until then, our objective should be to minimize or eliminate the collateral damage the addict does to anyone who happens to enter his sphere of influence. At least den Dulk has the correct idea. I would divert the “war on drugs” funding to preventing the collateral damage of substance abuse. Let the addict feed his urges without hurting other citizens.
The second installment of George Will’s essay on the legalization of drugs [538]:
“Should the U.S. legalize hard drugs?”
by George F. Will
Washington Post
Published: April 11, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/should-the-us-legalize-hard-drugs/2012/04/11/gIQAX95QBT_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
As you will note, George states that 80% of illegal drugs are consumed by 20% of the user population. He also claims that conviction of a dealer for a US$200 drug transaction costs society US$100,000 for a three-year prison sentence. Again, what George (and others) fail to recognize or even acknowledge is the sheer power of the human spirit. An individual citizen who seeks the euphoria or oblivion of psychotropic substance consumption will do whatever is necessary to gain that objective. We spend incalculable resources on prohibition, enforcement, prevention and treatment; and, the reality is there is no hope of success, even with far more draconian enforcement. Why has it been so hard to appreciate the lessons and horrific consequences of alcohol prohibition nearly a century ago, and the direct one-for-one comparison to our lame attempt at prohibition of psychotropic substances? Why can’t we simply acknowledge and accept the free choice of a few other citizens to do with their lives as they wish? Why are we incapable to seeing or sensing the erosion of our precious Liberty all in the name of denying freedom of choice to other citizens. Once again, I am emphatically not for legalization as an end-state. Legalization without regulation might well yield chaos and prove worse than the disaster that is prohibition. When we end this prohibition, as we inevitably will, we must have regulated contents, dosage, packaging, warning, sales controls, et cetera. We must also have the means to isolate those who harm any other citizen. As stated before, I recommend camps where addicts can consume their drug of choice as they wish without the slightest concern for the source; they can consume to their heart’s content as long as they remain safely in the camp, out of harm’s way.
As I am fairly certain even the occasional reader of this humble forum recognizes, I would be considered a social liberal in most circles of debate, and I gladly accept the label. Truth be told, I consider myself more closely aligned with the social libertarian rather than liberal, but that is just quibbling. Every so often, there comes along an opinion that even causes me to balk. The first article attracted my attention more for the oddity of such a court ruling than anything else.
“Human Rights Ruling – German Incest Ban Upheld by European Court”
Der Spiegel
Published: 12.April.2012
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,827106,00.html
The article dealt with the case of Stübing v. Germany [ECHR no. 43547/08 (2012)]. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decided that the conviction of Patrick Stübing, 36, for consensual sexual intercourse with his sister (seven years younger), from 2001 to 2005 that produced four children, did not violate his fundamental right to privacy. It was not the ECHR decision that instigated me to take pen in hand, but rather an opinion article the following day that did the trick.
“Siblings Tied by Incest Don't Belong in the Courts”
by Daryl Lindsey
Der Spiegel
Published: 13.April.2012
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,827382,00.html
As noted, incest is predominately a moral crime – a condemnation by society. I struggle with the morality aspects of the crime – a presumptive generalization that ignores circumstances. There is also the genuine biological concern – the higher probability of genetic defects that weaken the gene pool rather than strengthen it. As noted in the articles, there is a broad assumption that incest is accompanied by abuse. My objection to such laws lies in the broad blanket thrown over so much of humanity as is so common with virtually all the morality laws. We must reform the law to focus on the legitimate public interest in the conduct at issue rather than our moral disapproval of the choices of other free citizens that do not affect the public domain.
The ECHR appears to have been very busy this week. They also issued their ruling in the case of Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom [ECHR nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09 and 67354/09 (2012)] – “Detention conditions and length of sentences of five alleged terrorists would not amount to ill-treatment if they were extradited to the USA.” Actually, the extradition order involved six alleged international terrorists – Babar Ahmad, Syed Tahla Ahsan, Haroon Rashid Aswat, Adel Abdul Bary, Khaled Al-Fawwaz, and Mustafa Kamal Mustafa (AKA Abu Hamza or Abu Hamza al-Masri). Most notable among the bunch is the Egyptian cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri, who has been indicted in the United States for various terrorism charges including material support to al-Qa’ida. They shall have their day in court to face U.S. justice.
News from the economic front:
-- The Wall Street Journal conducted and reported on an analysis of corporate financial reports that found cumulative sales, profits and employment last year among members of the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index exceeded the totals of 2007, before the recession and financial crisis. It seems big U.S. companies have emerged from the deepest recession since World War II more productive, more profitable, flush with cash and less burdened by debt. I would say that is about the best assessment of what I would expect for all companies; they arrive from the trauma and challenge of the Great Recession stronger, more competitive, and more viable for the future.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported on their monthly economic-forecasting survey that showed more economists are convinced the Federal Reserve won’t take further action to spur growth this year as the economy appears to be on firmer footing.
-- The PRC's GDP grew 8.1% for 1Q2012 against the same period, the previous year, expanding at its slowest pace since 1Q2009. The country’s GDP growth slowed from the 8.9% in 4Q2011.
Comments and contributions from Update no.538:
Comment to the Blog:
“I can only see Mr. Hodges’ ‘defence of Big Brother’ as a parody, not to be taken seriously.
“I have refrained from reading George Will’s work for many years due to my ongoing irritation with him. I read the article you linked. He still makes rash and self-serving assumptions, but the stronger irritant right now is that this entire column is a teaser for his ‘solution,’ to be presented in a subsequent column. He does not support legalization as far as I can see. He offers no solution at all within this column.
“I saw a Catholic Church official on TV yesterday attempting to explain why the Church’s institutional freedom involves limiting its employees’ freedom. That makes no sense to me, and it reminds me a little bit of the Citizens United decision in its insistence upon organizations being seen as equal to the individuals that create them. Nothing in the contraception issue limits Catholic officials, clergy, or individual Catholics in the practice of their beliefs in any way. That should settle that ‘freedom of religion’ issue.
“I see the STOCK Act as insufficient. You have pointed out that it makes a beginning, but what are the chances for future improvement?”
My reply to the Blog:
Re: Hodges. I sure hope you are correct.
Re: Will. We shall see regarding “his solution.” We have discussed a number of elements that I believe offer an amicable and stable solution to the incredible injury done by our faux-righteous, prohibition of prostitution, simply because the notion of sex professionals offends our sense of propriety and piousness.
Re: Catholic Church. You make a very good point. Thank you. The Catholic Church makes the choice to deny freedom to others all in the name of their freedom – an interesting but lame argument. If the Catholic Church is against contraception, birth control, abortion, homosexuality, or any other morality issue, let them prevail by the strength of their argument rather than by prohibition and retribution.
Re: Citizens United. The case has opened Pandora’s Box that will take years, if not generations, to close again.
Re: STOCK Act. I am confident the greed of some in Congress will overcome the minor annoyances of the STOCK Act. I doubt there will be any future improvements, until another few Senators and Representatives are exposed for benefitting from insider trading.
Another contribution:
“I hope the FBI monitors these guys as much as Neo-Nazis now patrolling streets
in Sanford.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/suited-booted-and-armed-unbelievable-audio-from-the-new-black-panthers/
My response:
I expect they are. Hate crimes are crimes based on irrational hatred no matter what the skin pigmentation of either perpetrator(s) or victim(s).
. . . round two:
“Tulsa: monitor, it is dovetailing Sanford for interesting timing. An item I ponder, is was there not black racism which was biased and did not care about the due process nor integrity of the criminal justice system when O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murdering his white wife? Was the criminal justice quality and integrity compromised (subverted?) due to political motives/pressure to tilt the outcome so there would be no redux of the LA Riots (à la mode Rodney King).”
. . . my response to round two:
Good point. I happened to be living and working in England during most of the trial. They broadcast the court proceedings live. I was gobsmacked to say the least at the jury’s rejection of the DNA evidence. In the wake of the Simpson verdict, I think they would have acquitted even if Simpson had been captured holding her head and the knife in each hand. As you suggest, the verdict may have been far more political than evidentiary. I feel the same forces at play in Sanford. They want Zimmerman’s head and they’ll not stop until they have it.
Congratulations to the Tulsa police for their prompt apprehension of the perpetrators alive. I trust justice will prevail, and they will feel the full weight of the law. However, lethal injection is too dignified a death for those animals. That was not an emotional act but rather pre-meditated murder of innocent people solely because of the pigmentation in their skin.
. . . round three:
“I'm hearing chatter the Tulsa shootings may have been some retaliation by the strange named perps Messrs. English and Watts, for some kind of killing of a father, by a black. But we know either way, it will be classified as a ‘hate crime’ and CNN will be doing 24/7 soon.
“Isn't every murder a ‘hate crime’ when one thinks about it. Why do the alphabet news agencies have to always classify it as ‘hate’ if color or sexual orientation is involved? Of course we know this comes from media handlers in BIG GOV that have been using forces not to actually improve race relations, but I believe to divide people on race, class and sexual orientation. It is working perfectly since Obama got in.
“If one wants to entertain a HATE CRIME, think of all the Asian merchants that had their sources to support their families-shops--burned to the ground during the LA RIOTS, by black people who daily wear the ‘victim’ label and can only think entitlement and retaliation against whitey.
“Recently a 20 something white lady was raped by 2 black perps, yet never did the media dare say she was the victim of a hate crime. Where were the bozos Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Piers Morgan?
“Sorry for my rant, but I can see where this entire Sanford and Tulsa stuff is trending.”
. . . my response to round three:
In the main, I share your opinion. However, the distinction under the law rests upon motivation. Did the murderer or rapist pick his victim(s) based on their status within a protected class, i.e., race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, et cetera. Sure, we could argue taking a life without cause demonstrates a fundamental hatred of life, of human beings, or of living creatures for that matter. John Allen Williams was an equal opportunity killer; he wanted to kill for the excitement of the process. I continue to contend that George Zimmerman’s fatal action was not driven by racism; he did not start with a murderous intent. Jake England was clearly driven by his racist hatred; retribution against race is not justifiable. The difference also rests in murder as a state crime, while a hate crime murder is a Federal offense.
I believe we would not have the distinction if we had not and did not have the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Brotherhood, the Black Panthers, et al. I do not defend crime of any color, but we have an ugly history that is very begrudgingly giving up its roots. We have had far too many Emmett Till’s, or Matthew Shepard’s, or James Byrd, Jr’s. All of those events occurred within my lifetime.
You raise a valid point. The law uses the term “protected class”; however, I will argue that by my definition, in your example of two rapists with dark skin pigmentation chose their victim simply because of light skin pigmentation, they were perpetrators of a hate crime. However, if they picked her as a convenient target of opportunity or due to a local provocation, then it would be simple rape, not a hate crime. In your example and by my definition, the law does not make that distinction because she was not within a protected class. It seems like a weak distinction, but again, I return to history.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
Well, it is rather unusual for our Saturday night excitement to make the national news, but so it is this week. We attended the wedding of the daughter of a close friend to a young man from the British Isles, specifically Devonshire – a delightful ceremony amid tornado warnings of epic proportion. Jeanne was a MOB Mate – Mother of the Bride Assistant. We managed to dodge several bullets during the afternoon and early evening. We even managed to get through the reception and an exceptional dinner, along with delightful speeches of tribute to the bride and groom. Unfortunately, before the cake was cut, the warning sirens blared. The blessing came in that only the bride & groom’s first dance had been completed, and I did not have to embarrass myself on the dance floor. We gathered in a windowless backroom and listened to the weather radio. A three-quarter-mile wide tornado was south of the city and headed our way. The projected path and rate gave us a window to get home to our dogs and our basement. We arrived safely, herded everyone to the basement, watched the weather radar, and called in the precise location to the MOB. The tornado passed through the southeast part of the city. The emergency services were still assessing the damage. The preliminary assessment put the tornado at an EF-3 level. The governor declared a State of Disaster in Kansas. The damage has been placed at US$280M so far.
The follow-up news items:
-- Florida State Special Prosecutor Angela B. Corey announced a charge of second-degree murder against George Zimmerman [537/8] in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman surrendered immediately and peacefully. He remains in custody at an undisclosed location without bond. Apparently, Corey has seen probable cause, and most likely she believes she can prove Zimmerman’s culpability beyond a reasonable doubt. So, the Martin-Zimmerman event shall have its day in court before a jury of peers. I trust the truth shall prevail. If Zimmerman did in fact murder Martin, then he deserves to suffer the full weight of the law and our condemnation. I want justice – equal justice under the law, not mob justice. Also, I do not want any retreat from the Stand Your Ground law in Florida (2011 Florida Statutes §776.012), or any other similar state law for that matter.
“Why Freedom Is Low On Obama's Agenda”
by Fred Hiatt
Washington Post
Published: April 9, 2012; Pg. 13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-lack-of-passion-in-supporting-freedom/2012/04/08/gIQAaXwd4S_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
Ya gotta love the logic . . . or lack of same. These days, anytime we disagree with someone, we accuse them of suppressing our freedom, or not being supportive of freedom. We shroud our opinions in the mantel of freedom. We declare our views, our opinions, our positions to be the only true acknowledgment of freedom. As I pointed out in last week’s Update [538], freedom is what I choose to do, and anyone who disagrees with me is trying to oppress me and deny my freedom. Freedom is not some selective state or tool. We are either free or not. Needless to say, I strongly disagree with Hiatt. Just as he lists some of those events he claims are not supporting freedom, we can list a comparable set of events where President Obama has risked a lot to encourage freedom. President Obama is looking better with each such attempt to discredit him. I wonder if folks like Fred Hiatt think we are blind, deaf or stupid, or all of the above.
A worthy topic for public debate, although I prefer the term Death with Dignity rather than euthanasia:
“Why Do Americans Balk at Euthanasia Laws? – Why is euthanasia more controversial in the United States than, for instance, in the Netherlands? What would need to change before the U.S. would legalize physician-assisted suicide?”
New York Times
Published: April 10, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/10/why-do-americans-balk-at-euthanasia-laws/?nl=opinion&emc=edit_ty_20120411
. . . if we could only get this debate going. This issue is way too important to each and every human being as the day, the moment, inevitably comes to all of us, no matter how rich or poor, powerful or powerless.
The European Union (EU) established the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) in 1993, and opened the agency’s headquarters in Lisbon, Portugal, in 1995. An EMCDDA 2010 study illuminated the societal dilemma surrounding aging addicts – the so-called hippie addicts. To answer the challenge, Johan den Dulk founded a home called Woodstock on Engelenburgstraat, near the center of The Hague, Netherlands, that specializes in support for the unique group. The Woodstock home is the closest facility I am aware of, to the notional support facility I call “isolation camps” – probably not the most attractive name but that is their function. I do not support and do not recommend sending addicts to prison. I also believe there is no such thing as treatment for addicts or any other compulsive behavior; only the individual addict can decide he has had enough and needs to change his life. Until then, our objective should be to minimize or eliminate the collateral damage the addict does to anyone who happens to enter his sphere of influence. At least den Dulk has the correct idea. I would divert the “war on drugs” funding to preventing the collateral damage of substance abuse. Let the addict feed his urges without hurting other citizens.
The second installment of George Will’s essay on the legalization of drugs [538]:
“Should the U.S. legalize hard drugs?”
by George F. Will
Washington Post
Published: April 11, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/should-the-us-legalize-hard-drugs/2012/04/11/gIQAX95QBT_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
As you will note, George states that 80% of illegal drugs are consumed by 20% of the user population. He also claims that conviction of a dealer for a US$200 drug transaction costs society US$100,000 for a three-year prison sentence. Again, what George (and others) fail to recognize or even acknowledge is the sheer power of the human spirit. An individual citizen who seeks the euphoria or oblivion of psychotropic substance consumption will do whatever is necessary to gain that objective. We spend incalculable resources on prohibition, enforcement, prevention and treatment; and, the reality is there is no hope of success, even with far more draconian enforcement. Why has it been so hard to appreciate the lessons and horrific consequences of alcohol prohibition nearly a century ago, and the direct one-for-one comparison to our lame attempt at prohibition of psychotropic substances? Why can’t we simply acknowledge and accept the free choice of a few other citizens to do with their lives as they wish? Why are we incapable to seeing or sensing the erosion of our precious Liberty all in the name of denying freedom of choice to other citizens. Once again, I am emphatically not for legalization as an end-state. Legalization without regulation might well yield chaos and prove worse than the disaster that is prohibition. When we end this prohibition, as we inevitably will, we must have regulated contents, dosage, packaging, warning, sales controls, et cetera. We must also have the means to isolate those who harm any other citizen. As stated before, I recommend camps where addicts can consume their drug of choice as they wish without the slightest concern for the source; they can consume to their heart’s content as long as they remain safely in the camp, out of harm’s way.
As I am fairly certain even the occasional reader of this humble forum recognizes, I would be considered a social liberal in most circles of debate, and I gladly accept the label. Truth be told, I consider myself more closely aligned with the social libertarian rather than liberal, but that is just quibbling. Every so often, there comes along an opinion that even causes me to balk. The first article attracted my attention more for the oddity of such a court ruling than anything else.
“Human Rights Ruling – German Incest Ban Upheld by European Court”
Der Spiegel
Published: 12.April.2012
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,827106,00.html
The article dealt with the case of Stübing v. Germany [ECHR no. 43547/08 (2012)]. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decided that the conviction of Patrick Stübing, 36, for consensual sexual intercourse with his sister (seven years younger), from 2001 to 2005 that produced four children, did not violate his fundamental right to privacy. It was not the ECHR decision that instigated me to take pen in hand, but rather an opinion article the following day that did the trick.
“Siblings Tied by Incest Don't Belong in the Courts”
by Daryl Lindsey
Der Spiegel
Published: 13.April.2012
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,827382,00.html
As noted, incest is predominately a moral crime – a condemnation by society. I struggle with the morality aspects of the crime – a presumptive generalization that ignores circumstances. There is also the genuine biological concern – the higher probability of genetic defects that weaken the gene pool rather than strengthen it. As noted in the articles, there is a broad assumption that incest is accompanied by abuse. My objection to such laws lies in the broad blanket thrown over so much of humanity as is so common with virtually all the morality laws. We must reform the law to focus on the legitimate public interest in the conduct at issue rather than our moral disapproval of the choices of other free citizens that do not affect the public domain.
The ECHR appears to have been very busy this week. They also issued their ruling in the case of Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom [ECHR nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09 and 67354/09 (2012)] – “Detention conditions and length of sentences of five alleged terrorists would not amount to ill-treatment if they were extradited to the USA.” Actually, the extradition order involved six alleged international terrorists – Babar Ahmad, Syed Tahla Ahsan, Haroon Rashid Aswat, Adel Abdul Bary, Khaled Al-Fawwaz, and Mustafa Kamal Mustafa (AKA Abu Hamza or Abu Hamza al-Masri). Most notable among the bunch is the Egyptian cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri, who has been indicted in the United States for various terrorism charges including material support to al-Qa’ida. They shall have their day in court to face U.S. justice.
News from the economic front:
-- The Wall Street Journal conducted and reported on an analysis of corporate financial reports that found cumulative sales, profits and employment last year among members of the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index exceeded the totals of 2007, before the recession and financial crisis. It seems big U.S. companies have emerged from the deepest recession since World War II more productive, more profitable, flush with cash and less burdened by debt. I would say that is about the best assessment of what I would expect for all companies; they arrive from the trauma and challenge of the Great Recession stronger, more competitive, and more viable for the future.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported on their monthly economic-forecasting survey that showed more economists are convinced the Federal Reserve won’t take further action to spur growth this year as the economy appears to be on firmer footing.
-- The PRC's GDP grew 8.1% for 1Q2012 against the same period, the previous year, expanding at its slowest pace since 1Q2009. The country’s GDP growth slowed from the 8.9% in 4Q2011.
Comments and contributions from Update no.538:
Comment to the Blog:
“I can only see Mr. Hodges’ ‘defence of Big Brother’ as a parody, not to be taken seriously.
“I have refrained from reading George Will’s work for many years due to my ongoing irritation with him. I read the article you linked. He still makes rash and self-serving assumptions, but the stronger irritant right now is that this entire column is a teaser for his ‘solution,’ to be presented in a subsequent column. He does not support legalization as far as I can see. He offers no solution at all within this column.
“I saw a Catholic Church official on TV yesterday attempting to explain why the Church’s institutional freedom involves limiting its employees’ freedom. That makes no sense to me, and it reminds me a little bit of the Citizens United decision in its insistence upon organizations being seen as equal to the individuals that create them. Nothing in the contraception issue limits Catholic officials, clergy, or individual Catholics in the practice of their beliefs in any way. That should settle that ‘freedom of religion’ issue.
“I see the STOCK Act as insufficient. You have pointed out that it makes a beginning, but what are the chances for future improvement?”
My reply to the Blog:
Re: Hodges. I sure hope you are correct.
Re: Will. We shall see regarding “his solution.” We have discussed a number of elements that I believe offer an amicable and stable solution to the incredible injury done by our faux-righteous, prohibition of prostitution, simply because the notion of sex professionals offends our sense of propriety and piousness.
Re: Catholic Church. You make a very good point. Thank you. The Catholic Church makes the choice to deny freedom to others all in the name of their freedom – an interesting but lame argument. If the Catholic Church is against contraception, birth control, abortion, homosexuality, or any other morality issue, let them prevail by the strength of their argument rather than by prohibition and retribution.
Re: Citizens United. The case has opened Pandora’s Box that will take years, if not generations, to close again.
Re: STOCK Act. I am confident the greed of some in Congress will overcome the minor annoyances of the STOCK Act. I doubt there will be any future improvements, until another few Senators and Representatives are exposed for benefitting from insider trading.
Another contribution:
“I hope the FBI monitors these guys as much as Neo-Nazis now patrolling streets
in Sanford.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/suited-booted-and-armed-unbelievable-audio-from-the-new-black-panthers/
My response:
I expect they are. Hate crimes are crimes based on irrational hatred no matter what the skin pigmentation of either perpetrator(s) or victim(s).
. . . round two:
“Tulsa: monitor, it is dovetailing Sanford for interesting timing. An item I ponder, is was there not black racism which was biased and did not care about the due process nor integrity of the criminal justice system when O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murdering his white wife? Was the criminal justice quality and integrity compromised (subverted?) due to political motives/pressure to tilt the outcome so there would be no redux of the LA Riots (à la mode Rodney King).”
. . . my response to round two:
Good point. I happened to be living and working in England during most of the trial. They broadcast the court proceedings live. I was gobsmacked to say the least at the jury’s rejection of the DNA evidence. In the wake of the Simpson verdict, I think they would have acquitted even if Simpson had been captured holding her head and the knife in each hand. As you suggest, the verdict may have been far more political than evidentiary. I feel the same forces at play in Sanford. They want Zimmerman’s head and they’ll not stop until they have it.
Congratulations to the Tulsa police for their prompt apprehension of the perpetrators alive. I trust justice will prevail, and they will feel the full weight of the law. However, lethal injection is too dignified a death for those animals. That was not an emotional act but rather pre-meditated murder of innocent people solely because of the pigmentation in their skin.
. . . round three:
“I'm hearing chatter the Tulsa shootings may have been some retaliation by the strange named perps Messrs. English and Watts, for some kind of killing of a father, by a black. But we know either way, it will be classified as a ‘hate crime’ and CNN will be doing 24/7 soon.
“Isn't every murder a ‘hate crime’ when one thinks about it. Why do the alphabet news agencies have to always classify it as ‘hate’ if color or sexual orientation is involved? Of course we know this comes from media handlers in BIG GOV that have been using forces not to actually improve race relations, but I believe to divide people on race, class and sexual orientation. It is working perfectly since Obama got in.
“If one wants to entertain a HATE CRIME, think of all the Asian merchants that had their sources to support their families-shops--burned to the ground during the LA RIOTS, by black people who daily wear the ‘victim’ label and can only think entitlement and retaliation against whitey.
“Recently a 20 something white lady was raped by 2 black perps, yet never did the media dare say she was the victim of a hate crime. Where were the bozos Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Piers Morgan?
“Sorry for my rant, but I can see where this entire Sanford and Tulsa stuff is trending.”
. . . my response to round three:
In the main, I share your opinion. However, the distinction under the law rests upon motivation. Did the murderer or rapist pick his victim(s) based on their status within a protected class, i.e., race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, et cetera. Sure, we could argue taking a life without cause demonstrates a fundamental hatred of life, of human beings, or of living creatures for that matter. John Allen Williams was an equal opportunity killer; he wanted to kill for the excitement of the process. I continue to contend that George Zimmerman’s fatal action was not driven by racism; he did not start with a murderous intent. Jake England was clearly driven by his racist hatred; retribution against race is not justifiable. The difference also rests in murder as a state crime, while a hate crime murder is a Federal offense.
I believe we would not have the distinction if we had not and did not have the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Brotherhood, the Black Panthers, et al. I do not defend crime of any color, but we have an ugly history that is very begrudgingly giving up its roots. We have had far too many Emmett Till’s, or Matthew Shepard’s, or James Byrd, Jr’s. All of those events occurred within my lifetime.
You raise a valid point. The law uses the term “protected class”; however, I will argue that by my definition, in your example of two rapists with dark skin pigmentation chose their victim simply because of light skin pigmentation, they were perpetrators of a hate crime. However, if they picked her as a convenient target of opportunity or due to a local provocation, then it would be simple rape, not a hate crime. In your example and by my definition, the law does not make that distinction because she was not within a protected class. It seems like a weak distinction, but again, I return to history.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
While I disagree with Mr. Hiatt’s notion that we should be insistently spreading American-style around the world over the objections of those we think should welcome it, he does share one point with me. He states that, “Regimes that spit on the rule of law at home may not be reliable partners in creating a rule of law across borders.” I have recently published an essay series on “Decay of the Rule of Law in America.” One of the results of our excusing law breaking in high officials and their collaborators is the hypocritical spectacle of Obama and his predecessors condemning that behavior in other countries even while they depend upon it to stay out of jail. Think of Ford’s pardon of Nixon, Daddy Bush’s conduct in the Iran-Contra scandal, Clinton and Sonny Bush’s telecom and other scandals. We have yet to find out what offenses Obama may have committed, but Attorney General Holder has stated (in different words but with clear meaning) that the Obama Administration does not prosecute criminals from prior administrations for fear they might be prosecuted for their own offenses in a future administration.
I believe you need to study addiction in far more depth before you make broad statements about it. So does George Will. His figure for the cost of prison is common and reasonably accurate. My guess would be that his 80:20 ratio for consumption would hold up for marijuana but probably not for other drugs. My issue with Mr. Will is that he draws completely unwarranted assumptions from his figures. I will note that he still makes no concrete proposal, although he has used up another essay pointing out the failures of the current attempt at Prohibition. This time he threw in a shot at medical marijuana. While these laws are no doubt abused due to the hypocrisy inherent in prohibition, a reasonable number and variety of studies have shown that marijuana can indeed have a genuine medical benefit.
Cap, you would be considered an oddity in most circles of debate. You support several progressive causes, but you also seem to believe that the military and the “intelligence” community should be allowed to do as they please in the name of the “war on terrorism.”
I could not tell exactly what in that second article on the incestuous German brother that brought you to the point of writing. The article seemed to give a fairly broad range of opinions. My opinion of incest is that society needs to undertake a very long and thorough examination of the subject. As you did, I also noted the assumptions of abuse, and the article does not point out that such assumptions arise in the absence of knowledge. We do know, however, that children of such unions have a higher chance of genetic illnesses. If we must regulate incest, perhaps such regulation should favor birth control rather than invade bedrooms.
Calvin,
Re: Rule of Law. An interesting premise! I am not one of those who claims or even suggests that American republican democracy is perfect. The rest is just opinion. I’ll let that stand. I am interested in reading your essay.
Re: addiction. I have thought about your statement and opinion since I read your contribution yesterday. Perhaps you are correct that I should study addiction “in far more depth,” but I think not. Frankly, I am not concerned about the addict or addiction; I’ve had too much direct experience. I respect the addict’s right to make choices regarding his “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness” and not interfere with his choices. My concern is solely to eliminate the collateral damage inflicted upon others by the addict’s obsession – everything from the crime it generates to the unconscionable intrusion and imposition upon our rights and freedom. In a free society, prohibition against private behavior rarely, if ever, works. We tried that with alcohol nearly a century ago with disastrous results. We have endured horrific consequences in the so-called “war on drugs.” We have tried to focus on the public effects of tobacco use rather than prohibition of private consumption – not entirely but close enough. We have made a somewhat lame attempt at dealing with the public consequences of alcohol abuse without trying to prohibit private consumption. It is public conduct and consequences that are my concern, which is precisely why I advocate for legalization and regulation of the morality “crimes” like prostitution, drugs, gambling, et cetera. Let us focus on public conduct. Let the individuals live their choices in peace . . . as long as they cause no harm to another living soul. I accept that my ideas and concepts may not be well-informed or thoroughly researched, but even the most casual observer can recognize that what we have been doing for the last 40 years is not working and will never work. At least I am trying to offer solutions, however lame they may be. I do not support elements of Will’s opinion, but at least he is talking about the topic.
Re: oddity. Indeed! Acknowledged! The impression regarding the military and Intelligence Community is incorrect. There are rules for everyone. We are asking our Intelligence Community and military to wage war successfully in the War on Islamic Fascism; they must have the necessary tools commensurate with the modern battlefield. I do not subscribe to the label “war on terrorism,” because terrorism is an instrument, like a gun, and a symptom; those tools do not cause men to do bad things; the fascism of a small segment of Islamic religious believers is the root cause of our present war. I simply want us to win the present war.
Re: incest. I am with you. I want a thorough, unemotional examination of an important topic that we want to pretend does not exist. Further, we use certain words in a far too broad and indiscriminate manner, which in turn produces unwarranted, destructive consequences. The Stübing case appears to be a most unusual outlier, but probably not unique. We have discussed the use of the word “abuse” many times, and I’m sure we shall discuss it many more times before we are done. Again, my point is we should focus on the public conduct, injury, consequences, and avoid the emotional content of broad, general, moral outrage. I just advocate that we talk, we learn, we find solutions for real public issues. The undeniable public issue is genetic consequences; beyond those. I also believe there is genuine injury to other people in such conduct. Let us focus properly and avoid generalized accusations that in themselves are destructive.
As always, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment