Update from the Heartland
No.546
28.5.12 – 3.6.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
This year’s high school futball season is over. Our oldest grandchild’s team was eliminated in the first round of the regional championship matches. However, Ms. Aspen Shae did receive Honorable Mention at her midfielder position for the 2012 All-League girls soccer team for Division III-IV, and she was just a freshman. We are all so very proud of Aspen. She will play league futball this fall to keep her skills up. We know she can go as far and as high as she wants. Watching her magic on the pitch is but just one of the many pleasures grandparents enjoy with their grandchildren. Thank you Aspen Shae for a great season. We look forward to many more.
This year’s high school futball season is over. Our oldest grandchild’s team was eliminated in the first round of the regional championship matches. However, Ms. Aspen Shae did receive Honorable Mention at her midfielder position for the 2012 All-League girls soccer team for Division III-IV, and she was just a freshman. We are all so very proud of Aspen. She will play league futball this fall to keep her skills up. We know she can go as far and as high as she wants. Watching her magic on the pitch is but just one of the many pleasures grandparents enjoy with their grandchildren. Thank you Aspen Shae for a great season. We look forward to many more.
The follow-up news items:
-- Well, it seems the jig is up for Julian Paul Assange [450]. Britain's Supreme Court affirmed Judge Riddle’s ruling for the extradition of Assange to Sweden – Sweden
v. Assange [2011] [480] – to
face sex-crimes allegations.
Assange could potentially appeal the decision to the European Court of
Human Rights (ECHR); however, legal experts suggest such a move is unlikely to
stop his extradition for long. I
imagine that as soon as Assange arrives in Sweden, the United States will issue
an extradition request for the WikiLeaks founder to face espionage charges.
-- The plight of Dr. Shakil Afridi [545] continues to occupy our attention.
» “Moral Fallout From A CIA Operation”
by David Ignatius
Washington Post
Published: May 30, 2012; pg. 15
I understand and support Heidi Larson’s reasoning; however,
war demands the use of unorthodox methods to wage war successfully. There is no debate regarding the
avoidance of such operations in peacetime. In this instance, I do not believe it was the CIA who
betrayed the public health initiative, but rather the idiot who divulged Dr.
Afridi’s contribution to Operation NEPTUNE’S SPEAR [490, 503].
-- The issue of presidential authority has been with us
since the founding of this Grand Republic. Modern technology has amplified the question, especially
after the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaqi [511].
» “Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles
and Will”
by Jo Becker and Scott Shane
New York Times
Published: May 29, 2012
» “Too Much Power For A President”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: May 31, 2012
All freedom-loving people share the apprehension of any
president having the authority to kill an American citizen on command, without
due process of law. Targeted
killing during war is not without precedent. On 14.April.1943, Fleet Radio Unit Pacific intercepted
message NTF131755 as part of the Magic program. The Magic decryption team learned of Admiral Yamamoto’s
itinerary for a frontline visit to Bouganville Island. The next day, President Roosevelt
personally approved Operation VENGEANCE, to intercept and kill the
Imperial Japanese leader. Early in
the morning of 18.April.1943, 18 P-38G Lightning fighters of 339th
Fighter Squadron took off from Henderson Field on Guadalcanal and flew
low-level, 435 miles each way. At 09:35
[K], the two flights met as the two G4M Betty bomber-transports with their six
A6M Zero fighters descended to Ballale Aerodrome. The Lightnings dropped their external fuel tanks. One flight went directly for the
bombers, while the remainder of the squadron engaged the fighter escort. In 10 seconds of aerial combat, Admiral
Isoroku Yamamoto was dead. I do
not see much difference between the Yamamoto and al-Awlaqi missions, except on
American pilot was lost in the former.
Let us not get too moralistic in war.
-- Then, we have an opinion regarding the real problem
regarding crucial national security leaks [528].
» “National-security leaks must be plugged”
by Dan Coats, Richard Burr and Marco Rubio [U.S. Senators]
Washington Post
Published: May 31, 2012
It would be easier to agree completely with this opinion if
the authors had recognized reality.
These leaks of sensitive national security information have been going
on at least since the Johnson administration, as my memory recalls. Some of the leaks come from disgruntled
federal employees, e.g., Daniel Ellsberg, to ridiculous faux pas or inadvertent
missteps, e.g., White House Press Secretary’s ebullient overstep after the bin
Laden raid. No matter what the
reason and whatever administration, disclosure of national security information
in wartime is criminal, verging on treasonous.
-- This week, we celebrate the extraordinary accomplishments
of Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) [545]. They launched
their unmanned Dragon capsule on a historic nine-day voyage, docked with the
International Space Station (ISS), delivered cargo, retrieved rubbish, and
recovered the vehicle in the Pacific Ocean off the Southern California coast.
The first private spacecraft to visit the ISS brought the dawn of commercial
space travel. And so it begins.
Every so often, I am stunned, staggered and disappointed by
the paucity of vision, foresight, understanding and insight of supposed,
learned men. Here we have one such
event.
“Our Imbecilic Constitution”
by Sanford Levinson
by Sanford Levinson
New York Times
Published: May 28, 2012; 8:36 pm
Before I start on what is wrong with his opinion, I must say
we share clear frustration with the intransigence of Congress, or in a generous
moment, with the four branches of government, as he says – the House of
Representatives, the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court. That sliver of agreement aside, Sanford
appears to have little, if any, appreciation for the history of this Grand
Republic or a reflection of that history in contemporary affairs. Our ancestors made the perilous journey
to the New World in hopes of escaping the tyranny of royal prerogative, the
dicta of religious persecution, and the incessant violence of parochial sectarianism. The Founders rebelled against the subjugation
of the Old World. The Framers
sought codification of protections against the maladies they left behind, and
they wanted to solidify freedom for all citizens as equals under the law. Sure, we can all admit that our
ancestors fell short of the ideal, and we are still struggling to realize the
objective of our forefathers. It
is in the brilliant illumination of this history that I find Sanford’s
conclusion so bloody disturbing. He
wrote, “What was truly admirable about the framers was their willingness to
critique, indeed junk, the Articles of Confederation. One need not believe that
the Constitution of 1787 should be discarded in quite the same way to accept
that we are long overdue for a serious discussion about its own role in
creating the depressed (and depressing) state of American politics.” The Articles lasted six years. Shay’s Rebellion (1787) highlighted the
fundamental flaws of the Confederation.
The Constitution has withstood the trials and traumas of growth and maturation
for 225 years. Even the
Constitution has its flaws, e.g., Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 [542]. The document has been amended 27 times with numerous other
failed attempts. Despite its
flaws, I am gobsmacked at Sanford’s suggestion and opinion. Given our fractious, dysfunctional,
deeply partisan political factions, throwing out the Constitution would
unstitch the very fabric of this Grand Republic. To me, when Sanford says he wants to discard the
Constitution, he is actually saying he wants to dissolve the Union and all of
us go our separate ways . . . kinda like anarchy. No thank you! I
will stay with the tried and true.
New York City Mayor Michael Rubens Bloomberg seeks a far-reaching
ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie
theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet to combat rising
obesity. The restriction would
cover the sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid
ounces, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. There are no laws or legal obstacles to
these nonsense nanny-state laws.
The only bulwark against these transgressions upon our freedom of choice
is our voice – our votes. Most of
us will say so what – “What me worry!”
After all, I rarely drink these drinks and even more rarely drink them
in that size. As long as the
government believes they know what is best for all citizens, they will continue
to whittle away at our freedom of choice.
This nanny-state nonsense must stop.
“Dissent Over War Isn't Disrespecting The Troops”
by David Sirota
San Francisco
Chronicle
Published: June 1, 2012; pg. 12
Oddly enough, I agree with David. Yet, it is not the dissent, rather the methods and
objectives of dissent that truly matter.
Dissent that endangers troops engaged on the field of battle simply well
never be acceptable. The key is to
disagree with respect for each other.
A recent Supreme Court ruling gave us a graphic
demonstration regarding the velocity of the law in the context of complex
contemporary society. In this
instance, the issue is posthumously conceived children. In 1999, Karen Kuttner married Robert
Capato. Just a few months after
their marriage, doctors diagnosed Robert’s esophageal cancer. The Capatos wanted children and feared
the potential for Robert’s sterility once his treatment began. Prior to initiating chemotherapy,
Robert made multiple semen deposits in a sperm bank, just in case. As his body responded positively to the
treatment, the couple conceived naturally and a son was born in 2001. Unfortunately, Robert’s remission was
short lived. His condition
worsened rapidly, and he passed in March 2002. Karen wanted siblings for her now fatherless son, chose to
use her deceased husband’s semen via in vitro insemination, and gave birth to
twins in 2003 – 18 months after her husband’s death. Then, Karen applied to the Social Security Administration
(SSA) on behalf of the twins for survivor’s benefits. The SSA rejected her claim, which became a legal case that
worked its way through the Judiciary to the Supreme Court – Astrue
v. Capato [565 U.S. ___ (2012); no. 11-159]. The Court’s ruling was unanimous and recognized the law as
it exists. As noted by the Court,
the controlling law is the Social Security Act Amendments of 1939 [PL
76-379; 53 Stat. 1360; 10.August.1939], which in turn utilizes state intestacy
law for the definition of “child” under the law. Karen and Robert lived in Florida and the twins were
conceived in Florida, thus Florida law prevailed. I understand and appreciate the law. There is a reason the Court reached a
unanimous opinion in this case. The
technology of contemporary procreation vastly exceeds the natural process reinforced
by the laws of 1935 / 1939. The
Federal law by design relies upon state intestacy laws. That may well be the law as interpreted
by the Supremes; however, where do we draw the line? Do we hold the execution of a deceased father’s last will
and testament until the last biologically associated child is born. Or, do we need some statute of
limitations beyond which any biologically associated children are considered no
longer associated under the law. My
acid test in such instances is to let the situation play out to an
extreme. What if a married couple
– an older man and much younger woman – stored up quarts of semen, and the
widow decided to conceive children for as long as she was physically able. Do those several dozen children all
have entitlement to Social Security survivor benefits? If we expand the application to
biological children, the potential is for hundreds or thousands of biological
children conceived years or decades after the “father’s” death. Simply, our laws have not adapted to
the brave new world of modern reproductive science and technology.
News from
the economic front:
-- The United States Labor Department issued the preliminary
employment report for May, with a net gain of only 69,000 jobs. The unemployment rate ticked up for the
first time in almost a year, to 8.2% from 8.1%. The disappointing employment numbers appear to reflect
mounting fears of a global slowdown.
Comments and contributions from Update no.545:
“Continue to enjoy and learn from your Updates.
“Relative to the Birth control/freedom of religion
issue. We should have ‘open debate’
like we had on the health care law before it was passed by the congress!”
My reply:
Our
system of government is not perfect – never has been, never will be. The degree of perfection is up to
us. Fortunately, we are free to
debate any topic we wish. Perhaps
if we had done more of it in the days prior to PPACA, we might have a different
outcome. The Supremes are due to
render their opinion next month.
Until then, what would you like to discuss / debate? Over to you . . .
Comment to the Blog:
“That Secret Service agents use prostitutes ought not to
surprise anyone. That the use was organized and sanctioned by supervisors, as
it appears to have been, does surprise me. Why is not some standard of common
sense deployed in the hiring of the supervisors and the management of these
expeditions?
“In re the doctor who assisted American forces in Pakistan,
as nearly as I can tell from the Wikipedia article on him, ‘Dr Afridi was
accused of having taken a half-dozen World Health Organization cooler boxes
without authorization. The containers are for inoculation campaigns, but no
immunization drives were underway in Abbottabad or the Khyber agency.’ Thirty
years does seem rather a stiff penalty for that. It surprises me that the US
forces involved did not provide any needed equipment given the unlimited
expense of everything else associated with finding bin Laden. I do not recall
who Jonathan Jay Pollard was beyond my vague association of him with spying, a
thoroughly unsavory business.
“I read that article by Mae Kuykendall on gay marriage. I
think she concerns herself a bit too much with ‘backlash,’ but her method would
eventually work. Obviously, though, waiting for that would take a very long
time. I don’t favor that long a process with an issue that we could resolve far
sooner. While I empathize with your disdain for Ms. Kuykendall’s focus on
high-level power struggles over the interests of individuals, it seems to me
that the people who can make changes usually focus on those power struggles. I
noted that you called her ‘Mae’ rather than your usual practice of using her
complete, formal name including any and all prior names.
“As we have discussed in the past, I have no sympathy to
waste on the Catholic Church or any other institution that seeks to control its
employees’ non-work-related decisions. That they try to abuse freedom of
religion in the name of controlling others just makes them hypocrites as well
as anti-democratic.
“Hiroshima and Nagasaki may well have been ‘warranted and
appropriate’; a final decision on that one will fall to more qualified and
interested historians than I. That was in 1945. In 2012, the people fighting
the USA show no interest in our nuclear deterrent. NATO has lost its relevance
as well. NATO was formed to oppose Russian communism, which fell in the late
1980s. NATO has yet to find a new mission.
“I will note here that Greece and the United States both
suffer from people not paying taxes, but in the United States the Congress has
mandated this whereas in Greece the issue is lack of enforcement. The IMF has
no sympathy for the Greeks, but then they have no sympathy for anyone.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
Secret Service. Agents of the
Secret Service are human beings, and thus flawed and susceptible to the same
weaknesses. The Secret Service has
high standards and trust in their agents.
What happened in Cartegena is not reflective of the whole organization.
Re:
Afridi. I’m not so sure the
Wikipedia information is accurate.
The Pakistanis called his contribution treason; they must be using a
rather liberal and broad definition.
I think the Pakistanis are making a much bigger statement to the United
States than on Afridi’s actions.
Unfortunately, he is paying a very heavy price.
Re:
Pollard. He provided highly
classified information to Israel.
Pollard’s actions were far closer to treason than Afridi.
Re:
Mae Kuykendall. She was the author
/ reporter, not the object of the topic.
Re:
Catholic Church. Spot on! There is an old saying, if you open the
birdcage and the bird flies away, he was never yours. Freedom is like that.
Fear and retribution are never successful methods in a free society.
Re:
nuclear weapons. Deterrence is
only one aspect of such devastating weapons. I simply urge us to take the broader view.
Re:
NATO. You may well be correct
regarding the organization’s future mission(s).
Re:
Greece. There are Americans who
attempt to avoid taxes. Wesley
Snipes comes to mind. At least the
IRS actively searches for and prosecutes tax cheats. The IMF is doing what must be done.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
I stand by my prior statement that a war on a concept (poverty, drugs, terrorism) is not a war but a cover for something else, usually the removal of civil rights that block the path of someone in power.
Please remember that those of us who came of age in the early 1970s learned the phrase “national security” from President Nixon’s abuse of it. We do not see that in the same way that others apparently do.
SpaceX has accomplished one mission once, on the second try. We have a long way to go before we see regular passenger or cargo service to the moon, or even into geosynchronous orbit, and many hazards await.
I did not bother reading that dimwitted attack on the Constitution. While I fear that attitude embodies the opinions of others who have more power, all the same I do not have the patience to follow the rantings of such cretins.
Mayor Bloomberg’s attempt to ban large sugar-sweetened beverages addresses a legitimate issue but in a seriously wrong-headed way. Prohibition has yet to work, whether its subject is alcohol, some other drug, or a behavior such as prostitution. I hope he will go back to the drawing board and find some other approach that has some chance of actually working.
I could not discern what the Supreme Court found in the in vitro fertilization case you described. I tend to pay less attention to possible extremes than you; what I look at is the potential changes new technology brings to the lives of large numbers of people. Whatever the decision, your point that the speed of the justice system lags far behind the rate of change in technology is valid and important. Now all we need is a workable solution.
Re your commenter: I doubt that “open debate” is appropriate on the rights of employees of Roman Catholic Church employees. The Bill of Rights very appropriately guards certain rights from the “tyranny of the majority,” and those rights should continue to be protected whether or not we agree with them. Thus, I support the right of the people at Westboro Baptist Church to spout their beliefs in any situation not damaging to others even though I find the people and beliefs ludicrous and disgusting. I see no reason others should be allowed to stop that so long as it does no harm to others and I see a real parallel to the Catholic Church’s attitude toward their employees’ use of birth control.
Calvin,
Re: war. Fundamentally, I do not contest your statement regarding “war on a concept.” So, is fascism a concept? If Islamo-facism or terrorism is a concept, then by definition, we must not be at war. If this has not been war, are you suggesting all the fighting, lost and damaged lives, and extraordinary expenditure of treasure have been subterfuge to sustain the power trip of some politician(s)? If so, who? And, how so?
Re: national security. Nixon had his positives, but he was hardly the standard of performance for a president.
Re: SpaceX. Wow, you’re pretty hard on ‘em. They did accomplish what no other company has been able to do . . . even if it was luck. Interplanetary travel has to start somewhere.
Re: dimwitted attack. Spot on, brother! Yet, it is always enlightening to maintain awareness of all arguments, even the dimwitted.
Re: prohibition. Spot on, again! Prohibition on private conduct that does not involve injury to person or property will never work in a free society. “Wrong-headed” indeed! It is a foolish public relations stunt at our expense.
Re: Astrue v. Capato. Perhaps I did not explain it well. I was more involved in the question of “posthumously conceived children,” rather than the findings of the Court. For the record, the Court rejected the Capato claim. The interesting aspect of the case was the principle behind the law. To me, the threshold for public burden must be the death of either biological progenitor. The same threshold should exist for state intestacy law, except as explicitly provided for in a lawful will (which is essentially private). Again, to me, sperm donation should never be totally anonymous for hereditary genetic reasons, but loses legal rights in either direction for a host of reasons, i.e., extracorporeal semen is a medical substance rather than a legal entity.
Re: religious v. individual rights. This question is quite similar to the secular State v. the individual. The current Church position is their right to impose (prohibit) private decisions or conduct exceed those of the individual (or the State as surrogate for the individual). Like you, I defend the fundamental right of the Phelps clan to spew their vitriol, just as the neo-Nazi free speech must be protected. The Catholic Church is no different. Yet, I struggle with where (or how) we should draw the line. Once again for me, the criterion is the demarcation between the public and private. Religion occupies a unique position in that they deal with private morality and conduct. Believers can and should freely choose to abide the dicta of the church (as long as they do not disobey the law). Birth control is a very private affair – NOT public. Therefore, the State has no direct, plausible interest beyond the indirect quality & efficacy of the material. The Church is the same; they have every right to condemn birth control, but their persuasion must be in their argument, not in prohibition.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment