Update from the Heartland
No.562
17.9.12 – 23.9.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The U.S. Government acknowledged an al-Qa’ida affiliate
group might have carried out the assassination of Ambassador Stevens [561]. The investigation will continue for some time, I
suspect. In a rare and unusual
moment, Prime Minister Mustafa A.G. Abushagur of Libya publicly acknowledged
Ambassador Steven’s contribution and value to the freedom of the Libyan people
from the oppression of Colonel Mu’ammar al-Qaddafi. A large group of Libyans also stormed and burned the
headquarters of the local al-Qa’ida affiliate in Benghazi – Ansar al-Sharia, a
group led by a released Guantanamo detainee (how interesting). The voices of the moderate Muslims are
finally being heard. If for no
other reason, the Benghazi tragedy may serve a far larger purpose toward ending
the War on Islamic Fascism.
“Thomas concedes
that ‘we the people’ didn’t include blacks”
by Robert Barnes
Washington Post
Published: September 16
Barnes opened his article with:
“It is true, Justice Clarence
Thomas acknowledged the other night, that the “we the people” extolled in the
Constitution 225 years ago did not include people who looked like him.
“But the Declaration of
Independence did, he contended, and that was something that a black kid growing
up in Savannah, Ga., was told early on.”
Justice Thomas was reflecting upon the dichotomy of what he
was taught in the segregated South versus the reality of what he lived. Yet, his ruminations regarding
childhood contradictions also reflect upon the pit that strict constructionists
like Thomas create for themselves.
Of course, he is correct about the Constitution at the time of its
creation and ratification, but his childhood rationalization was wrong. The standard of the day embodied in the
phrases “[A]ll men are created equal” and “We, the People” was understood to
mean only adult, Caucasian, Protestant, freeholders, i.e., white males who
owned at least 40 schillings worth of land and professed belief in the
Protestant Christian faith only.
All others were excluded by definition. Perhaps I am alone, but that does not sound like the
principles this Grand Republic has come to represent. In that time and by those standards, women and children were
considered property – the possessions of the husband / father. Further, in nearly half the original
states, adult males with dark skin pigmentation were simple property like a
horse or plow.
Since
those revolutionary and founding days, we have understood and accepted the
principles espoused by the Founders / Framers to mean all citizens in good
standing regardless of the social factors – age (beyond the legal age of
consent, i.e., adult), gender, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, disability or
sexual orientation (although this factor is still in work), as there is no
rational basis for the more restrictive interpretation consistent with the
spirit of the law. The strict
constructionists would argue . . . yes, but, the Constitution has been amended
to eliminate skin pigmentation as a criterion for discrimination and implicitly
neutralized the Federal government with respect to religion; however, none of
the other social factors are included, thus they are not covered by the
Constitution, only common law.
With that argument, there is no equality for all men, let along all
human beings.
This
debate is very much a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too sorta argument. I think Clarence’s childhood
rationalization was quite appropriate in that the meaning of “men” and “We” was
the broader generic definition that illuminates the spirit of our Founding
documents, rather than the constrained, implicit meaning common to two
centuries ago. We are far more
noble and better for the wider interpretation, even if the Founders could not
see it at the time. I regret
deeply that young Clarence had to find meaning in the irrational discrimination
of his youth. The argument serves
the broader purpose of helping us understand and interpret the Constitution in
a contemporary context, not as it was restricted to a time 225 years past.
In the wake of
the Chicago teachers’ strike, Eugene Robinson offered an interesting opinion.
“Standing up for teachers”
by Eugene Robinson
Washington Post
Published: September 17, 2012
Actually, I agree
with Eugene. While there are
teachers who are not up to the task and challenges, teachers in general are not
the root cause of the travails before American education. Government is not the solution
either. Eugene got closer to the
root cause with his focus on poverty.
Yet, even he missed the real root cause – parents. I believe most of our traits are
imprinted within us by age five. Whether
a child seeks to bully other children, refuses to do his homework, and defies
his teacher’s instructions is determined by the standards of conduct taught and
set by the child’s parents at home.
With all due respect to Eugene Robinson, those parental teachings have
absolutely nothing to do with poverty or wealth, or urban or suburban, or east,
south, north or west. Yes, the
property value or per capita income within districts certainly determines the
funding available to schools, except as supplemented by the state or federal
governments; however, even those limitations can be overcome with
imagination. One day, we shall
recognize reality. None of us
wants others poking their heads into our private affairs and our families, yet
I would hope and expect my neighbors or our children’s teachers would tell us
when they were acting up or not performing properly. If we failed to correct their behavior, then progressively
stronger actions would be warranted.
Parents must be held accountable for the conduct of their children and
that accountability extends to the schools and playgrounds. Society must define and enforce
standards of parental performance and childhood conduct. The soceital expectation will raise the
standards of parental performance, and I expect will cause more folks to
consider the consequences before they procreate – intentionally or
unintentionally. Yes, teachers are
not the problem. Neither is poverty. Let us put responsibility and
accountability where it belongs.
A good, long-time friend insisted I illuminate a proposal to
solve the intractable intransigence of Congress and their idiotic political
parochialism. Warren Buffet
allegedly offered this proposal, although Snopes declares it MOSTLY FALSE,
which in turn suggests the author thought attaching Buffet’s name would somehow
add legitimacy. Nonetheless, as an
object of public debate, here we go:
*Congressional
Reform Act of 2012*
1. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and
receives no pay when they're out of office.
2. Congress (past, present &
future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social
Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security
system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be
used for any other purpose.
3. Congress can purchase their
own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
4. Congress will no longer vote
themselves a pay raise.
Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5. Congress loses their current
health care system and participates in the same health care system as the
American people.
6. Congress must equally abide by
all laws they impose on the American people.
7. All contracts with past and
present Congressmen/women are void effective 31.December.2012.
The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.
Congressmen/women made all these contracts for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen
legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to
work.
The proposal strikes resonance with many citizens for one
clear reason – it reflects dissatisfaction with Congress. I have written my opinion similar to
these suggestions, so I support most of the identified changes. However, such a change to Article I
would indeed require a constitutional amendment. There is no way on God’s little green earth Congress would
approve such an action. As a
representative democracy, there is no other option. While such adjustments to our representation are intriguing,
I believe the root cause of the corruption, partisanship and intransigence in
the federal government is the inordinate influence of money, used by
corporations and the wealthy to compromise the tax code, dilute regulations,
and influence justice. I do not
suggest negating the influence of money, just some degree of balance. I see money becoming quite like
taxation to the Founders, i.e., without money, we have NO representation. The Tea Party came into existence for
that very reason. The Supreme
Court has set the stage for the coming revolution. It is only a matter of time as We, the People, feel more and
more disenfranchised from the government intended to represent us, not just the
wealthy few.
News from
the economic front:
-- The Bank of Japan policy board decided to increase the
size of its asset purchase program (its primary tool for monetary easing amid
near-zero interest rates) to ¥80T (US$1.01T) from ¥70T, following similar steps
by the Federal Reserve [561]. The BoJ made the move to further ease
its monetary policy as it tries to tackle an export-sapping strong yen value, a
persistent deflation, and the impact of slowing global growth.
-- The Census Bureau reported the median annual household
income fell in 18 states in 2011 from a year earlier after adjusting for
inflation, and was flat in almost all the remaining states, with the drop
particularly steep in places where the economy has been hit hard by the housing
bust.
-- Minister of Finance Guido Mantega of Brazil has sharply criticized
the decision of the U.S. Federal Reserve [561]
to roll out more quantitative easing, claiming it would have little positive
economic effect for the U.S., but potentially drastic consequences for the rest
of the world, including reigniting the “currency wars”. Mantega also asserts there is
plenty of liquidity but no commitment to production. Unfortunately, Mantega fails to acknowledge the
extraordinary social, political and economic uncertainty that urges reticence to
engage that liquidity.
Comments and contributions from Update no.561:
“As I have opined before, Wow!
“Too much to address, but I am in general agreement with
almost all of your observations, remembering our early soft disagreements.
“One question:
why is my hard earned social security check, my contributions for which
were forced and do not compare with what I could have received by investing
them, called an "entitlement" along with various welfare programs that
use up even more of my continuing tax payments than my involuntary share of
interest on the national debt? I
resent the label, but maybe I'm just bitter. (Actually I'm thankful to be getting any of it back,
considering all the other broken promises of my government and my own miserable
record of investments, although I remain in favor of options for citizens
willing to invest some of their own money rather than be forced to pour all the
mandatory SS tax into the SS system.)
“Take your time; the answer may be complicated.”
My reply:
Re:
entitlements. LOL I know your question is a serious one,
however your sarcasm added the humor.
Entitlement is a misnomer in the context you offered. It is your money, and you were not
given a choice. Mandatory
“contribution” has been the law of the land since the Social Security Act (SSA) [PL
74-531; 49 Stat. 620; 14.August.1935] [546]
became law. Even those who did not
or do not contribute are eligible for minimum distributions, as originally
intended to protect Americans from destitution after their working years were
past. You make a very valid
point. The distribution from
Social Security is presumably a pay-out after retirement, but it is the
perceived guarantee established by SSA that generates the impression of
entitlement, i.e., the USG owes me this regardless of my contributions.
As
we have discussed previously, I could support self-investment just as I could
self-insurance for PPACA, as long as the individual waives or abandons any
future claim or request for assistance.
While such a proviso is intellectually justifiable, neither option is
realistic given our compassion for our fellow man. We do not want to watch an old, homeless man die of
starvation or lack of medical care.
While
I do not see disenrollment as a viable option, I would take a slightly
different tack. We need an
enforced law to prohibit Congress or the Executive from “borrowing” from the
various government trust funds like social security and the highway fund. Past raids are as much of the problem
as the bow wave of retiring baby boomers.
Comment to the Blog:
“I agree with your points about Charles Koch’s Wall Street
Journal article. You have taken a good look at the subject, but you treat Mr.
Koch as a sincere person. I would like to add another point. This discussion of
cronyism comes from a man whose family’s foundations have ‘given more than $100
million to conservative and libertarian policy and advocacy groups in the
United States (per Wikipedia).’ He participates in cronyism in a very large
way. This article is a red herring, which ignores that Mr. Koch’s fortune
derives from oil refining and is hypocritical in the extreme.
“I see attacks on embassies and diplomats as important and
scary acts. Diplomats are the key ingredient in harmonious relationships among
nations, and are therefore protected by international law in a big way. I also
agree that this particular attack was planned and coordinated to take advantage
of the unrest rather than being a part of the general anger fomented by radical
clerics. I cannot guess the exact details, but someone decided to target the
embassy rather than other symbols of the USA such as retailers, which have
received the wrath of the crowds in some other places.
“You make an important point that people accustomed to any
dictatorial form of national government cannot understand freedom of speech. We
may equally expect that they will not understand the delay and uncertainty of
bringing the perpetrators to justice or the lighter penalties.
“Your statement that Islam is ‘not matured’ applies to
everybody in the Middle East, not just Muslims. Christians and Jews have
participated in the same barbarous culture back into the mists of time. Even
the Romans could not keep order there.
“I rejoice that the IRS has awarded $104 million to a
whistle blower. I feel certain that they are well aware of the encouragement
that will provide to others ‘in the know’ about financial misdeeds who are
themselves very much motivated by money.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
Charles Koch. I surmise you are
not a fan. I am not so sure he is
being hypocritical. As you imply,
I suspect his oil business takes advantage of USG “allowances” as his
competitors do. I believe he is
advocating for a level playing field and removing USG involvement for all
companies including his own. I
could be wrong, but that is what I think.
Re:
diplomats. Well said and spot on,
which is precisely why al-Qa’ida and other Islamo-fascist groups use terror and
why they targeted Ambassador Stevens.
He was popular in Libya; highly regarded. Al-Qa’ida would prefer anarchy to allow their brand of strict
fundamentalism to become the dominant force.
Re:
justice. Again, well said and spot
on. ‘Nuf said.
Re:
Middle East. Excluding the 1948
partition and statehood fight, I’m not aware of Israel initiating any offensive
action to gain territory or subjugate people. The actions they have taken and the consequences have been
direct moves from invasion or provocation. Likewise, I am not aware of Christians acting in hegemonic
manner since the Crusades (1096-1291).
The British and French controlled most of the Middle East as a
consequence of World War I, but they relinquished control in 1948. So, to further this discussion, perhaps
we should tally-up Muslim aggression versus Christian aggression versus Jewish
aggression. I suspect such a tally
would be dramatically lopsided.
Re:
whistleblowers. Likewise, I
concur. I hope and trust that is
indeed the consequence of the reward.
There are many more bad men in the financial realm who have not yet met
justice for their greed and wrongdoing.
There is hope.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
Mr. Justice Thomas is known around the Court mainly for saying nothing. Now we have a clue to the reason. He’s just not that bright. Beyond that, he may still be worried about someone following up on those conflicts of interest.
I find myself in agreement with Eugene Robinson. His central point, that teachers cannot fix all that is wrong with schools, stands for itself and should be obvious. I also agree with him that poverty is at minimum one of the underlying causes. Poverty in and of itself makes parents’ and children’s lives extremely stressful. I recommend you study that subject before you dismiss it so easily. Also, you set up a conflict for yourself when you insist on trying to change parenting and at the same time insist on the sanctity of actions taken in private. That amounts to wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
The “Congressional Reform Act of 2012” is strictly for amusement; it won’t be enacted ever. I see no reason not to negate the influence of money in our elections. Removing corporate subsidies from any of several industries could provide funding for honest election campaigns without allowing donations above a reasonable small amount, say $100. (That probably won’t happen either.) Making it easier for additional parties to achieve recognition and ballot space might make elections more competitive because someone would dare to offer what real people would want them to enact rather than the marketing BS we have now. I do not understand your statement that, “. . . without money we have NO representation.”
Median (not necessarily average) household income has been falling for a long time, as adjusted for inflation.
Calvin,
Re: Thomas. I believe you underestimate Justice Thomas. My focus on the article was his reflection on the dichotomy of his youth and the constraints of his jurisprudence. I do not agree with many of his judicial pronouncements, however I do respect him and his reasoning.
Re: teachers. I agree that teachers are not the problem, and I believe I said just that. Where I disagree with Robinson is significance of poverty on education. However, I needed to take farther to the root cause. We have discussed poverty many times, and I am certain we will many more times. I do not have the capacity to study poverty to the degree you imply. I am not dismissing poverty as a factor, but as with most things in life, our responses to events are driven by our attitude. If you believe you are downtrodden, then you act downtrodden. There are poor people who act in a very noble manner, as well as there are rich folks who act like trailer trash. Like the social constraints of The Box, our society has created the expectation of middle class lifestyle as normal, the standard, the objective for us all.
Re: reform. I believe that was my point as well. On your query, as the call for revolution 247 years ago – No taxation without representation – our call for revolution may well become “representation without money.”
Re: income. I sure feel like my income has fallen. And, we are not out of the woods, yet.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment