Update from the Heartland
No.571
19.11.12 – 25.11.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
I trust everyone had an enjoyable celebration of
Thanksgiving. Happy Holidays.
Since we seem to be talking a lot about sex these days, here
is a relevant opinion piece juxtaposed against L’Affaire Petraeus
[569, 570] and the Sinclair case [570] with Rebecca Sinclair’s opinion [570].
“No sex? Permission
to speak freely, Sir.”
by Laura Cannon – Op-Ed
Washington Post
Published: November 23, 2012
Laura Cannon [USMA 2001] is a former Army officer and an Operation IRAQI
FREEDOM veteran, and is writing a memoir on her military service
titled “War Virgin.”
Interestingly, the first public comment on her opinion from “EuroAm,” at
7:44 AM CST, said, “10,000+ years of natural selection isn't going to be
circumvented by silly rules.”
Congress sets those “silly rules.”
I will not endorse the “silly” qualifier, but I will say Congress needs
to grow up and reform the rules that govern the military. Expecting soldiers to be celibate for a
year or more is simply unrealistic and I dare say inhuman. Adultery is not a proper rule for the
military (or anyone else), although “good order and discipline” is
essential. A more realistic and
modern set of rules is required.
For several decades, I have been on a quest to understand
why we have the laws we do with the societal rules that go beyond the law to
fill in the gaps, and how those laws and rules affect our lives. Freedom is a primary topic. Marriage is a subset of our freedom and
a contemporary, public, debate topic for a host of reasons. The Doctrine of Coverture has
controlled our expectations regarding marriage for centuries; the legal
principle was first articulated by Sir William Blackstone (1765), but can be
traced back millennia by custom and tradition. Further, at the birth of this Grand Republic, only
Caucasian, male, educated, Protestant, property owners held the full rights of
citizenship, and it was just accepted to be so, even in the context of the most
lofty proclamations “that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.” Under the law
of the day, when a woman married a man, she ceased to exist as a legal entity,
having cleaved unto her husband, abandoning her family name and taking his
family name, and becoming essentially his property. The beginnings of the temperance movement can be traced back
to at least 1826, when wives complained to their clergy about alcohol consuming
the capacity of their husbands to provide for their families. Other social prohibitions like
adultery, abandonment, and such were intended to protect wives, who were at the
mercy of their husbands. It
is in this context I was drawn to a Supreme Court ruling – Kirchberg v. Feenstra
[450 U.S. 455 (1981); no. 79-1388].
The case involved a Louisiana “head and master” statute. In 1974, Joan Feenstra filed a criminal
complaint against her husband, Harold Feenstra, charging him with molesting
their minor daughter. To pay for
his defense, Harold took a promissory note, secured by a mortgage on their
house without informing his wife or seeking her consent, using the state’s
“head and master” law [“Lord and master” laws in other states], which gave Harold
exclusive authority over their community property. Two years later, after their
divorce and settlement, Harold’s attorney Karl Kirchberg demanded payment of
the promissory note from Joan, or he would foreclose on her home. After the 5th Circuit’s ruling
against Kirchberg, Louisiana changed their community property laws, eliminating
the “head and master” provisions.
The unanimous Supremes affirmed the appeals court decision and declared
“head and master” laws an unconstitutional violation of the Equal Protection
Clause of the 14th
Amendment. When the
Equal Rights Amendment passed Congress in 1972 and was sent to the states for
ratification, I supported and voted for the constitutional change. By the 1982 expiry, 35 states ratified
the amendment with 38 states required.
At the time, I believed the amendment was justified and warranted, and I
had no idea “head and master” laws even existed. Those who voted against the change espoused their beliefs
the amendment was unnecessary and superfluous. In my humble opinion, we have yet to achieve the noble
ideals of the Founders – every citizen does not enjoy the full rights and
privileges of citizenship or equal protection under the law. We still have a long way to go to
achieve the Founders / Framers brilliant objective.
News from
the economic front:
--Moody's Investors Service downgraded France's government
bond rating by one notch to Aa1 from Aaa, with a negative outlook, while Standard
& Poor's Ratings Services confirmed AA+ rating France's debt and negative
outlook.
-- A U.S. District Court judge in New York ordered Argentina
to pay US$1.3B to hedge funds that refused to restructure their debts after the
country’s 2001 default when it makes regular payments to its restructured
bondholders in December. The
ruling challenges the principle of sovereign immunity against creditors that
has largely reigned in international law for almost a century, and raises the
possibility that Argentina will default once more.
Comments and contributions from Update no.570:
“Your Gen.
Petraeus piece most interesting, if not shocking in the extreme. I thought from
day one this must been a slow news day with the ensured media frenzy. Or are my
personal standards of morality effecting my judgement? However Brig Gen. Sinclair, we have
heard nothing of this case over here.
Now this sounds unbelievable serious, are they really throwing all those
charges at him? Surely they aren't all offences to be dealt with by a general
courts marshal? I will admit Cap, that at this point I am totally lost in the
masques involved here. Please more and simple explanations needed! Pleased to
hear about your PSA mate, bloody well done, keep taking the pills.”
My response:
Re:
L’Affaire Petraeus.
Shocking in the extreme, indeed!
We Americans have a strange, antiquated, historic sense of morality, and
we are consumed by opportunities to condemn those who do not live up to our
sense of morality. I do not know
what happened or what arrangements may have been in place (or not) between
Petraeus and Broadwell, or their respective spouses, and frankly, it is none of
my business or anyone else other than the individuals involved, but that does
not stop the Press or the majority of Americans focusing on the affair, rather
than national security (the only legitimate public concern that should have been
the point).
Re:
Sinclair. Yes, indeed, quite
serious. Sinclair is accused of
having extramarital affairs with serving women and contractor personnel. A long list of charges is common in
such cases. Normally, I would not
mention a case like Sinclair’s. It
was his wife Rebecca’s Op-Ed piece that instigated my opinion. In general, I say extramarital affairs
are private matters between wife and husband, and not an activity of state
interest. However, the military is
a unique environment. The good order
and discipline aspect is far more important and sensitive. Extramarital affairs have been going on
in the military forever. Most are
never prosecuted, as they generally remain private. The ones that come to the attention of the command are
usually handled in a non-judicial manner.
The reason(s) behind this very public prosecution are not known or
obvious, but I suspect there is much more involved than just sex.
Re:
PCa. Thx for yr kind words. No pills required, but I follow
doctor’s orders precisely. So far
so good.
. . . follow-up
comment:
“Yes Cap,
I'm surprised at the reaction of the American public to this sad matrimonial
business. However if most Americans live by the comprehensive roles agreed on
the day of matrimony to love, honour and obey then we must expect such a reaction
from those that do so. However, those that do not make solemn pledges to their
partner must learn to keep their views to themselves.
“In such a
case as we are discussing there is only one aspect that we must consider above
all else, state security.
“My
personal view might be, to hell with the matrimonial infidelity, not
interested, but the security of your nation and mine are inexorably
linked. With the 'desperates' in
our societies waiting and determined to reduce our morale and way of life by
whatever means available we need to be especially concerned when such high
ranking personnel become embroiled in such a ghastly mess. I did note your
point re national security Cap. Not perhaps so 'newsworthy' as matrimonial
infidelity- until the bomb goes off.
"I only had
one such case while serving, a Sergeant and a serving air woman. He was courts martialled and reduced to
the ranks. Unfortunately, due I suppose to the shame he had bought on his
family and his unit, he committed suicide in his car.
"I had the job
of collecting his car and taking charge of the burial party. For me that was one of the blackest of
days and never to be forgotten. I add this piece as I know and understand the
shame of imposing such a sentence on an otherwise good man."
. . . my follow-up response:
Re:
American sexual morality. I think
we colonists recognize the massive dichotomy our social conservatism
represents; yet, we seem incapable of rectifying the duality. The “solemn pledge” as you so
accurately state it, is between husband and wife [figuratively, as the pledge
applies to all other combinations].
In earlier days, when wives were considered property of their husbands,
laws regarding marital misconduct were appropriate. I have and will continue to argue those laws are no longer
appropriate or relevant. I will
also argue society’s condemnation and ostracism are likewise antiquated. Sex is part of life whether we choose
to acknowledge it or not.
Re:
state security. Spot on,
brother. The public and State
concern in L’Affaire Petraeus should have been
confined to the national security question. Once that issue was satisfied, the matter should have been
closed to both the public and the State.
Unfortunately, we have not matured to that level yet.
Re:
infidelity in the military. The
unique environment of military life and especially combat operations demands
more discipline and control; however, even the military must grow up.
I
know that trauma of dealing with suicides. So sad when it comes in instances like yours. May God rest his soul.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
Laura Cannon (War Virgin) writes more clearly and engagingly than most others you link. I will endorse the “silly” qualifier to the rules she addresses; any lawmaking body that thinks it can prevent healthy young people from having sex by making rules is silly. Now would be a good time for Congress to give up this particular silliness. As for “scandals” such as that entangling General Petraeus, they are pointless nonsense, relevant only to the participants and their spouses, if any. Petraeus even found a partner with a decent security clearance. I had not been aware either of General Sinclair or of the op-ed piece you mentioned. Let’s move on to some worthier news.
I had to look up “coverture” to understand that paragraph. Your point, as best I understand it, is that this was ended in the late 1970s by the Supreme Court. I also supported the Equal Rights Amendment and would heartily recommend its revival.
We may hope that the sovereign immunity to creditors stands on appeal. I would not like to see any government placed on the level of someone who bought a fancy car knowing he could not pay for it.
Calvin,
Re: “silly rules.” You are correct; however, it will take an enormous political action to get Congress to move those rules to a more reasonable and rational state.
Re: move to worthier news. Yea verily!
Re: coverture. Yes, the Supremes negated a significant element of coverture with their Feenstra ruling [1981], but they hardly put a dent in it. For example, women still relinquish their family name and take their husband’s family name – a traditional custom from the days of coverture. Non-heterosexual, polygamists, and other non-traditional citizens are even farther from freedom and equal rights. We have not reached equal rights yet.
Re: sovereign immunity. Indeed, a breakdown of sovereign immunity will lead to other negative knock-on consequences. Yet, what are we to do when the governments of sovereign states spend borrowed money beyond their sustainable revenue?
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment