Update no.528

Update from the Heartland

No.528

23.1.12 – 29.1.12

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
--The Supremes rendered judgment on the appeal of the Maynard [509], warrantless, GPS tracking case (see below).
-- Another relevant opinion on the recent Marine video [526]:
“On video of Taliban corpses, let’s not be so quick to pass judgment”
by Leonard Pitts Jr.
Miami Herald
Posted on Tuesday, 01.17.12
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/17/2594306/on-video-of-taliban-corpses-lets.html

Now, we do not see this everyday. John Kiriakou, 47, of Arlington, the former CIA officer who told reporters he participated in the interrogation of terrorist Abu Zubaydah has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 [PL 97-200; 96 Stat.122; 23.June.1982] [348] and the Espionage Act of 1917 [PL 65-030; 40 Stat. 217; 15.June.1917]. This is going to be an interesting case to watch as it works its way through the Judiciary.

On Tuesday, President Obama gave his constitutionally mandated State of the Union message [Article II, Section 3, Clause 1] to Congress and the Nation. I recognize and acknowledge that some of us accept what he says without questions, while others reject every single thing he says outright, also without questions. I am at neither pole. I think he gave us a well-crafted message expertly delivered. He warned the nation that the decades-old promise of a secure and rising middle class is threatened by economic unfairness. Much of the unfairness of which the President speaks is based in the ridiculously lopsided tax code that allows the enormously wealthy to shield and protect their income from the tax collector. Yet, all the great words are just words. What matters are actions, and in our system, compromise enables actions on behalf of We, the People. When one side refuses moderation and compromise, then actions tend to be beyond reach. Nonetheless, well done, Mr. President.

The State of Texas appears to be in a bit of a pickle, resultant from the constitutionally mandated decennial census (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 . . . since 1790) that documented over four million new residents in the state. Article IV, Section 4, amplified by the 14th Amendment, Section 2 and the Equal Protection Clause, codified the “one-person, one-vote” rule, i.e., equal apportionment of representation based on population (thus the census). The Supreme Court validated “one person, one vote” in their ruling Reynolds v. Sims [377 U.S. 533 (1964)]. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 [PL 89-110; 79 Stat. 437, 439; 6.August.1965] established the judicially supervised, preclearance, approval process in use to this day. The process for validating an apportionment, re-districting plan is rather tortuous and too burdensome to recount in this humble forum; bottom line: the court did not validate the state’s plan, and the Supremes rejected the lower court’s alternative plan – Perry v. Perez [565 U.S. ___ (2012); no 11-713; 20.January.2012]. The pickle for Texas is, they do not have valid election districts and they cannot get an approved re-districting plan with a primary election scheduled for 3.April.2012. This is quite a conundrum worthy of our attention.

The Supreme Court affirmed again a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy as they rejected the Government’s arguments in support of warrantless GPS tracking of an automobile – United States v. Jones [565 U.S. ___ (2012); no. 10–1259]. The unanimous Court agreed on the outcome but not on the legal path to the objective. I first became aware of and this humble forum was introduced to this case from the decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia – United States v. Maynard [CCA DC no. 1:05-cr-00386-ESH-10 (2010); 6.August.2010] [509]. You may recall the Circuit Court affirmed the conviction of Lawrence Maynard but overturned the District Court conviction of Antoine Jones. The U.S. Government (USG) appealed the Jones portion of the DC Circuit ruling. There is little doubt in my little pea-brain that Jones was indeed guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted. He was set free by the FBI and Metropolitan Police Department task force use of a GPS tracker without a proper warrant. The sad reality here is the agents did in fact obtain a warrant, but they failed to comply with two of the warrant's restrictions: They did not install the GPS device within the required 10-day period, and they did not install the GPS device within the District of Columbia. For the want of a nail . . . Nonetheless, the Court determined that “the Government's installation of a GPS device on a target's vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a ‘search,’” and thus, without a properly executed warrant, the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Antoine Jones. The Supremes got this one right! The continuing legal debate regarding a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy rambles on, but this is a positive step forward.

News from the economic front:
-- The Japanese government announced that the country recorded its first annual trade deficit since 1980. Economists warned that Japan could run trade deficits for years to come, if the yen remains strong and global demand weak. Welcome to the reality of the United States.
-- The International Monetary Fund (IMF) projected the world economy will expand 3.25% in 2012 -- down from the 4% last fall. They also predicted the world economy would continue to slow, and the euro region was probably headed for recession this year. Behind the global forecast, the IMF estimated an 8.2% growth for the People’s Republic of China, 7% growth in India and a meager 1.8% growth for the United States as well as a “mild recession” for the 17-nation euro zone. The IMF also warned that matters could easily worsen with the ongoing financial crisis in the euro zone.
-- In contrast to the IMF’s forecast, the Federal Reserve predicted the U.S. economy would grow between 2.2% and 2.7% this year, which is down from November's forecast of between 2.5% and 2.9%. The Fed also forecasted unemployment may fall as low as 8.2% from its November estimate of 8.5%. They also said there were unlikely to raise interest rates before late 2014, extending a period of record-low rates by more than a year.
-- The Commerce Department reported the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at an annual rate of 2.8% between October and December – up from 1.8% growth in 3Q2011 and 1.3% in 2Q2011 – the fastest pace in more than a year and a half.

Comments and contributions from Update no.527:
Comment to the Blog:
“The Middle East is a continuing example of’ ‘you can’t make this stuff up.’ As of this morning, Yahoo was reporting that the EU is cutting off Iran’s oil sales. That renders their support of Syrian oil sales mostly irrelevant.
“I write enough to have concern about copyright issues. I believe a deep and serious examination of copyright as a multi-faceted issue is in order. What I do not believe is that PIPA/SOPA or any other law designed by only one party has any chance of being a net benefit to society, to creators, or even to the corporate owners of copyrights.
“The Supreme Court (what you refer to as SCOTUS) has surprised me by actually defending Americans’ privacy. The Katz decision and one featured today in newscasts that ruled warrantless use of GPS trackers to be unconstitutional may be a light at the end of our tunnel. I certainly hope so.
“I have no notion of the usage of ‘yellow card, not a red card.’ I suspect you are attempting to excuse the brutality of war by citing its commonness. That one does not reach me. Urinating on a corpse and all the rest of it is wrong in any situation, regardless whether your fellow soldiers do it or whether the other side is equally brutal.”
My reply to the Blog:
Re: IRI. I do believe the PRC and other countries do not ascribed to or support the U.S./EU sanctions against the IRI, i.e., the IRI still has ample customers for their oil, to include the laundered Syrian oil.
Re: copyright. I am not sure what your point is relative to PIPA/SOPA?
Re: privacy. This week’s ruling – United States v. Jones [565 U.S. ___ (2012); no. 10–1259] – was actually an appeal by the USG of the reversal for Antoine Jones in the Maynard ruling mentioned in the Blog. I know it is a bit complicated; I expect to review the latest ruling in this week’s Update. Nonetheless, you are correct; the Supremes added another notch in favor of a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy. The USG does not have the authority to conduct general, warrantless searches, and they established that covertly attaching a GPS tracker to a citizen’s vehicle and recording his every move 24/7 for a month is an invasion of his privacy.
Re: war crimes. Yellow card/red card is used in international futball (soccer). I could have said penalty versus ejection in an American football analogy. I am excusing nothing. What those Marines did was wrong and a lapse of discipline; it was NOT a war crime and certainly does NOT deserve a court-martial. If we continue on this path, pretty soon we will be insisting upon humane killing of our enemies, and if that continues further, to abolishing killing all together. Those who seek to do us harm will simply kill us as we turn the other cheek. War is killing, plain & simple; there is no way to sweeten the image; the quicker, more efficiently it is done, the better.
. . . and a follow-up:
“My point regarding PIPA/SOPA was simply that beyond the ethical issues, such a creation is unworkable. In days past, the publishers would have had some degree of control over their paper or physical media properties under such a law. Less than perfect, but it would have been a useful tool. In the 21st Century, we have Anonymous hackers, Wikileaks, and any number of others who can find nearly any file and communicate it worldwide in essentially no time. That leaves the most likely result of PIPA/SOPA to be damage to mostly-innocent web sites, which would certainly inhibit creative people of all sorts and thus deprive potential consumers of their works. Nobody wins. I will leave the legalities to those more qualified; the obvious result of such action is damage to all parties. The damage to short-sighted copyright owners of future suppliers of product, harming even those who sought the statute in the beginning.
“War is indeed ‘killing, plain and simple,’ which is why nobody has a right to surprise at barbaric behavior by all parties. If a person's business is killing people and destroying property, decency becomes an unreasonable expectation. Just plain silly. People have begun to realize that; therefore, military actions and people have become less and less popular. That applies every place where free media exist, not just the USA--and the media have become very difficult to control as stated above. In the long term, war may become a less popular method of resolving conflicts.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
All righty then, I think we are in agreement. My point was, this is quite a conundrum. As much as I would like to protect my copyrights from piracy, I must err on the side of freedom. Hopefully, someone will invent a means to distribute material on the Web and protect the intellectual property of the creators.
I have no disagreement with your assessment of the situation regarding the Press and war. If you will recall, I made no reference to the imposition of Press restrictions. If the Press took those images, then fair game and those Marines made an even greater mistake. Nonetheless, those Marines deserve a penalty for their mistake(s). They do NOT deserve rejection, castigation, and possibly prison. I only urge . . . let us keep things in perspective. Those were Marines in the middle of combat.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)

Update no.527

Update from the Heartland

No.527

16.1.12 – 22.1.12

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. officials have discovered an effort by the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) to help Syria hide its oil exports and evade an American and European embargo. The IRI operation is designed to quietly ship Syrian crude oil to Iran, where it can be sold on the international market, with revenue going back to Damascus. Transit records suggest this process may have moved more than 91,000 metric tons of crude in just the last month. The IRI campaign to bolster Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his regime would be in direct conflict with the actions of the Arab League and the International Community. Adding more gravity to the situation in Damascus, the U.S. has issued orders to the embassy staff and American citizens still in the country to prepare to evacuate with short notice as conditions on the ground in Syria continue to deteriorate. None of these are positive signs. We must watch.

I suspect most of us noticed numerous website blackouts on Wednesday, 18.January.2012, as an Internet protest of two proposed laws intended to punish those who are purveyors of pirated, copyrighted material, e.g., videos, music, books, and other merchandise -- S. 968, PROTECT IP Act of 2011 (PIPA); and H.R. 3261, Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) – came to a head as PIPA approached a floor vote. PIPA was withdrawn from the Senate agenda; future unknown. SOPA was referred to several other committees to slow it down. These actions may kill the proposed legislation, but they are not dead yet. Wikipedia completely blacked out its site for 24 hrs. Google blacked out their header logo. Other sites redacted portions of their content as symbolic censorship as most Internet savvy folks believe would be inevitable with passage of either PIPA or SOPA. This legislation is not just about government intrusion upon a free and open forum as the web protest demonstration would suggest. As Bill Maher recently said, “People just want to steal.” I think he is correct. Far too many people around the World want to see the latest or their favorite movies, or listen to their favorite music without paying for the right to do so. It is stealing from the copyright holders, plain and simple. There is also prevalent piracy of movies, music, books, and other material that pirates turn around and sell undercutting legitimate sources. The issue of copyright piracy is real, tangible and destructive. I do not want my work stolen. Nonetheless, PIPA and SOPA are not the proper way to accomplish piracy eradication. We managed to deal with the music-sharing site Napster, but that was a U.S. based company. Many piracy sites are foreign and largely beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement. PIPA and SOPA did accomplish one thing; they raised public awareness of a very real international problem.

In the wake of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 [PL 107-056; 115 Stat. 272; 26.October.2001] and the continuing War on Islamic Fascism, I remain sharply focused on the Fourth Amendment, and warrantless search and seizure. The latest from my reading folder was Katz v. United States [389 U.S. 347 (1967)]. The case involved the FBI warrantless recording of a telephone booth conversation. The Supreme Court, in a 6-1 decision, determined the FBI’s actions were an unconstitutional violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights and overturned the durable precedent of Olmstead v. United States [277 U.S. 438 (1928)] [296]. Associate Justice Hugo Lafayette Black offered the sole dissent, “A conversation overheard by eavesdropping, whether by plain snooping or wiretapping, is not tangible and, under the normally accepted meanings of the words, can neither be searched nor seized. Rather than using language in a completely artificial way, I must conclude that the Fourth Amendment simply does not apply to eavesdropping.” The differentiation between eavesdropping as a public nuisance and the warrantless recorded surveillance by law enforcement proved too stimulating to my inherent curiosity. When the Fourth Amendment was passed (1791), there were no electronics, and no means for the state to intrude upon the privacy of a citizens activities. Black referred to the law against eavesdropping as noted in Blackstone Commentaries, Book IV, Chapter 13, page 169 [1769], which in turn identifies the original law as 9 & 10 W. III. c. 7 (a law from the 9th & 10th year in the reign of King William III (1689–1702), chapter 7). [NOTE: I tried to find the British law with no joy.] If we look at the principle involved in the Fourth Amendment, it is to protect the citizen against governmental intrusion. Modern technology has enabled unprecedented, more powerful tools for intrusion. This is precisely the fallacy of Black’s reasoning. He is stuck on the literal words rather than the meaning of the words. I thought the Olmstead ruling was wrong even for 1928. Fortunately, the Katz decision reversed the trend. What Justice Black seems to have missed is the issue is not eavesdropping, but rather the requirement for a warrant and independent judicial acceptance of probable cause for the USG to use the power of the State to listen in on what would otherwise be considered a private conversation by a citizen. The Court has continued to build upon restricting the government’s use of technical means to invade the privacy of citizens in cases like Kyllo v. United States [533 U.S. 27 (2001)] [313] and Davis v. United States [564 U.S. ___ (2011)] [500].

News from the economic front:
-- Adding insult to injury, Standard and Poor's Rating Service downgraded its credit rating on Europe's rescue fund – European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) -- to AA+ from AAA. S&P also stated it could cut the rating further, if member states' creditworthiness is further eroded amid the euro zone's prolonged crisis. The two other large ratings firms, Moody's and Fitch, still rate the EFSF at AAA.
-- The People’s Republic of China (PRC) National Bureau of Statistics reported the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose to 8.9% in the fourth quarter of 2011, from a year earlier, but it was slower than the 9.1% expansion in the third quarter.
-- Before dawn on Wednesday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) tried to arrest former hedge-fund executive Anthony Chiasson at his Manhattan home. Chiasson was not home when FBI agents entered his apartment building. His lawyer did not immediately comment. Chiasson was co-founder of the hedge-fund firm Level Global Investors, one of several firms raided in November 2010, in a rapidly expanding federal insider-trading investigation. Could it be we have our first fugitive from justice in the aftermath of the 2008 banking crisis?
-- These events are always sad, but they are part of a normal process. Eastman Kodak filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after the 131-year-old, pioneer, film company failed to raise fresh cash to fund a long-sputtering turnaround. The company struggled for decades to cope with the rise of digital imaging technology. The final straw -- an attempt to transform itself into a company selling printers -- proved too costly amid declining film sales and expensive obligations to its retirees.

Comments and contributions from Update no.526:
“My understanding of your Montana v. SCOTUS (which I found difficult enough) was compounded by my lap-top closing down for an unannounced 'update'! Why does Mr Gates do that? He is a countryman of yours so thought you might have the answer...
“As for your Marines, I, or any of my colleagues both male and ladies of the female persuasion were either shocked or surprised by their actions. Indeed war is a dirty game. Who knows what disgusting acts the Taliban might enjoy over the bodies of our dead boys and girls? Like you though, I fear they will be sacrificed in the name of political awareness by the very people who sent them into battle and should therefore be supporting our brave soldiers no matter what. If that can't be done them bring them home.”
My reply:
I understand the difficulties with these court cases, especially in my rather limited space – hard to do them justice, but I try. While this whole Citizens United fiasco created by SCOTUS is uniquely American, I believe such court pronouncements bear upon all freedom-loving peoples. Corporations as citizens should be anathema to all of us.
Re: Marines. “Surprised,” perhaps; “shocked,” we shouldn’t be. Far worse things go on in ground combat. I respectfully submit that urinating on enemy corpses is an error in judgment, not a war crime, as so many have alleged. I urge perspective, resilience and loyalty, as well as strong resistance to the forces of political correctness. Combat is not about Roberts’ Rules of Order, or the Marquess of Queensberry etiquette. It is about killing our enemies. Those Marines made a dreadful mistake; they deserve a yellow card, not a red card.
I agree precisely. If we do not have the stomach to support our warriors properly, then withdraw them now! We need not expose our patriot-citizens to further rigors of combat with a merciless enemy.
Sorry for my stronger than usual language; I get fired up sometimes.
. . . a follow-up contribution:
“Good to see you 'fired up' buddy. We need that attribute from time to time. 'The truth is out'.
“PS: We were looking at a cruise this summer...the ship in the news this week is quite well known to us as we used to see her regularly sailing out of Venice. The accident is beyond comprehension, my car Sat. Nav. can put me within a yard of my front door, surely these vessels have a great more sophistication in their navigation equipment than my £90 GPS. It certainly looks like gross misconduct by the bridge crew. We shall see.” . . . my follow-up reply:
Well, OK then, so long as you are not offended by my strong words.
I don’t remember ever seeing MS Costa Concordia, but I do remember numerous cruise ships undergoing renovations in Genova. I cannot imagine a ship of that class not having sophisticated SatNav (GPS). Many military air vehicles (manned & unmanned) have electronic 3D terrain maps to correlate with GPS for rather accurate spatial positioning. I do not know if ships have 3D sub-surface data to correlate with GPS. They may be relying on accurate geographic location and human interpretation of conventional nautical charts for their depth clearance. If so, I suspect more than one person made a series of tragic errors. Further, I cannot imagine why a ship that size was so close to the coastline. They may have had an on-shore wind involved. Who knows? I suspect the investigators will make quick work of the navigation failure; I just hope they tell us.

Comment to the Blog:
“You and I agree on the wrongness of the Citizens United ruling. The ability of individual citizens to multiply their vote by creating corporations is a new thought to me. It seems at present to be a minor point, but remember that some attorneys can create corporations easily and quickly, so the one-man-one-vote facet of the issue could become important quickly. Let us not forget the Presidential election of 2000. The more important issue today is the ‘money as speech’ assumption that includes the potential for foreign corporations to vote with their wallets. The plaintiff Western Tradition apparently embodies both of these. We shall see whether the Supreme Court applies the Supremacy Clause or takes some other tack, as we shall also see in the Arizona and other immigration laws. Certainly Citizens United matters more to me than any immigration law to date. Of course, the purity of the Supreme Court is again in question with Justice Thomas’s issues, and that may be an influence on any corporate ‘rights’ issue. It seems to me that protecting the powerful from the weak stands the Constitution on its head, but nobody is bound by my opinion.
“As a practical matter, technology has made the keeping of secrets has become almost impossible. Every so often in recent years, the public gets a glimpse of what war really involves. That will become more frequent regardless of orders. Now we get to view soldiers urinating on corpses. Soon some other reality will surface. That is the nature of this century.
“The radical clergy who claim gay marriage will do them harm deliberately distort the nature of marriage. Marriage is a legal contract and may be solemnized by clergy at their discretion or by civil or military officials. The central false premise in this particular article is that these people (the forty clergy people who signed this open letter) will be obligated “to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct.” Note the distortion of the issue; if same-sex marriages become legal their sexual conduct will in fact be marital, and most of these people also disagree with a great deal of marital sexual conduct. However, their attitudes will certainly drive same-sex couples far away from their congregations or counseling practices. Beyond that, their claim is nonsense. To make a truly obvious comparison, drinking alcohol in any amount and smoking cigarettes are legal behaviors in most of the United States, but neither I nor anyone else has an obligation to treat drinking or smoking as appropriate behavior. The fact that these forty people would rather not have their bigotry pointed out to them means nothing. I would rather not have my short stature, excess weight, or balding scalp pointed out to me, but they are just as real as these people’s bigotry and will be pointed out. They could change their bigotry if they wished, in much the same way that I could lose weight if that was a higher priority with me. So what? Please note that not all clergy habitually lie or support bigotry; I am clergy.
“Several editions back, I discussed the inappropriateness of Standard & Poor’s rating system to sovereign debt and the fact that their involvement in the economic crash aggravates that. I have not changed my mind. I find it truly sad that Angela Merkel seeks to obey them without question.
“We may hope that Mr. Stanford receives his just desserts. Unfortunately, his offenses are not a part of the central corruption of Wall Street.
“In re the comment thread on death with dignity and several others: I encourage you to study the concept of ‘scientific proof’ for this and many other reasons. Science has a higher standard of proof than law. That seems very appropriate in life-and-death issues. Also, you may want to study prognosis versus actual results in medicine generally and in particular in relation to the pronouncement of terminal conditions.”
My reply to the Blog:
Re: Citizens United. Agreed . . . turning the Constitution on its head . . . spot on!
Re: Western Tradition. As I read the ruling, I was torn, and found affinity for Justice Nelson’s argument. SCOTUS will undoubtedly negate Western Tradition as incompatible with Citizens United by the Supremacy Clause. I cannot imagine the Supremes overturning Citizens United so soon after their decision, but they most assuredly should do so.
Re: technology & combat. A valid point . . . we are placing webcams in the sausage factory, and then, howling our disgust with how sausage is made. If we don’t like the images of war, don’t send our warriors into harm’s way.
Re: radical clerics & same-sex marriage. Well said and agreed! Unfortunately, social conservatives appear to be so fragile in their beliefs that they must validate those beliefs by imposition & enforcement upon everyone else. We saw this exact same behavior in the run-up to Prohibition and endured the devastating social consequences of attempting to prohibit predominately private conduct in a free society. The tragedy of that mindset continues to this very day across a myriad of issues. Worse, we bear witness to their persistence in the Republican primaries as the social issues seem to be dominating the debates and selection criteria. The clerics are entitled to their bigotry, no matter how irrational, but they are not entitled to impose their beliefs on other citizens. If a citizen or any group of citizens freely chooses to adopt and adhere to the dicta of their clergy, then likewise, that is their choice to make entirely. I also agree that not all clergy are bigoted; some actually understand and embrace the requirement for separation between church and State. Unfortunately, it is the theocrats who usually howl the loudest and attract the most attention, e.g., that cleric letter.
Re: debt rating services. I understand and appreciate the conflict and dilemma associated with the rating services. The weakness and flaws in their processes were graphically demonstrated by the mortgage and banking crisis. Yet, we need an accurate view of risk, and for better or worse, they attempt to provide that view.
Re: Stanford. No, he was not a Wall Street robber baron. He is just a sophisticated common swindler. In a bygone era, he would have swiftly felt the rope before the drop. I expect him to join his buddy Bernie. I am just offended by the duplicity of his direct government enabler. Barasch took an oath to enforce SEC regulations; no only did he choose not to abide his oath, he helped Stanford avoid the law. An accomplice to murder is just as guilty. Barasch deserves the same punishment as Stanford.
Re: “scientific proof.” I understand the reasoning. Yet, the refinement or accuracy of the medical profession is irrelevant to my argument for Death with Dignity. The issue is not medical “proof,” only the individual’s free will. Your grandmother had a unique will to live; undoubtedly, she would not have chosen to exercise her right until perhaps the last round. Please remember, if an individual is incapable of making a free choice for any reason, then he does not qualify. Even if the doctors are wrong in their diagnosis, I certainly would not exercise my right to Death with Dignity until I have other validating signs – the risk is always passing the threshold of mental competence and ability to communicate. No one else can make that decision – only the individual; it cannot be delegated by medical power-of-attorney, living will, or any other instrument (legal or otherwise). The reality is, we are all terminal; the only question is when. Let me now to pass with dignity rather than the lingering uncertainty my Mom had to suffer & endure.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)

Update no.526

Update from the Heartland

No.526

9.1.12 – 15.1.12

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

Every so often, a rare event occurs that might escape public or Press attention. With little acknowledgment, the Montana Supreme Court directly confronted the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The underlying case at issue in this instance was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [558 U.S. ____ (2010); 21.January.2010] [424]. On 5.November.1912, the voters of Montana passed a citizen created initiative, §25 of which became known as the Corrupt Practices Act (CPA), part of which survives as Montana Code Annotated §13-35- 227. As a consequence of Citizens United, two Montana corporations, and a rather misty group incorporated in Colorado in 2008 and registered to do business in Montana, filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the CPA based on Citizens United and a corporation’s First Amendment freedom of speech. The district court declared the CPA unconstitutional, citing Citizens United as the basis for his ruling. On 30.December.2011, in a 5-2 decision, the Montana Supreme Court overturned the district court in Western Tradition v. Montana [MT SC 2012 MT 328; DA 11-0081 (2011)] and thus directly challenged SCOTUS. Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court Michael “Mike” McGrath wrote for the court. He recounted the history behind the CPA law, and tried to differentiate between their decision and Citizens United. McGrath illuminated the historic as well as the potential impact of unrestrained corporate spending in affecting elections and the political legislative process. His argument seems to boil down to one sentence, “While corporations have first amendment rights in political speech, they do not have the vote.” Associate Justice James C. Nelson wrote a blistering dissent. He noted early in his dissenting opinion, “I thoroughly disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. I agree, rather, with the eloquent and, in my view, better-reasoned dissent of Justice Stevens. As a result, I find myself in the distasteful position of having to defend the applicability of a controlling precedent with which I profoundly disagree.” Nelson carefully parsed and differentiated the rights of an individual citizen and that same citizen as an incorporated entity, as if they were two entirely separate units. Citizens United gave corporations essentially equivalent rights as a citizen; thus, when the Court gets around to it, corporations will be able to vote, which in turn will give a singular human being more than one vote, verging on infinite since there is no limit to how many different ways an individual may incorporate himself. Why the Supremes cannot see the absurdity of granting corporations the rights of citizenship is simply beyond my comprehension. Anyway, while Nelson defended the Supreme’s binding precedent of Citizens United, he amplified his disgust with the position in which he was placed. “Corporations are artificial creatures of law.” He noted, “Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creations of government,” and concluded, “Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.” Therein lies my strong objection to Citizens United. From Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court in Citizens United, “The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule.” We . . . well, actually, it is only the Supremes who seem to confuse money with speech, i.e., actual words of presentation or argument. As we have seen all too often, money has an extraordinarily high potential for corruption of anyone’s moral values. It is the anonymity or duality of corporate money that continues to bother me, especially after reading Citizens United, meaning corporations are NOT alive; they are comprised of human beings, usually citizens who have the right to vote. In essence, Citizens United vastly amplifies the political leanings of the leaders, owners, boards of corporations by giving them access to massive resources with virtually no consequences. To illustrate that point, one of the plaintiffs in Western Tradition was Champion Painting, Inc., “a single proprietor painting and drywall business with no employees or members, and its sole shareholder is Kenneth Champion.” The title corporation, Western Tradition Partnership, Inc., “claims to be a foreign corporation but it is not a business corporation. Its purpose, according to un-rebutted evidence submitted to the District Court by the State, is to solicit and anonymously spend the funds of other corporations, individuals and entities to influence the outcome of Montana elections.” Reading Western Tradition, I think every citizen can and would appreciate the stand the Montana Supreme Court has taken, but . . . . The Supremacy Clause remains the law of the land. Nonetheless, just as we needed laws to bring order to the Wild Wild West, we need some order to the political money. When I know a corporation has chosen to malign one political ideology and support a competing agenda, I can put that corporation’s actions in perspective and decide to avoid that corporation’s products. The problem is hidden or camouflaged, massive expenditures by anonymous citizens (and foreign entities, including nation-states), operating through façade corporations. I am absolutely convinced the Founders / Framers would be convulsing in stupefied incredulity at the insanity the Supremes have unleashed within this Grand Republic.

Another perspective of the infamous Supreme Court case:
“This Is Citizens United
by Andrew Rosenthal
New York Times
Published: January 10, 2012, 11:12 am
http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/this-is-citizens-united/?nl=opinion&emc=tyb1

In addition to the controversial authorization for unlimited detention of battlefield combatants during the War on Islamic Fascism, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 [PL 112-081; 31.Dec.2011] elevates the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to full membership on the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). General Craig Richard McKinley, USAF, is the current Chief and now newest member of JCS. The National Guard pegs its founding to 13.Dec.1636, when the Massachusetts Bay Colony ordered the organization of three regiments of militia for the protection of the community; thus, the Guard is the longest serving military branch. The state militias were formed into the National Guard by the Militia Act of 1903 [PL 57-196; 32 Stat. 775; 21.Jan.1903] as a consequence of the Spanish-American War. The National Guard Bureau, which unified command of the Army National Guard and Air National Guard, came into existence by §904, Title IX, of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 [PL 103-337; 108 Stat. 2663, 2824; 5.Oct.1994]. Considering the extraordinary contributions and sacrifices of the National Guard throughout the War on Islamic Fascism, the elevation of the Guard is quite appropriate. We are most grateful for their extended augmentation of the thin regular forces over the long haul in this war and their continued contributions to this day.

As a retire Marine officer and concerned citizen, I am far more disturbed by the Press coverage and yammering of the talking heads about the images and video clip of four Marine in Afghanistan urinating on two dead Taliban fighters. The articles, essays, opinions and other drivel are far too numerous to acknowledge or list. I shall offer only two:
“The Real Tale Of The Tapes”
New York Post
Published: January 13, 2012; pg. 24
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/the_real_tale_of_the_tapes_Om6PzDobxyhc7cYEJWJiqK
and
“Reprehensible Behavior Is A Risk Of Combat, Experts Say”
by James Dao
New York Times
Published: January 14, 2012; pg. 8
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/world/reprehensible-behavior-is-a-risk-of-combat-experts-say.html
First, the conduct illustrated in the video and captured still images is unacceptable. The only purpose it served for those Marines was a little tension relief; the consequences serve the Taliban and Islamo-fascists to a far great extent. Thus, the relevant question is, why? Nonetheless, let us all keep things in perspective. This is equivalent to an unnecessary roughness penalty in American football – regrettable, but hardly a reason to pull the offending player. I imagine but I do not know every combat commander must have issued orders that cell phones, digital cameras or any other visual or audio recording device is prohibited during operations. If so, the idiot who took that video and the even-bigger-idiot who disclosed that video should be court-martialed for intentional, purposeful disobedience of a direct order. Yes, those four Marines deserve an appropriate penalty; I would suggest an informal letter of reprimand. Lastly, I urge all citizens to avoid watching the sausage being made. War is an ugly, nasty business. That particular video is a gnat in a hailstorm. Unfortunately, the rampant political correctness of the warm, cushy, armchair quarterbacks of the politicos will overwhelm the wisdom of the professional generals and those good Marines will be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness. I (I cannot say we) can only hope the Commandant will stand up to the political pressure and save those good Marines. God bless them for their service to this Grand Republic. I can only hope that We, the People, will put our sanctimonious indignation aside and find the courage to stand-up for these Marines.

“Religious leaders: Gay marriage a ‘peril’ to liberty – Religious coalition says legalization forces changing of thousands of laws”
by Cheryl Wetzstein
The Washington Times
Published: Thursday, January 12, 2012
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/12/religious-leaders-gay-marriage-a-peril-to-liberty/
The opening statement: “Nearly 40 religious leaders, including Catholic, evangelical, Jewish and Mormon figures, issued an open letter Thursday that argues that the battle against same-sex marriage is a fight on behalf of religious freedom.” OK, I understand the emotions. What I do not understand is the logic and rhetoric. Clerics seek power and control, to dictate the private choices and conduct of all citizens. These clerics apparently do not understand or appreciate the significance and importance of “unalienable rights” and “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.” The implication of this clerical statement is that individuals who make private choices relevant only to themselves will somehow be turned around or coalesced into imposition upon the religious beliefs and choices of the clerics and other believers. I stand for and will defend the right of these clerics to their homophobia and even to their dicta to their believers. They get crosswise with me, and presumably with every freedom-loving citizen, when they stoke the fires of religious emotion in an overt effort to impose their will upon all citizens. I object! Regardless, once again, I ask anyone to help me understand why these clerics are so convinced that oppressed people will turn to deny the very freedom they seek for all citizens? Their supposition simply does not make sense to me, so perhaps it is because I am not perceptive enough to appreciate their worries. Help me!

News from the economic front:
-- Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services passed judgment on the unsolicited long-term sovereign credit ratings of 16 euro-zone countries, after downgrading U.S. sovereign debt from AAA to AA+ (5.August.2011) [503]. Among the countries touched in this round:
Germany: affirmed its AAA rating, with a stable outlook.
France: downgraded to AA+ from AAA.
Italy: downgraded two notches to BBB+ from A.
Austria: downgraded to AA+ from AAA.
Spain: downgraded two notches to A from AA-.
Portugal: downgraded by two notches to BB from BBB- (junk status).
Slovakia: downgraded to A from A+.
Slovenia: downgraded to A+ from AA-.
Cyprus: downgraded two notches to BB+ from BBB (junk status).
Malta: downgraded to A- from A.
Ireland: affirmed its BBB+ rating.
Greece: previously downgraded to B from BB- (junk status).

The Stanford Fraud [375]:
-- Robert Allen Stanford, the founder of Stanford Financial, is scheduled to go on trial on 23.January in Houston, three years after he was arrested. He is charged with 21 federal criminal counts of defrauding investors, and stands accused of encouraging investors to buy certificates of deposit at a Stanford bank in Antigua. Instead of being invested, Stanford allegedly used much of the money to maintain his lavish lifestyle. As with most events, timing is everything. On Friday, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas announced a “deal” with Spencer C. Barasch, who served as the enforcement director for the SEC’s Fort Worth regional office from 1998 to 2005, to pay a civil settlement, US$50,000 fine – the maximum fine for a violation of federal conflict-of-interest rules. Barasch allegedly shielded Stanford from government investigations until the bottom fell out. I sure as hell expect the government extracted a commitment to cooperate in the prosecution of Stanford; if not, then I will scream FOUL!

Comments and contributions from Update no.525:
Comment to the Blog:
“First, I want to apologize for not following up your last reply last week. The combination of illness, graduation, and work pretty much overwhelmed all else. I do, however, remember pointing out more politely in an earlier reply that “scientific proof” is an oxymoron, not a possibility, due to the nature of science.
“I will agree that the case you mentioned should be renamed SEC + Citigroup v US District Court. That combination of arrogance and audacity comes back to the concept of willful blindness. It matters very little whether they consciously know what they do; they should be held accountable either way.
“I read those two articles on the ‘right to die.’ After all is said and done, I don’t see that as viable in its current form. I simply do not trust heirs, particularly where substantial money or property bends people’s opinions. Ending someone’s presumed suffering becomes a much more important motivation when one’s subconscious or conscious mind knows that the bills are mounting or when envy and all the rest set in. Even beyond that, doctors have not learned to pronounce people terminal with any degree of reliability. There is a legend in my family that my grandmother was pronounced terminal eight times and outlived seven of the doctors who so pronounced her. Even if it was only two or three of the doctors, you get my point. If Sir Terry Pratchett wishes to commit suicide while he remains capable of doing so and has a clear head, he has that option in the UK. If he chooses to wait until he cannot, so what?”
My response to the Blog:
First, I do not agree that “scientific proof” is an oxymoron. Second, I just sought to understand cause & effect within an important, relevant example.
Willful blindness certainly is a major factor in the banking crisis. I absolutely agree regarding accountability. First, I do not think those bankers were ignorant of the law. Second, even if they were, ignorance of the law is no defense. Third, based on the SEC’s performance in Citigroup and others, the USG does not seek accountability, only the image, the façade, of accountability. US$285M to Citigroup is a parking ticket. We can only hope Judge Rakoff’s message gets through to the USG.
Re: “Death with Dignity.” Your concern is valid, appropriate and worthy of our calm, careful contemplation. I share your concern. The key is mental competency of the individual. Using Oregon’s law as a worthy example, Death with Dignity can only be available when two independent medical professionals can assert: 1.) the mental competency of the individual, 2.) the terminal phase of the individual’s illness or condition, and 3.) the independent free choice of the individual devoid of undue influence. It sounds like your grandmother would not have sought that capability, which of course was her choice entirely. On the other side, my mother sought that ability, but it was denied her, and she had to endure a long, lingering death. If we truly believe in those unalienable rights, then we must respect every individual’s freedom of choice to that last decision. As with all sensitive topics & decisions, let us seek and find a reasonable, contemporary compromise to protect the individual and his/her freedom of choice.
. . . with a follow-up comment:
“Scientific proof is not finally possible, although mathematical proof is in theory. Scientific disproof is possible, but not proof. (That is learning from one of my recent courses.) However weighty scientific evidence becomes, new evidence always remains a possibility.
“Insofar as Citibank and the SEC defying the law, I remain hopeful that Judge Rakoff will succeed in rebuffing them and perhaps be joined by other honest judges.
“I will leave the ‘death with dignity’ debate alone beyond reiterating my opinion that doctors cannot reliably predict the future of a given patient.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Ahso, the philosophical view of “scientific proof.” Yes. Agreed. New data refines the scientific view. Just a few decades ago, the Moon was just a large nighttime orb and Mars was a distant red dot. We have learned more since then. We will continue to learn more as we go. The “scientific proof” is only as good as the data available. When it comes to human traits, interactions, and experiences, the best we can do is observations and opinions. Thus, my questions about your friend & her daughter; I would like to learn more.
Re: Rakoff. Agreed. We can only hope there are more judges that demand proof. I am currently reading a ruling by the Montana Supreme Court that attempts to constrain Citizens United. There is hope.
Re: Death with Dignity. The issue is not the doctor’s ability to predict the future for a given patient, but rather the individual’s un-coerced freedom of choice. This is not about the science of medicine. It is entirely about respecting an individual citizen’s unalienable right to “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.” The involvement of the doctors is to have independent attestation to the individual’s free choice and the terminal phase of his life.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)

Update no.525

Update from the Heartland

No.525

2.1.12 – 8.1.12

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
I was late to work on the first day after the holiday break. Why is that news, you ask? We attended an early morning ceremony before the Butler County Commission. Our youngest son, Deputy Sheriff Taylor Parlier, received a meritorious award for leading a high-speed chase across two counties that led to the capture of two 19-year-olds (a male and female), who killed the boy’s grandmother for drug money . . . allegedly, I’m obligated to add. Congratulations, Son. God bless you for your service to the community.

[file: Taylor award 120103A.JPG]

Taylor receiving award from Butler County Sheriff Kelly Herzet

The follow-up news items:
-- On Sunday last (1.Jan.2012), Hawaii and Delaware joined the list of states allowing same-sex marriage [110 & sub], according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
States that issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples:
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and the District of Columbia.
States that recognize civil unions for same-sex couples:
Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and now Hawaii and Delaware.
California’s PropH8 same-sex marriage law is still working its way through the Judiciary.
-- Arrogance and audacity . . . an onerous combination. As we recall, Judge Rakoff rejected a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), US$258M deal with Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., to avoid trial – SEC v. Citigroup [USDC NY SD case 1:11-cv-07387-JSR (2011)] [520] (28.Nov.2011). On 15.December, the SEC filed a petition to stay Judge Rakoff’s ruling, pending appeal to the 2nd Circuit; followed 4 days later, by virtually the same petition for a stay filed by Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. In the latest rendition, Judge Rakoff concluded, “[G]iven the Court’s conclusion that the purported statutory basis for the instant appeals is patently defective, and given the absence of any obligation to consider a stay on the basis of the SEC’s putative intention to seek mandamus, there is no occasion for the Court to address the merits of the parties’ request for a stay. Accordingly, the motion for a stay is hereby denied.” To say the least, I was gobsmacked. The case really should be renamed SEC + Citigroup v. U.S. District Court. This case is getting curious’er and curious’er.

Two relevant articles in the continuing Death with Dignity debate [215 & sub]:
“Two men with money and influence are trying to change the law to make dying easier. It's scary”
by Cristina Odone
The Telegraph [of London]
Last updated: January 5th, 2012
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100127407/two-men-with-money-and-influence-are-trying-to-change-the-law-to-make-dying-easier-its-scary/
and
“Allow assisted suicide for those with less than a year to live – Doctors should be allowed to help terminally ill patients kill themselves – but only if they have less than a year to live, under proposals published in a major report today.”
by Martin Beckford
The Telegraph [of London]
Published: 05 Jan 2012; 7:30AM GMT
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8992593/Allow-assisted-suicide-for-those-with-less-than-a-year-to-live.html
At least the British People have two outspoken national advocates for a citizen’s freedom of choice – Sir Terence David John “Terry” Pratchett, OBE, a successful author; and Lord Falconer [AKA Charles Leslie Falconer, Baron Falconer of Thoroton, PC], a Labour peer. Where are the American advocates for our individual freedom of choice and the defenders of our “unalienable rights [to] Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”?

News from the economic front:
-- The Labor Department reported non-farm payrolls rose by 200,000 last month – private companies added 212,000 jobs, while federal, state and local governments reduced by 12,000. The unemployment rate declined to 8.5% in December, from the revised rate of 8.7% in November – the lowest level since February 2009.

Comments and contributions from Update no.524:
Comment to the Blog:
“I applaud your recovery from the surgery, and I envy your riding weather. I ride my bicycle for transportation, but I get less pleasure from our temperatures here, which run 15 to 20 degrees lower.
“I rejoice that New York prosecutors are using informants and other law enforcement processes to pursue another collection of crooked bankers. That ought to happen in every instance where evidence exists worthy of pursuit, but we both know that it has yet to happen in many cases.
“The Roman Catholic bishops’ suit seeking to enforce their church’s prejudice against homosexual parents is frivolous. If we set aside the nonsense and doubletalk, the fact is that the Catholic Church has voluntarily contracted with the US Government to provide a service under specific conditions. If they did not wish to meet the conditions, they ought not to have signed the contract. If they agreed initially but have changed their minds, they may end the contract according to whatever conditions are given in that contract, which may be expensive but is their choice. That concludes the functional part of the discussion. The fact that they entered into an enterprise which has a facet offensive to their beliefs is an internal conflict, not something that taxpayers should be obliged to resolve. At no time were they coerced to do anything against their beliefs; they freely chose to accept that agreement. My personal parallel for this issue is a temporary assignment that I accepted knowing that the client company made a product with which I felt uncomfortable. I became less and less willing to participate in that particular assignment. Despite it being a good assignment otherwise with prospects of becoming permanent at a good pay rate, I found another job, gave the proper notice, etc. Neither the client nor the temporary service had any obligation based on my discomfort. By that same logic, the US Government has no obligation to the Catholic bishops because of the Church’s unwillingness to treat homosexual foster parents the same way they treat heterosexual foster parents. The aim of the Bush-era law was to make it easier for faith-based organizations to provide a service, not to change the nature of the service.
“Carrying on from the comment section:
“Your technical description of the situation regarding the molesters who had a child confuses me. I will tell you that the molesting began at birth and ended at age 6. The person (daughter) I know has severe developmental delays and equally serious mental health issues, none of which are among those with known genetic causes. No other causes have been found either and no other members of her family share any of those issues. As you may be aware, there is no such thing as ‘scientific proof,’ only evidence. The evidence against the molester here carries a great deal of weight. As far as the legalities of Children Services taking away the molester’s subsequent child, I have little knowledge of the legal side of that. Obviously, my friend and her daughter have no contact with the molester. That the child was removed my friend knows through reliable, sympathetic sources who were involved in this situation. We may assume that the law is not a “cut and dried” thing; in this instance someone apparently found a way to apply the law in the interest of the child.
“A law requiring counseling prior to marriage would have to keep the basis for counseling separate from religion while allowing for people to examine religious issues along with their other attitudes. People tend to forget that marriage is not only a religious ritual. The legal contract of marriage can be and often is solemnized by judges, mayors, and ship captains as well as clergy. Writing the specifics for general use would be its own project. My personal approach tends to begin from known issues (prior marriages, events in the relationship, a discussion of both parties’ expectations) and go on from there. In my case, religion plays little to no part in this; I am available to anyone and not limited to or by my own religion.”
My reply to the Blog:
The riding weather appears to be ending, but never say die. I’ll ride when the opportunity presents. I do enjoy it.
Re: crooked bankers. Spot on! However, let us not forget, there are good bankers out there as well.
Re: Catholic bishops. We need the judge to declare it frivolous. I suspect he may want to push the constitutional question – it is rather unusual. Just to be clear, the non-heterosexual, non-discrimination requirement did not come until after the Bush 43, faith-based initiative, so to be fair, it was a post-contract provision. Nonetheless, like you, I think their argument is extraordinarily weak. Yet, when 62% (US$2.9B) of their annual revenue comes from the public Treasury, it should be no surprise they would take a stretch to preserve the revenue stream.
Re: molesters. If you are confused, imagine how confused I am. I was just trying to understand the relationships. I do not understand the cause & effect with them, other than by implication. There is certainly not much to their story other than has been presented so far. Unfortunately, laws are created by flawed men, enforced by flawed men, and interpreted by flawed men. The origin of this topic was an attempt to separate injurious from non-injurious conduct. Although we do not have more than anecdotal evidence the “abuse” led to the dysfunction, unless otherwise stated, we must assume it was the direct cause; as such, that conduct would be clearly injurious. Cases like your friend cannot be the lowest common denominator, i.e., because she suffered, all physical contact is therefore wrong and felonious. Again, we must separate injurious from non-injurious behavior. One size does not fit all.
Re: pre-marriage counseling. I understand your intentions, and I laud your objectives. However, the specter of imposing religious beliefs upon others causes me considerable pause. You are but one counselor. Others might fall victim to their particular biases, beliefs and idiosyncrasies. I know there are many things that should have been worked out before marriage, i.e., money management; children & child rearing; anger management; religion; sexual orientation, attitudes & preferences; problem resolution; habits; et cetera. We tend to jump into marriages for all the wrong reasons without any understanding of the right reasons. Certainly, professional counseling would help resolve that aspect, but only if it could be done from a neutral, non-judgmental basis.
A follow-up contribution:
“I am sure that bankers with real integrity live and work in America. They were and are unwelcome at the ‘too big to fail’ banks. They have been and perhaps still are subject to being less successful than others in banking in general due to the lure of derivatives, which leads to a powerful incentive for any banker with less than rock-solid ethics to sell mortgages regardless of risk in order to create derivative packages that are much more profitable than simply selling sound mortgages. Ordinary human beings have a difficult time keeping their integrity when a situation like that continues for several years. The run-up to this banking crisis lasted from about 1990 to 2008, with roots going back to before the Reagan Administration.
“I do not understand how I confused you with my story about the molester, my friend’s ex-husband. He molested his first daughter from birth to age six, at which point the discovery of his molesting was involved with his being charged with a variety of offenses, for which he served prison time. That first daughter will never have an independent life due to his actions. Once the molester was released from prison, he found a female molester and had a child with her. The child of the two molesters was taken away at birth by Children Services. I’m not confused by any of that. What baffled me was your attempt to analyze all of this by assigning abbreviations and other terminology to it all and further complicating it in ways I did not comprehend.
“I will note that laws are created and enforced differentially in part because no two people are exactly alike and therefore no two situations are identical. While I know nothing of the second (female) molester, the male molester had done a great deal of damage to his first child, and that surely influenced the action of Children Services in removing the child he had with the female molester. I did not state or intend to imply that all people charged with sexual behavior toward children resemble him or each other. In the case I described, the molesting began at birth and did a great deal of harm. Other cases may vary dramatically.
“Mandatory premarital counseling would indeed be difficult to do well, but not as difficult as the idea that precipitated the suggestion, which was to license childbearing (parenting).”
My follow-up reply:
I use a similar, more personal, analogy . . . I’ve long said that you did not need to be an a$$hole to be successful in business. While I still believe that basic premise to be true, I’ve not been particularly successful, so perhaps my premise is wrong.
Re: mortgage thus banking crisis. I used to give the initiating credit to Jimmy Carter; but I have since learned, actually, the true credit for letting slip the dogs of foolish mortgage credit (that culminated in the meltdown on September 2008) must be given to Gerald Ford [or perhaps Dick Nixon, since the law originated in the Congress of his administration, prior to his resignation] – Equal Credit Opportunity Act [PL 93-495; 88 Stat. 1500, 1521; 28.October.1974]. Virtually every administration since has contributed to the mess we still suffer to this day, with the worst of it coming in the Clinton and Bush (43) administrations. Of course, Congress denies any culpability, yet it is those foolish laws and congressional pressure that enabled greedy bankers to make Pollyanna mortgages that were destined to fail; it was only a matter of when. Then, as you so accurately note, other bankers decided to gamble our money on derivatives, and derivatives of derivatives. The bankers will undoubtedly argue that buying a share of common stock is a gamble. In the strictest sense, they are correct. We invest in stocks “betting” that a company will continue to grow, be profitable, and the value of our common stock will increase commensurately, to be traded at some future point for a profit to us. Yet, there is technically a physical asset attached to that share of common stock, just as there is to a mortgage. With derivatives, there is no asset; there is no value, other than what some other gambler wishes to attach to it. Then, like the bastards at Citigroup, the gambler sought ways to pass their gambling losses off to insurance companies and duped investors. The global economy being what it is, those bad, greedy decisions rippled across the entire planet. The consequences of “too big to fail” are simply not tolerable; and, I will go farther to say that the cross-functional connections between financial institutions are not acceptable either. In many ways, we allowed banks to lower or remove water-tight bulkheads with the same RMS Titanic result. We need compartmentalization within the financial system to avoid these disastrous cascading events that did and will again bring entire sovereign nations to their knees.
Re: molesters. I offer my most humble apologies for my lame attempt to de-personalize the scenario.
Re: premarital counseling. Touché! Spot on! Counseling is probably workable from a practical perspective, if we devoted enough thought and effort to the task. Procreation licensing will never enter the practical domain in a free society; it is only an attractive dream to deal with the bad parents among us. I will say, my notional concept of social police might bridge that gap and reinforce the need for neutral premarital counseling as a prerequisite to state-sanctioning a marriage, or at least help in that filtration process.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)

Update no.524

Update from the Heartland

No.524

26.12.11 – 1.1.12

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

On Wednesday, I had my latest appointment with our urologist and received the results of my first post-op blood test. PSA = 0.00. The results suggest the surgeon did extract all the bad tissue. I still have a long way to reach the “cured” state (generally, five years), but this is a very positive next step. Now, I have a long, slow, but hopefully steady process ahead with my recovery from toddlerhood. The doctor said things were “rearranged” during surgery, and it will take a while to get everything working again. Patience! Easy to say, not so easy to practice. Nonetheless, he cleared me for throttle up. So, what would you expect . . . I took a couple of celebratory rides on the Harley – 61º F (16º C) on New Year’s Eve, a great day for a ride. A good ending to a rather rough year for us. Happy New Year to everyone. May 2012 be better than 2011 for all of us

The Wall Street Journal reported that an informant, a senior Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM) executive nicknamed “Rambo,” provided prosecutors a rare inside peek into the bank’s action as it tried to contain the fallout from a fast-growing state fraud investigation into whether the bank overcharged clients to execute their currency trades, and urged traders not to tell clients how much money they made on trading.

“Bishops Say Rules on Gay Parents Limit Freedom of Religion”
by Laurie Goodstein
New York Times
Published: December 28, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/us/for-bishops-a-battle-over-whose-rights-prevail.html?_r=1
Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois apparently reached their threshold of tolerance as they filed suit against the government, alleging religious persecution for opposing the requirement to accept same-sex couples for foster care and as adoptive parents. The Catholic Charities affiliates received a total of nearly US$2.9B from the government in 2010, about 62 percent of its US$4.7B annual revenue. This is an interesting legal argument that perhaps inevitably grew from President Bush’s (43) Executive Order 13199, titled: “Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives” (29.January.2001) and associated legislation that got religious charities dependent upon government funding. When religious charities gained access to the public Treasury, there was no conditional requirement regarding discrimination against non-heterosexual parents. Now, there is. The bishops rejected the condition, which is their right to do. The twist here is, they are claiming the imposition of the same-sex condition over their religious beliefs that non-heterosexual parents are not appropriate parents or parental models is tantamount to a direct violation of their First Amendment rights – speech and religion. The real losers in this legal tussle are the children that might otherwise be helped by the Catholic Charities. Regardless, children cannot be used as a shield for discrimination based on the social factors. The bishops are apparently quite comfortable arguing for their constitutional guaranteed access to the public Treasury, while they trample on the rights of non-heterosexual couples to equal protection under the law. This legal challenge has potential implications far beyond the prima facie case of religious rights.

Comments and contributions from Update no.523:
Comment to the Blog:
“North Korea continues its effort to win the position of Most Bizarre Nation of All Time. (I have no idea who would give that award, but North Korea is certainly in the playoffs.) Apparently, Kim Jong Un is not the dictator his father and grandfather were. He will be sharing power with the military, and I have already seen a story somewhere that his uncle by marriage, whose name I cannot recall at the moment, will be the ‘power behind the throne.’
“The malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance on the part of the SEC continue without any interest from the Department of Justice. Your idea of taking away the SEC’s authority to make civil settlements in suits against Wall Street’s worst strikes me as sound. At this point, Americans as a whole owe an apology and a warning to investors and taxpayers worldwide who stand to lose large amounts of money because Wall Street’s criminals have yet to be jailed. Angelo Mozillo is an example of our failure with these offenders. I wish he was the kind of example that would discourage others, but that has yet to happen. At least some of the players in the Madoff drama are doing time. That’s better than nothing, I guess.
“If I go by the story you linked to alleging that a Panama City, Florida, mother offered her 8-year-old for prostitution, this is a sensational story with less than the usual support from evidence. The story states that a man told the police Ms. Mims approached him in a mall and offered her daughter’s sexual services, but it does not say that law enforcement has found anything else at all to support his statement. Not even scraps of corroborating evidence appear in this story. Apparently the Panama City PD did not see fit to set up a sting or use some other method to gather evidence, and we do not know whether the man making the allegation has some ulterior motive. The story does not state whether Ms. Mims has any criminal record. Certainly Ms. Mims looks awful in the picture, but that’s a mug shot. Most people are not at their best when being booked into jail. What the man has alleged is certainly serious, but only time and investigation will reveal whether it actually happened. In this particular allegation, the little girl herself does not appear to have been involved in the event, so unless the police can dig up other offenses the penalty is likely to disappoint the community even if Ms. Mims can be convicted.
“Licensing parents would involve controlling people’s sex lives unless society can somehow sterilize small children and then reverse the procedure upon their licensing as parents.
“I understand that incest is an explosive issue, and I disagree that it’s “all over prime time” as that headline states. “All over prime time” would involve non-pay channels for me. All the same, I suspect that we have seen a harbinger of discussions for a future time.”
My response to the Blog:
Re: DPRK. Spot on! Kim Jong Un’s uncle (by marriage to Kim Jong Il’s younger sister) is Chang Song-taek, Vice-Chairman of the National Defense Commission. Interesting things often happen when flawed men have a taste of power. The next few years have the potential to be uncertain and unstable in that diminutive country. As with most power struggles at the top of any organization, there are likely to be casualties and blood spilt, but it is the collateral damage that I worry about the most.
Re: Mozillo et al. Spot on! He paid US$40M of a US$60M fine for his misconduct, and he only has US$560M left. For him, he gambled in the worst possible way, with the lives of millions of people, just like Citigroup did, betting against the very people they were convincing to buy their contaminated mortgage securities. Mozillo is just as guilty as Madoff and all the others; he is just not man enough to admit his wrong-doing. We can only hope justice will come to him and all the other criminals. I like your idea. Part of their punishment should be standing before the world and apologizing for the damage, pain, uncertainty, and distrust they have caused by their greed . . . then, commit seppuku for their dishonor.
Re: Mims. Of course, you are quite correct. We do not know all the relevant details. It is just the Mims story reminds me of too many similar tales of bad parents, and all the rest of us must pay the price for these freakin’ bad people. Mims may not be one of those bad people, but there sure is a lot of smoke around her.
Re: “licensing parents.” You are again quite correct. Managing private sex lives is certainly not consistent with my belief in keeping government out of our private lives. My bad . . . a sign of my frustration. Regardless, I do advocate for parents paying the price for the conduct of their children. In the Mims case, if she truly did try to prostitute her 8yo daughter, then she should forfeit her custodial rights and be prevented from having any other children unless she gets her life under control. If she did get pregnant again, then her infant should be removed at birth.
Re: “incest.” I think that was the point of the article. I just don’t know how to discuss the topic.
. . . Round Two:
“I share your concern about collateral damage in the North Korea situation. Whether or not Kim Jung Un et al. destroy each other concerns me very little; whether they damage or kill Koreans north and south, attack the rest of East Asia, or potentially trigger another World War worries me. Unfortunately, we as a nation can do very little about that. Our current and past attempts at intervention have gone wrong; one of those created the current Korea situation, with the assistance of the UN and the Koreans themselves.
“I have expressed my disgust with Wall Street and the SEC at some length already. Citizen actions to change the balance of power have not yet produced results, but hope springs eternal. That balance was changed for the better after the Great Depression and we may be able to change it again.
“My doubts about whether Ms. Mimms is guilty derive from the lack of corroborating evidence in the story and from a small-town childhood. I noticed early on that almost everything in small places is driven by individual and personal feelings. Politics, religion, and law enforcement are far more personal than in a big city where more money and larger numbers of people can change the equation.
“While I cannot find a way to license parenting, I am aware of a male child molester who found a female child molester and had a baby with her. (I have no doubt about the harm he did; I know the child in the prior case.) The baby was removed immediately at birth by Children Services.
"Perhaps it would help to tighten the requirements for marriage. As clergy, I take a responsibility for counseling people before I agree to marry them. That is not required by law, but I think that would be a good idea. I don't do many marriages, but maybe I prevent some ill-considered unions."
. . . my response to Round Two:
Re: DPRK succession. We share the same concern. We seem to suffer a paucity of meaningful or actionable intelligence. The inaccessibility of the isolationist regime does not make it any easier. Whatever external spillover action may emanate from the power struggle that appears to be setting up.
Yes, hope does spring eternal. We can only hope the message gets through and we see less deals with more punishment.
Re: Mims. Your point was well-stated. As with so much of any morality discussion, the definitions are critical. As you suggest, the Panama City Police may have knee-jerked emotionally to the simple accusation, rather than hard evidence. If that happens to be true, then I was clearly wrong to use her as such a negative example. Nonetheless, I still see a lot of smoke around her. I hope the police eliminated the emotion of the situation. Good observation regarding big city vs. small town, especially regarding the emotional morality issues. The Prohibition experience of our grandparents is a perfect example.
Re: molesters. Two molesters producing a child . . . I think Children Services did what had to be done. There should be more of that. What child “in the prior case”? Licensing procreation is not practical, even if the urge to impose that control is strong. My favorite example being the NYC, crack-addicted, prostitute who had 8 children by 8 different sperm donors, collecting welfare for the kids but to support her habit; three kids removed by the state so far, and she’s still having more children despite court orders against producing more. We’ve discussed the concept of social police. Somehow, we must find a way to filter and focus on the real abusers . . . not punish children learning sex, etc.
Re: marriage counseling. Nice that you take the time to help folks understand the importance and commitment of marriage. Like so many similar topics, the balance between proper public regulation and individual freedom. Any intervention for ill-conceived unions is good for society. The burdens of family fragmentation is bad enough; any help is good.
. . . Round Three:
“The DPRK has been a loose cannon basically since World War II. No effort to contain it has succeeded so far.
“The child in the ‘prior’ case (of the male molester) is his daughter with a woman I know. That child, now 22 years old, will never be able to function on her own; this is a really severe case. Her father, once he was released from prison, found another woman with similar tendencies to his (to molest babies) and the two of them bred a child. Even though he had been convicted on charges other than the child molesting, the new baby was taken from them immediately. My assumption is that either (a) the woman had been convicted of prior child molesting, (b) the judge or someone in the system had specified that the father could not be around children due to investigations of the case I know about, or (c) both.
“The premarital counseling thus far has been easier than it sounds. Those who know their engagement will not survive a close examination tend to find another person to solemnize their mistake. That is why it occurs to me that a law might help society in this situation. Most likely such a law would reduce the marriage rate, much to the annoyance of some folks, but I suspect it would reduce the number of dysfunctional marriages and make it easier to leave a dysfunctional relationship if responsible clergy had refused to solemnize such a creature. Such a relationship would not have the financial, legal, emotional or religious burdens of a marriage. That would still be imperfect, but I think it would be an improvement over the status quo.
. . . my response to Round Three:
Re: DPRK. Well, as always, it all depends upon how we define “contain.” The late Grand Dear Leader Umpa-Lumpa wanted desperately to be a major player in the nuclear club. They are not and I doubt they ever will be. They remain marginal at best . . . dangerous yes, but still marginal.
Re: molester. Let me see if I have this correct. Male Abuser (MA) produced a Daughter (D) with Mother (M). You know both M & D. After prison for an unspecified crime, MA met up with Female Abuser (FA). MA & FA produced another child, who was immediately taken into custodial protection and removed from their care. Children Protective Services in most states has the authority to temporarily remove a child(ren), but permanent removal takes a judge and court order. As you admonished me in the Mims case, I have not yet heard the evidence. Were FA’s & MA’s “abuse” truly forced or injurious abuse, or just classified as abuse by socially conservative prosecutors? You mentioned D cannot function on her own; that sounds like far more than physical abuse. Were their other factors? Nonetheless, you are suggesting D’s “problems” are the direct result of MA’s sexual abuse of D; is that correct? If so, MA & FA could become the new poster-children for parental sexual abuse. Parents are in mortal fear of some zealous prosecutor who decides their approach to teaching their children is felonious.
Re: counseling. How would you envision a law requiring premarital counseling? How would it be religiously neutral? I want to solve the disgraceful decline of stable, productive marriages. From my perspective, I think one of the primary culprits is the unreasonable expectations created by the notional American Dream pitched by virtually every segment of society. People feel compelled to get married . . . to legitimize the enjoyment of sex, which of course does not turn out quite the way we expect. We need to get more realistic about marriage with more realistic expectations.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)