Update no.579

Update from the Heartland

No.579

14.1.13 – 20.1.13

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

To all,

The follow-up news items:

-- The House passed HR 152 (provisionally: Hurricane Sandy relief act), adding another US$50.5B in aid to help northeastern states rebuild after Frankenstorm Sandy [568], in addition to HR 41 [PL 113- xxx; 127 Stat. xxx; 6.January.2013] [577].  The bill goes to the Senate.  I recognized that US$60B does not sound like much in today’s parlance of trillions, however, this is more spending with NO offset, which means more borrowing that Congress has directed (or will soon direct) and then the bastards turn around an beat up on the President for asking the debt ceiling to be raised.  This is the nonsense we must suffer until we elect responsible representatives.  Our next opportunity is less than two years away.  I know this relief funding is desperately needed in the affected region, to rebuild infrastructure and lay the groundwork for recovery.  The Hurricane Sandy relief funding is one good reason to borrow money in the short term as it is necessary but unplanned expenditure.  However, in the harsh, bright light of the federal debt and massive borrowing, such spending must be offset by comparable spending reductions in other areas, as the federal government as no savings account for unplanned expenditures like the rest of us must do.

-- This public crucifixion of Lance Armstrong [567] is getting tiresome.  I dare say all the cyclists at the Tour de France level were enhancing by some means back in Armstrong’s era.  So, they are using a public square pillory to cover for their ineptness or complacency.  Armstrong was wrong, just as all the other enhancers in the myriad of popular professional sports were also wrong, but let us stop the hypocrisy of thinking Armstrong was a bad guy.  His choice was do what everyone else was doing, perhaps do it better, or do not compete.  Let us not be quite so sanctimonious as Armstrong suffers the consequences of being the designated fall-guy for a complacent, duplicitous sport.

-- The House may vote next week on a plan to raise the nation's debt ceiling [577] for three months – an approach intended to defuse the threat of a near-term government default while putting pressure on the Senate to pass a budget before addressing the debt ceiling for the long term.  It is not clear whether the budget will consider the significant spending reduction required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 [PL 112-025; 125 Stat. 240; 2.August.2011] [503, 504].  The new strategy apparently came from a Republican retreat in Williamsburg, Virginia.

OK, now, the President is on the verge of losing me.  Up to this point, I tended toward the President versus the House of Representatives in this persistent, perpetual, wrestling match of over whose favored largesse gets cut.  Even the usually hard-line, conservative, Americans for Prosperity (AFP), backed by the industrialist Koch brothers, is urging Republicans to show restraint during U.S. debt ceiling negotiations.  The AFP wants an end to the political standoff, which is an encouraging sign.  I think I understand what the President is trying to say; however, I think he chose a very poor tack in this latest engagement.  I cannot resist the urge . . . what is it these fools do not understand?  It’s the spending, stupid!  The debt ceiling is NOT the issue.  Congress decides on what and how much to spend.  It is their spending that is the ONLY issue here.  Using the debt limit debate as leverage to gain spending cuts they seek is quite akin to holding a pistol to the head of the American People.  Yet, the President is wrong; we simply cannot keep borrowing money to pay for things we cannot afford.  Congress must cut spending.  BT

How timely . . . given current events! 

            I reviewed the recent decision of the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the case of Moore v. Madigan [7CCA nos. 12-1269, 12-1788 (2012)] that declared unconstitutional the Illinois law [720 ILCS 5/24–2] that forbids a person, with exceptions mainly for police and other security personnel, hunters, and members of target shooting clubs, to carry a gun ready to use, i.e. loaded, immediately accessible – within easy reach – and uncased.  The three-judge panel split 2-1; neither opinion was directly attributed.  The two, principal, contemporary, Supreme Court cases utilized to substantiate the majority opinion were: District of Columbia v. Heller [554 U.S. 570 (2008); 26.June.2008] [342], and McDonald v. Chicago [561 U.S. 325 (2010); 28.June.2010] [448].  Along with the ruling, the court issued a 180-day stay to allow the Illinois legislature time to draft compliant legislation.  While an appropriate judicial decision, I doubt the Moore ruling will add to the jurisprudence of the 2^nd Amendment.

            Interesting enough and sufficient stimulant to my curiosity regarding history, the dissenting judge in the Moore ruling used the Statute of Northampton [2 Edw. III, c. 3 (1328)], which says “no man great nor small, of what condition soever he be, except the king's servants in his presence . . . be so hardy to come before the King's justices, or other of the King's ministers doing their office, with force and arms, nor bring no force in affray of the peace, nor to go nor ride armed by night nor by day, in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the justices or other ministers, nor in no part elsewhere.”  The law was intended to preserve the public peace and avoid “terrifying the good people of the land.”  Blackstone refers to the Statute of Northampton in Book IV, Chapter 11, pp.148-9 (1769), in a rather off-handed manner, especially in light of his notation in Book I, Chapter 1 (the Absolute Rights of Individuals), p.139: a citizens’ right to “having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law,” which was declared in An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown (AKA English Bill of Rights) [1 Will & Mary Sess 2, c 2 (16.December.1689)] [368].  The dissent cited the Statute of Northampton as a clear example of governmental restriction of bearing arms in public; the majority in Moore was not so convinced.  I might add, at the time of the Statute of Northampton, the common weapons were swords, knives, armor, and the vaunted English Long Bow.  Individual firearms were not used by the military until the 15^th Century, and personal firearms did not become commonplace until the 18^th Century.  Thus, the Statute of Northampton hardly seems significant in our current debate.

In a week when we should be debating a serious constitutional issue and societal problem, the broadcast Press seemed to be dominated by the conundrum swirling around Notre Dame senior linebacker Manti T’eo and whether his fictitious, “deceased,” “girlfriend” was an intentional fraud for the sympathy vote in the Heisman Trophy voting.  Yawn!  I can only conclude the broadcast Press is far more concerned with sensationalism and personal failure than the serious constitutional question before us.  So, off we go into the weightier topic. 

            The Biden Committee on Gun Violence made its report to the President ahead of schedule.  On Wednesday, President Obama held a press conference to announce his action plan, presumably based on the Biden Committee report and recommendations, although it is not clear to me whether he was responding to the committee report or something else, and signed a memorandum (or perhaps an order, not sure as yet) to implement 23 specific, executive actions. The total cost of the president's proposed executive actions has been estimated at US$500M, with no definition of how we are to pay for these actions.  I reviewed the titles or descriptions provided by the White House for all 23 actions.  First, as we all know, the devil is in the details.  They sound good and reasonable things to pursue in general.  However, I must confess to a fair amount of apprehension regarding the various suggestions associated with background checks and personal information. 

            The President declared his intention to push for universal background checks, i.e., close the gun show loophole.  We have but to look at the Westchester County (New York) Journal News fiasco last month.  On one hand, I am in favor of universal background checks for gun sales or transfers to reduce the likelihood of bad or unstable men acquiring firearms; however, I want strict procedures to protect that information.  My fear erupts from the potential for the government to use that information adversely, e.g., confiscation operations.  If we cannot find a method to protect that information, then I say no background checks; let us find another way.  Now, of course, it is not clear to me how we protect the medical records of citizens while we alert the background check system that a particular citizen is not qualified to purchase a firearm – again, protection of data.  And, who determines these classifications?  The government has not shown proficiency in using the “no fly” watch list.  What makes us think they will do better with universal background checks?

            The President called for immediate congressional action on a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban, voicing his disapproval of “weapons designed for the theater of war” in the hands of the civilian populace.  He also ended his speech with a simple challenge, “Let’s do the right thing.”  I agree with the President in general, and I think he did an impressive job with a sensitive and controversial speech.  We all agree we need to do the best we can to prevent events like Newtown, Oak Creek, Aurora, Blacksburg, DC, Granada Hills, Columbine, et al.  [I have not included the Islamic jihadist events like Ft. Hood, Little Rock, et cetera.] The real difficult part will be deciding and agreeing to what is the “right thing”?  In addition to the 23 executive action items, the President also asked Congress to pass legislation to prohibit assault rifles, large capacity magazines (> 10 rounds), and required universal federal background checks on all gun purchases or transfers of ownership.

            OK!  Let us get right to the heart of the popular focus in this critical debate.  We are debating semi-automatic, not automatic, rifles that look like military rifles.  The actual military weapons are already prohibited for civilian possession or use by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) [PL 73-474; 48 Stat. 1236; 26.June.1934] [311] that restricted weapons, which are “capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm” [NFA § 1(a)], and are designed “to shoot, automatically or semiautomatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger” [NFA § 1(b)].  The law was aimed at the Thompson submachine gun, designed in 1919 and popular among the criminal subculture of the Prohibition era; the Tommy gun entered military service in 1938 as the M1921, firing a 0.45 ACP cartridge, in automatic mode only.  The first true assault rifle was the German Sturmgewehr (storm rifle) [StG 44] that entered military service in 1944.  An assault weapon has one common distinguishing feature – a fire mode selector – safe; semi-automatic (one trigger pull = one shot); automatic (one trigger pull = multiple shots).  The weapons commonly referred to as assault weapons in the Press, e.g., Bushmaster 0.223 caliber rifle or AR-15, are NOT assault weapons; the Bushmaster simply looks like the military version – the M-16 rifle.  Other design features that tend to get lumped into the so-called “assault weapons” description include: a pistol grip, a collapsible or folding stock, a flash suppressor, a muzzle brake, a threaded barrel, a bayonet lug, or an integrated grenade launcher.  Appearance does not come close to breaking the threshold of a proper State interest.  If it did, we would be attempting to prohibit toys, squirt guns, paint ball gun and such.  If fact, I will argue strongly to the contrary; we need those weapons readily identifiable by any citizen.  Are we really serious about attempting to prohibit an object based on appearance?  I will argue for those distinctive shaped weapons to make them more readily recognizable and hopefully assist early warning and defensive action(s).  With so much interest in assault weapons, I went back to the last federal assault weapons prohibition that lasted 10 years and expired – Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (AKA Federal Assault Weapons Ban) [PL 103-322; 108 Stat. 1796, 1997; 13.September.1994] and particularly § 110106 that established Appendix A to Section 922 of Title 18 [108 Stat. 1796, 2000] – a 10-page list of banned weapons.  A number of listed weapons are neither assault weapons nor semi-automatic rifles.  For example:

·       [108 Stat. 2000] E.M.F. 1860 Henry Rifle -- a single-shot, lever-action, firing a 0.44-40 cartridge, presumably on the prohibited list due to the 13-round, under barrel, tubular magazine. 

·      [108 Stat. 2003] Navy Arms 1874 Sharps Plains Rifle -- a single-shot, breech-loader, firing a 0.45-70 cartridge.

Banning antique firearms like the Henry and Sharps rifles simply does not make sense.  I have no intension of producing an exhaustive list of the nonsensical exclusions on the 1994 prohibition.  The Henry and Sharps rifles have NONE (as in not one) of the features that define an assault weapon even in the most liberal sense.  These examples are precisely why considering an assault weapons prohibition is a really bad idea.  It did not make sense in 1994, did not achieve its professed intended purpose, and makes even less sense in 2013.

            In the spirit of compromise, I could support limiting civilian magazine capacity, and I could accept drawing the line at 50 rounds or belt-fed weapons to preserve some reasonable capability in the Reserve Militia sense.  I do not buy the 10-round limit proposed by the President and prohibited by the now-expired 1994 ban.  The process of changing magazines can be accomplished in short order with just a little practice.  Most of these perpetrators planned their crimes with considerable detail including target practice and can, could or should include the magazine changing sequence.  The magazine limitation is simply symbolic and not contributory.

            Folks have struggled with the purpose and meaning of the 2^nd Amendment, which has probably caused more political debate than perhaps the 14^th Amendment.  For what it is worth, I see these reasons to protect a citizen’s right to “keep and bear arms”:

1.     Collectibles – historic, aesthetic, or whatever

2.     Hunting

3.     Sport

4.     Self-defense (person & property)

5.     Reserve Militia

6.     Counter to tyranny

There are perhaps other reasons.  We may not agree with the viability of these reasons, yet a citizen’s reason to own a firearm is a personal and private question.  In a free society, a citizen’s reasons for owning and using a firearm is only relevant to the individual and is NOT a matter of State interest.  In fact, I do not want anyone to know if or what firearms I may or may not possess, and with which I may or may not be proficient.  This is precisely why I reacted so strongly to the News Journal action last month.  They intentionally and with malice of forethought acquired and disclosed the addresses of citizens in their area who owned firearms or held a firearm permit.  The newspaper acquired that private information from the government.  If the government cannot protect private information, then it does not deserve to acquire or possess such personal information.  I will argue against ANY background check process if that information is not protected from public disclosure or unreasonable collateral use.

            The State’s interest in this arena stands upon public safety, harkening back to the Statute of Northampton, which is an overriding concern as a collective, e.g., freedom of speech versus capriciously yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.  The State has a proper and sustainable responsibility regarding firearms, e.g., arbitrary discharge in a crowded city.  Yet, to claim that a school tragedy trumps all citizens, circumstances, environments, reasons and times is a bridge too far.  Those of us who do not support governmental infringement on our constitutional rights cannot stand on the words alone.  President Obama has now joined Mayor Bloomberg in saying we need to keep rapid-fire weapons and large capacity magazines out of the hands of those who do not need or deserve them.  As I’ve said before [578], we are and should be debating where we draw the line on “need” and “deserve.”  All citizens do NOT deserve 30 round banana-clips or 100 round drum magazines, e.g., mentally ill, unstable, violent individuals, or convicted violent or gun felons.  Rather than attempt prohibition of certain weapons for ALL citizens, let us define the restrictions on those individuals who endanger or have the potential to threaten public safety.

            Now that I have spent all this time and words on guns, I must ask. When are we going to recognize the contribution of parents to these tragic events?  When are we going to acknowledge our failure to intercede when we see signs of aberrant behavior?  Mental illness, medications, abuse, et cetera, are generally contributing factors.  Many of these factors are recognizable in public venues.  I am disappointed in what I have seen and heard so far that there was no mention anywhere of citizen contribution to safe streets and schools.  We had the perfect opportunity to address parental and community involvement with prevention, to attack the no-snitches, ain’t my bizness, mentality in our culture.  I appreciate the desire to respect the privacy of other citizens; however, we must find some balance between privacy and public safety.  If We, the People, have no stomach for alerting law enforcement to suspicious or aberrant, public behavior, then how on God’s little green Earth can we justify infringing upon our constitutional right to “keep and bear arms”?  Congress has no authority over private conduct.  However, Congress can pass a non-binding resolution describing public awareness, signs to look for, and how to report such conduct; they can also present actions to take when they see a citizen with a drawn gun in inappropriate conditions.  I would much rather see federal spending to assist states and local governments in establish a Social Constabulary (SC) to provide a non-law-enforcement means to alert government assets to suspicious, threatening, aberrant or violent behavior before a perpetrator has an opportunity to act, or confront a perpetrator before he can act to either surrender or complete their intended final act.  On the sad part of the public portion of the equation, the parents of Seung-Hui Cho and at least the mother of Adam Lanza sought governmental help to treat their sons disturbing mental illness – they received little or none, as generally none existed.  We must have the means to treat these individuals before their demons drive them to act out against innocent citizens.

            The bottom-line in this whole debate is and remains about the root cause of these tragic events is an individual consumed by his demons of frustration, anger, resentment, disturbance, and mainly profound disrespect for life and other human beings.  We must find the means to intervene at the individual level to prevent these devastating events before they occur.

I extracted this exchange from another medium:

“As I am not a gun owner, I don’t directly have your feelings toward the gun control mandates that have come down.  I ask for you side of the story.  Specifically, why are you so concerned?  Is it that gun control is a precursor to further governmental controls on you life?  Is it that you are being diminished as a group?  I sit that your toys are being taken away?  I as sincerely, not to raise a stink here but I want to understand.”

My response:

            Re: “why are you so concerned?”  If we were debating freedom of speech or the Press, or our protection against unreasonable search & seizure, would the question be warranted?  We are debating a constitutional right of all citizens that was established in 1791 that should be done with calm, sober, intellectual focus.  I am seriously concerned any time the government infringes or presses upon a constitutional right.  The Supreme Court has long affirmed that the government must have and demonstrate a compelling and overriding interest to impose upon fundamental or constitutional rights of citizens.  That is why I am so concerned.

            Re: “Is it that gun control is a precursor to further governmental controls on your life?”  Short answer: Yes!  We have already allowed far too much intrusion by the government into our private lives and affairs.  I have not seen the appropriate overriding governmental interest for such restrictions.  What happened in Newtown was tragic to the extreme and heartrending, but the root cause was a disturbed perpetrator who was allowed to carry out this crime, not the tool he used.

            Re: “Is it that you are being diminished as a group?  This issue has nothing to do with feeling diminished.

            Re: “Is it that your toys are being taken away?”  Long guns like the Bushmaster 0.223 caliber rifle are hardly toys.  They are serious weapons that should be kept out of the hands of disturbed people like Adam Lanza.  The difficulty rests upon how to do that task without infringing upon other citizens.  Law-abiding, peaceful citizens should not be asked to sacrifice their constitutional rights because a community failed to intercede with a person who had a long, clear history of instability.  Lanza planned his action with cold premeditation, and the people who could do something to stop him before he acted failed to do so.  Let us solve that problem first, before we talk about banning firearms.

            I invite you to read the Update nos. 574 & sub.  You are welcome to voice your opinion, comment and debate any element or issue you wish.  This is the process of democracy as it should work.

            “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

News from the economic front:

-- The German Federal Statistics Office reported that the government ended the year with a fiscal surplus of 0.1% of GDP – the first balanced budget since 2007.  A sharp slowdown in company investments in plants and machinery put the German economy into contraction in 4Q2012.  Germany has been a rare bright spot among the grim ranks of eurozone economies, but even Germany is feeling the stress.

-- The PRC’s GDP expanded 7.8% last year – the lowest rate since 1999 – dragged down by global economic struggles and a domestic campaign to deflate a property bubble.  However, the country finished 2012 on a higher note as they posted 7.9% year-on-year growth in 4Q2012, a sign of potential better performance in 2013.

-- The Wall Street Journal reported that Federal Reserve officials in 2007 seemed to underestimate the growing risks in the U.S. financial system before shifting to a state of high alarm, based on newly released transcripts from the central bank's meetings that year. That year proved to be a pivotal one as the crisis built and Washington began its move toward an aggressive intervention, which bore full fruit in 2008.

Comments and contributions from Update no.579:

[An unusual exchange:]

Contributor:

“The story about the rapper and the Oxygen Channel show must have actually been an ONION story!!!”

Me:

An ONION story??

Contributor:

“You know the satire newspaper (and website).

Me:

Nope; not familiar with it.  I suppose I should educate myself.  Nonetheless, I believe it is a bona fide news item; there is seriously such a program ‘All my Babies Mamas.’  Go figure.

Contributor:

“Here is the link to the site: http://www.theonion.com/.

“It has even entered the modern lexicon…when as story is really far-fetched (but true) it is described as an ‘Onion story.’”

Me:

Well, I learned something.  Well in that context, yes . . . an onion story . . . far-fetched but true; sad to say.

P.S.: just a ludicrous FYI: After Update no.578 was distributed, the Oxygen Channel announced the show “All My Babies Mamas” was cancelled.  Perhaps there is sanity in the World.

Comment to the Blog:

“You make an interesting set of comparisons among that rapper, Warren Jeffs, and the unidentified New York City woman. As nearly as I can tell, the only real common feature among these people is their large numbers of children. While Mr. Jeffs and the rapper may have some underlying psychology in common, they have very different backgrounds. I would be very surprised if the rapper exerted the same level of control over his ‘family’ as Mr. Jeffs. Jeffs used religion as his justification; we shall see what sort of arguments and energies the rapper has working for/against him. We also have no information whether some or most the rapper’s ‘baby mamas’ work. I know no more of the New York City woman in the group except that she appears to be an addict. That is a very expensive disease so long as it is active, both for the addict and for society. Tying these people together is basically “comparing apples to oranges.”

“Leaving aside our own positions about gun control, I certainly agree that the man who appeared on the Piers Morgan show damaged his own cause. If he is a radio personality, perhaps the exposure was more valuable to him than supporting the ostensible cause.

“If we address the underlying causes of homicide in the United States, we must deal with far more than occasional shooters with ‘mental disturbances.’ While such people as the Aurora, Colorado, shooter and the young man at Newtown, Connecticut, get a great deal of attention, they commit a small percentage of the killings. The greater number of murders in the US involves drugs, either committed by users or by people in the illicit drug trade killing over money. You almost reached a potential answer when you discussed the damage of prohibition. A regulated and legal drug trade could cut back on the homicide rate by changing the entire ethos of using and users. Funding for the study and treatment of addiction (including, of course, alcoholism) could further reduce the killing by treating at least those who volunteer for treatment and are currently being turned away or delayed in receiving help.

“I note that the laws you discuss in your discussion of the 2nd Amendment refer to ‘organized’ militias and to their members being “enrolled.” That does not support the idea being put forth by the NRA that almost anyone should have access to any weapon. The notion that armed citizens would prevent ‘domestic usurpations of power by rulers’ has been disproven, as we have discussed.

“Good luck to all in Mali. The war on ‘terrorism’ cannot be won or lost and will continue until the parties find better things to do or run out of money. Usually they run out of money and popular support about the same time.”

My response to the Blog:

Calvin,

            Re: Shawty-Lo, Jeffs & NYC prostitute.  Perhaps I was not sufficiently definitive or descriptive in my words.  With the possible exception of Carlos Walker (AKA Shawty-Lo), the three have in common the procreation of multiple children with multiple partners and sought State-assistance for support of their children. I am personally offended by such indiscriminate procreation, but as they say, not my dawg.  My vigorous objection rests upon the State supporting their rampant, irresponsible procreation.

            Re: Alex Jones.  Indeed, he has already gotten far more mileage than he deserves.  End.

            Re: homicide.  You are of course quite right.  Yes, we do agree precisely that legalization / regulation of the drug trade would substantially reduce the homicide rate.  I still believe my proposed social vigilance group in between social workers and the police would provide substantial assistance to reducing homicides.  Law enforcement is constrained by the law, e.g., there must be a crime.  I have used the term social police, but now I think even that name would have the wrong connotation – perhaps social constabulary (SC) or social patrol (SP).  We need an official name, but short of law enforcement.  We are searching for a means to intervene short of violating the law.  The SC could assist with threatening substance abuse short of injuring another human being or damaging property.  They would also provide public alerts without the implications of crime & punishment.  They would also function as a community intelligence apparatus, to hopefully illuminate the Dylan Klebold’s of this world before they have a chance to act.

            Re: militia.  MA1792 said every military age, white male was part of the militia, and every militiaman had to own or procure his own musket.  However, we may have discussed tyranny, but I do not agree that it has been disproven.

            Re: Mali.  Good summary.  We just need to aid the process, to speed it along the way.

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)