Update from the Heartland
No.580
21.1.13 – 27.1.13
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The House of Representatives decided to punt on the
exceeded debt limit [577] and passed
H.R.325, by a vote of 285-144-0-3(3).
The legislation is provisionally titled as the No Budget, No Pay Act of
2013, and is now in the Senate.
The proposed law is actually quite simple. Section 1 explicitly states the current debt limit law [31
USC §3101(b)] “shall not apply” from enactment through 18.May.2013. The title comes from §3 of H.R.325,
which impounds in escrow the congressional pay of all members of either chamber
that has not passed a budget resolution by 15.April.2013. The bill allows the House majority
party to avoid a brutal slog-fest over the debt limit and presumably focus on
passing a reasonable budget. The
bill makes no mention of sequester or spending reductions. We await the Senate.
{Just an historical
FYI: the original debt limit was established by the Second
Liberty Bond Act of 1917 [PL 65-I-043; 40 Stat. 288; 24.September.1917] [502] and has been amended . . . well .
. . a lot of times, which I am not inspired to count.}
-- General John R. Allen, USMC [USNA 1976], the out-going
Commander, International Security Assistance Force (Afghanistan), was cleared
by the Defense Department’s Inspector General of any professional misconduct in
the Petraeus scandal [569, 570]. Allen’s nomination to be Commander-in-Chief,
Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) was placed on hold pending
the outcome of the investigation, and it is not clear whether the President
will continue to support his nomination.
General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., USMC, has been confirmed by the Senate
and will relieve Allen next month.
-- The American jihadist David Coleman Headley [AKA Daood
Sayed Gilani] [492] was sentenced to
35 years in prison for his role in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack [363/4].
Headley meticulously scouted the targets for a 10-man, Pakistani-based,
militant group that killed 160 people, injured many more, and did millions of
dollars in damage.
-- U.S. District Court Judge Leonie M. Brinkema (née Milhomme)
of the Eastern District of Virginia sentenced former CIA agent John C. Kiriakou
[528, 577] – the first CIA officer to face prison for disclosing
classified information. At the sentencing,
Judge Brinkema said she would respect the plea deal, but also emphatically
said, “I think 30 months is way too light.” The judge said, “this is not a case of a whistle-blower.”
She went on to describe the damage that Kiriakou had created for the intelligence
agency and an agent whose cover was disclosed by him. Spot on, Judge Brinkema . . . way too easy.
Just a little observation, if I may be so
bold. I truly believe Americans
understand and are justly proud of being free. This Grand Republic is based upon freedom. Yet, most American citizens have not
and some still do not enjoy equality to savor the freedom we believe in so
strongly. It took nearly 75 years
before all white men could vote.
It took a horrific, bloody, civil war plus another 100 years before
citizens with dark skin pigmentation could freely vote or marry the person of
their choice. It took 144 years
before female citizens could vote, and some will / can argue they are still
under the yoke of the coverture in societal expectations. To this day, 237 years hence, a
significant fraction of the citizenry of this Grand Republic still do not enjoy
the equality and freedom our founding promised them. While we have more obstacles ahead to realize this promise,
we struggle with governmental intrusion into our private lives and affairs, and
the erosion of those precious rights so begrudgingly won by unfathomable
sacrifice. As we debate the social
issues of our time, let us not forget our heritage and the expectations of the
Founders for a government of the People, by the People, and for the
People. This has not been an easy
or smooth journey. Let freedom
ring!
An interesting
article:
“12 Rude Revelations About Sex – In order to transcend the
discomfort that sex typically stirs, you may need to radically rethink desire,
marriage, fidelity, and much more.”
Psychology Today
Published on January 02, 2013 - last reviewed on January 02,
2013
There are several elements that I might quibble with in de
Botton's assessment / opinion. He
does mention the impact of religion on our sexual attitudes and morals, yet I
believe he seriously underplays the impact. The Judeo-Christian, Victorian-era morality most of us were
taught and indoctrinated with as children is the power that forces our sense of
modesty, shame with our nakedness, and core belief that sex is a very private,
very adult, and in many cases, only-for-procreation activity. We condemn promiscuity, adultery,
prostitution, masturbation, contraception, pornography, virtually anything
sexual that might interfere with marital procreation. De Botton implies our prudishness regarding sex is genetic,
hereditary and natural. I shall
respectfully disagree. Our
anatomical modesty and sexual prudishness are taught to us from second one of
extra-uterine life, and those reinforcements still occur to this day.
"That's just my opinion, but I could be wrong."
Another related
interesting article:
“That Loving Feeling Takes a Lot of Work”
by Jane E. Brody
New York Times
Published: January 14, 2013; 2:37 PM
We have a variety of Press outlets in the
colonies that voiced and repeated concerns about recent public remarks by Captain
Prince Henry of Wales [AKA Prince Harry].
However, this is the article that got my hackles up:
“Prince Harry faces growing criticism over 'candid'
descriptions of killing Taliban fighters – Prince Harry faces growing criticism
over his unguarded descriptions of killing Taliban fighters, with one
front-bench MP suggesting he had been too ‘candid’”
by Gordon Rayner, Rob Crilly and Zubair Babakarkhail in
Kabul
The Telegraph [of
London]
Published: 22 Jan 2013; 3:44PM GMT
I am aghast, appalled and otherwise gobsmacked by all this
drivel and nonsense about the frank, honest and direct remarks of Prince Harry,
regarding the killing of Taliban fighters. Harry was seconded from The Blues and Royals to 662
Squadron, 3 Regiment, Army Air Corps, Camp Bastion, Helmand Province,
Afghanistan. He was assigned and
served as the Copilot-Gunner (CPG) on a British Army AH-1 (WAH-64D) attack
helicopter crew in combat. His job
was to kill people in the most efficient, effective manner possible. What on God’s little green Earth do we
expect him to say . . . I enjoyed playing nice with my Taliban buddies. When he is in that seat, he is a
warrior with a trigger to powerful weapons intended to rain destruction on the
enemy; he is not some pampered prince.
Let us get real folks! Well
done, Harry. Spot on! Godspeed and following winds!
News sources
reported on recent statements from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
(DPRK) indicated the isolated, rogue nation intends to launch another ICBM as
well as detonate another nuclear test shot.
“UN expands sanctions on North Korea”
by Geoff Dyer in Washington
Financial Times
[of London]
Published: January 23, 2013; 2:16 am
A friend, colleague and frequent
contributor sent along this comment:
“We need to
be worried, seriously worried over the flagrant obsessive disregard of UN
warnings by N. Korea. Only bad can come of this. But who wants another Korean
war? Surely the Chinese who like to conduct ‘out of balance’ trading with the
western world should be acting against their aggressive and foolish neighbours.
I’m certain you’ll have views on this situation.”
With this
link:
. . . to this
article:
“North Korea set for new nuclear, rocket tests aimed at
striking the United States”
National Post [of
Canada]
Published: Jan 24, 2013; 8:03 AM ET
. . . along with my response:
I
suppose the latest Kim wants to pick up where his granddaddy left off in
1953. I cannot imagine the PRC
encouraging the DPRK in poking at the USA, but who knows. Given the PRC’s provocative stance
regarding the Senkaku Islands as well the myriad shoals and sandbars in the
South China Sea, perhaps the PRC is using the DPRK as its stalking horse with
respect to U.S. military assets in the region. I gave up a long time ago trying to understand the disturbed
reasoning of the Kim family as dictators of the DPRK. Their bellicose chest-beating will not accomplish
anything. Frankly, I would love to
see an Aegis cruiser off the coast engage the next rocket early in the ascent
phase as a clear demonstration to the Kim regime, although our allies to the
south would probably not look kindly on such an exercise.
Semper
vigilans,
Cap
Out-going Defense
Secretary Leon Edward Panetta lifted the military’s ban on women in combat,
which will open up hundreds of thousands of additional front-line jobs to
them. The topic sparked several
parallel threads. This is just one
of those threads. It began with
this article:
“The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat – A Pentagon push
to mix the sexes ignores how awful cheek-by-jowl life is on the battlefield”
By Ryan Smith
Wall Street Journal
Published: January 23, 2013
. . . to which our common contributor offered up his rant:
“I'm exhausted from this rapid-fire assault by the Obama
administration & handlers, along with their embedded alphabet news agency
mouthpieces for change. This socialist administration has become more
emboldened since the so-called re-sElection, and is working in a sinister pace
to undermine America and much of what our nation has stood for. It's been the 2nd Amendment
lately, but now it is women in combat. It's all happening quickly. Perhaps it
is well designed (crafted) to cause major division amongst the commoners, as
we've not seen the divisive partisanship politics like this in some time, as
well as distractions from the reality of global economies and fragile
geopolitics.
“The enemy of the state is using race/class/wealth/party
divisive warfare all the while they state they are united us and assuring the
equality of any/every demographic/psychographic segment possible (while
deceiving the majority).
“Let the Marine [Smith, above] provide a reason why women in combat makes no sense.
Then read the article below about Obama's lies on equality. I did not say I did
not believe women cannot be in the military, I am talking front lines which is
combat. Women do a great-great job as pilots, cops, firefighters, and many
professions, but this one is pushing the limits.
“Is our military good for winning, excellence in delivering
blows to enemies, or is it all about equality now?
“Welcome to the United State of Egalitarianism (USE). Soon,
expect us to be equal with our pets and other animals, and then the poodles can
serve too on the front line (not equating a woman with a poodle, but this is for
an example of where we are heading. If you have a pet turtle and believe he has
rights too, well make sure you take him to the welfare office to sign him up).
“Everyone has rights, yet none of us will be left with the
traditional rights.
“Something sinister is up, our local golfer Phil Mickelson
said the other day that because of state and federal taxes, he may need to move
from San Diego. A day later he reverses course and said he should not have said
that, that it was insensitive. Then last week I reported that the Whole Food
founder John Mackey told NPR that ObamaCare was not just socialism but actually
"fascism" and then a few days later he reverses course as he is being
threatened and harassed by the various MAFIAS that operate out there in the
social segments. Mackey went on CNN, invited to talk about his new book
CONSCIOUS CAPITALISM and the gal host tried to take him apart for saying
ObamaCare was "fascism" and he said maybe he used the wrong wording
and then she continued to punish him going as far then as articulating the NEW
BASE LINE for all of us (regardless of the 1st Amendment) that the "fascism" word
was used during the Nazi days "and we really want that word out of the public
forum." CNN dictating to us our modern vocabulary now. Watch the Orwellian
interview here:
“That female anchor (change-agent) would be great with Piers
Morgan.
“Welcome to the New World ODOR (their attempt at their order
is a big odor).”
. . . I offered this simple response:
One of these days, we will grow up. The eternal optimist in me tells me so. This foolish nonsense of Victorian-era
morality must and will end someday.
Equality means equal, not kinda equal, so let's get over our antiquated prudishness
and realize the true meaning of our creed.
. . . to which the contributor added:
“I don't think equality is anything at all about treating people
equal. I is just more government group think, government regulation, government
control, government expansion, government taxation, and government power in our
faces.
“We are not all created equal. You and I have different
plumbing than a woman. Does this make you and I superior? No. Do men have
certain attributes that make them more suitable to specific tasks? I believe
so. Just like women are better in
specific functions. I've affirmed that in professions where it was
traditionally male dominated, three areas I know about...piloting, law
enforcement and firefighting, women have done a great job excelling. Not all
women, just like not all men cut it, but some women. Of course there are LAPD
and SDPD guys that will argue with me that they believe many women in patrol,
should not be, only because they don't have the physical attributes or 'GET IN
YOUR FACE' nature that a man might more naturally have (as in, when a cop is
down on the ground in a fight-for-life with the perp trying to grab his gun, he
would rather see the meanest and most built male as his next cover unit). This
is not to say women are less. How did we get to this point where everyone has
to be equal? Liberals.
“With this decision on females into front-line combat, does
this now mean a Down's syndrome person (bless their souls) or let's say an
obese man who claims discrimination, is allowed to go to the front-lines
because our military will be forced to reduce its standards? In other words,
where does all of this go? We are not created equal, for all tasks. God may see
us equal but let's face it, man does not see other men/women equal. Everyone
has their built-in biases and prejudices any always will because before we get
to the Utopian era, World War-III will occur due to perhaps religious wars,
resources wars, or men in high places that don't see you and I as their equals.
“So let's open up professional football, say NFL, to women
football players. I suspect that will happen because some butch female who
wants to play with the boys, will end up finding some thirsty lawyer who will
sue to get the women out on the field with the guys. It will happen, it's only
a matter of time.
“My opinion is all of this equality stuff is about illusion
by the directors of grand theatre, distracting us, and promoting the lie that
our GOV wants to protect the "weaker" or new protected class, while
stomping on our First Amendment, 2nd, 4th, and more. If the GOV cared so much
about EQUALITY, why is it not protecting the millions of babies slaughtered in
America each year all for a woman to have her "CHOICE" protected?
“Did you know female military service members are
experiencing record pregnancy rates from fellow military men? Is this the type
of distraction we really need? I believe women are great in many professions,
better than or equal to men. Men are better in other professions. But the
progressives cannot accept that and want to equalize gender, and eventually I
suppose the cow down the street will have just as many rights as a human
(nothing against cows, they are really kind animals).
“Here's another take Sir Parlier, what happened to the MAN
protecting the WOMAN? By sending women into the front-line, isn't that a
collective way of saying to females "we're gonna put you out right where
the highest risks are, you are no longer elevated and protected!?"
“Call me paranoid, me thinks the reason they want to bring
women into the front-line, is because we have the perpetual & expanding war
model and there are many more wars to fight, and/or to diminish the quality of
the front-line by distracting them while dividing them on these cultural hot
point issues propagated by our own corrupted suits in Washington.”
. . . to which I responded:
Alrighty
then, game on!
In
the Internet parlance of the day, OMG, it seems this thread left the
reservation.
If
you will permit me, perhaps a few overarching observations:
1. I believe we are confusing definitions. The equality of which I speak is equality
under the law. I am not talking
about personal behavior or conduct.
There is no State interest in forcing association.
2. Equality under the law should have nothing to do with any
of the social factors, i.e., age, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual
orientation, political affiliation, disability, et cetera. If a person chooses to not associate
with anyone with dark skin pigmentation that is their choice, their private
business . . . along as they do not interfere with or impose upon the other person’s
private choices.
3. Re: “Sir Parlier.”
No need for flippant or sarcastic notations, if we are to have a
productive debate.
First,
since women in the combat arms spark this little tête-à-tête, please allow me a
historical note: on 25.October.1943, the Soviet Union awarded the Hero of the
Soviet Union medal [the Soviet equivalent of the Medal of Honor] to Major
Lyudmila Pavlichenko, the most successful female sniper in history with
something like 192 confirmed kills during the Great Patriotic War. There are American women equally as
capable with a rifle as Pavlichenko.
Are we to be denied their service to this Grand Republic?
Now,
I would like to address a few of your points.
Re:
“not all created equal.” I’ve
re-read your words several times, and I believe I understand your point. However, the argument sounds remarkably
similar to the Supremes in Plessy v. Ferguson [163 U.S. 537
(1896)]. Are you really arguing
that separate but equal is a valid constitutional interpretation?
Re:
“more suitable.” I absolutely
agree, just as there are men who are more suitable to certain jobs. I believe you made the argument for
performance standards, if so, then I agree there as well. Yet, to claim we are different because
of any one or combination of the social factors noted above is to argue on the
molecular level that there was not, is not, and will never be equality. That is a specious argument not
supported in law. That said, I
have always advocated for bona fide performance standards, and I would argue
vehemently against diminishment of those standards to accommodate any of the
social factors. The Marine Corps
recently conducted a test evaluation of four female officers joining the
Infantry Officers Course (IOC); all four failed to complete as well as a
significant number of men. That is
as it should be.
Re:
standards. I believe you
erroneously assume military standards will be arbitrarily and capriciously
lowered to accommodate women. Some
ill-informed citizen may in fact argue for such diminishment. We must not allow that to happen. If it does, then I shall be the first
to acknowledge your premonition, opinion and assertion. I have more faith in our military
institutions. We must stand guard
to keep the so inclined politicians from “forcing” the military to reduce their
standards. Conversely, if a woman
can pass standards and wants to serve in that capacity, then I say God bless
her service.
Re:
NFL. I say the same criterion
applies. If they meet the
standards and wish to play, then more power to them.
Re:
illusion. It would seem you have a
rather poor view of equality. I
understand the difference
Re:
abortion. I am perfectly willing
to debate the controversial issue; however, I shall not deflect the current
thread. Your choice to open a new
thread.
Re:
pregnancy. The arguments
surrounding the pregnancy issue are real, profound and inescapable. There are women who use pregnancy as a
means to manipulate men and the system – not new, not going to change. One more leadership challenge.
Re:
man protecting the woman.
Really? As in Victorian
chivalry? Or, as in the doctrine
of coverture that portrays a wife as the property of the husband, who in turn
is obligated to protect, provide for and place on a pedestal of procreative
reverence?
It
is way past time to grow up and move beyond anatomy and an antiquated
morality. Sex is a cerebral
function that often involves anatomical features.
“That’s
just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
The Senate passed
two procedural resolutions – S.Res.15 & S.Res.16 – to approve modest
changes to Senate rule XXII. The
Press reported the changes to Senate rules, limiting the window for application
of the filibuster should a senator choose to resist a piece of
legislation. They retained the
60-vote threshold for overcoming a filibuster but limited the procedure to the
early phases of the senate legislative process.
Senator Dianne
Emiel Feinstein (née Goldman) of California introduced S.150, provisionally
titled the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.
I have not found the text of the proposed law, as yet. The process has begun. The proposed bill was referred to the Judiciary
Committee and in short order, the committee expects to open hearings next
week. I doubt the bill makes any
attempt to deal with the root cause issues, but it is hard to criticize the
language when I have not yet read it.
We have difficult days ahead.
A three-judge
panel of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously agreed
that President Obama violated the Constitution last year by appointing three
members to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was not
technically in recess, circumventing Senate Republicans who had held up his
picks for months. I have not yet
been able to read the Canning v. NLRB [DC CCA no. 12-1115 (2013)] ruling, but the review will come
in due course.
News from the economic front:
-- Jens Weidmann, President of Deutsche Bundesbank,
warned of competitive exchange rate devaluations as a consequence of the
erosion of central bank independence around the world. The potential threatens to spark off an
every-man-for-himself mentality that would diminish or negate the already
lethargic economic recovery.
-- The Bank of Japan bowed to pressure from the new Abe
government, and agreed to adopt a 2% inflation target as well as strengthened
its monetary-easing program in a bid to rid the economy of its long-running
deflationary pressures. The
prospect helped devalue the yen (see note above).
-- Bank of England Governor Sir Mervyn Allister King, GBE,
FBA, 64, urged Her Majesty’s Government to do more to stimulate the
“disappointingly slow” economic recovery and sought to reduce the burden on the
central bank. He also dismissed
suggestions made by his designated successor, Mark Carney, now governor of the
Bank of Canada, for the Bank to ease monetary policy further by abandoning its
inflation target.
-- Economy Minister Akira Amari of Japan struck back at the
public comments of Jens Weidmann (above), and other German and UK officials who
have raised concerns about the new Japanese government’s assertive efforts to
loosen monetary policy. Amari dismissed
criticism that the Japanese government is trying to revive its economy at the
expense of the nation’s trading partners by intentionally weakening the yen. I suspect Weidmann is closer to correct
than Amari.
-- International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director
Christine Madeleine Odette Lagarde (née Lallouette), speaking at the World
Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, continue to preach her mantra of
late. “We stopped the collapse, we
should avoid the relapse, and it’s not time to relax.” Lagarde maintains the IMF assessment
that the global recovery is likely to improve this year and next, but at a
slower pace than appeared likely three months ago.
-- Great Britain’s economy contracted 0.3% in 4Q2012,
increasing the likelihood it would slide into a “triple-dip” recession and
increasing the pressure on Her Majesty’s Government. The economy, which was essentially flat for 2½ years, pulled
out of its shallow double-dip recession in 3Q2012, but contracted again.
-- The European Central Bank (ECB) indicated approximately
278 banks are due to repay €137B in low-rate funding on 30.January, a sign of a
gradual return to health for the eurozone’s financial system. The ECB’s so-called longer-term
refinancing operations were greeted as an important effort in restoring
confidence in the eurozone’s financial system and ultimately led to the ECB
pumping €1T into about 800 banks.
The Stanford
Fraud [375]:
-- James M. Davis, 64, former chief financial officer of
Texas financier R. Allen Stanford’s financial house of cards, was sentenced to
five years in federal prison for his contribution in the more than US$7B Ponzi
scheme, despite being the prosecution’s star witness in the whole Stanford
debacle. Davis joins another
former Stanford executive, former chief investment officer Laura
Pendergest-Holt who was sentenced to three years in federal prison. Two others, former chief accounting
officer Gilbert Lopez and former global controller Mark Kuhrt, are scheduled to
be sentenced on 14.February. Prosecutors
are still waiting on the extradition of an indicted, former, Antiguan financial
regulator to face federal investment fraud charges in the U.S.
Comments
and contributions from Update no.579:
“Strange you should mention congress in the language you
used. Even over here we hear that your Congress is not the most popular show in
town. However, will your people see the sense to change the present incumbents
and give you the government you need?
“But hey, this borrowing business, hell's teeth, we're all
at it and it must stop. There is no 'piggy bank' on ours and your side of the
pond and providing we can maintain our Triple A I assume it will continue until
the 'piggy' has fat.
“One other baffling point in our BBC news last night, Mr.
President, why two inaugurations, one private yesterday to meet the deadline
and one big time today? At which, (it says) 100s thousands are expected to
witness. Now that doesn't come cheaply Cap my friend. Three cheers for the
Triple A?”
My reply:
Re:
Congress. Indeed, the aggravation
level with Congress is quite high; however, they remain the legislative body of
this Grand Republic, no matter how dysfunctional they may be. We, the People, elected these bastards,
and it is our responsibility entirely to vote the bastards out. Unfortunately, as Lord Woodhouselee
articulated (1813), the inmates have gained control of the keys to the
Treasury, and they want to keep their lackeys in office to do their
bidding. Eventually, we will get
the government we need; the only question is when and how much must we endure?
Re:
borrowing. Borrowing is a
resultant, a by-product; the primary issue is spending. Congress has sole responsibility for
spending; they alone decide on what and how much to spend the Treasury. They must rein in their penchant for
slathering the palms of their rich buddies and contributors. Pardon my cynicism. I’ve just been watching these bozos too
long. We have to shine a bright
light on their spending and overcome the corruption of campaign contributions
and money in general.
Re:
inauguration. The 20th Amendment
to the Constitution was ratified in 1933 and established noon (EST) on the 20th
of January after a presidential election as the moment for the transfer of
power – out with the old, in with the new, in one instant. When the 20th of January occurs on
Sunday, the President is sworn in at noon per the Constitution, and the public
celebration usually occurs on the next day . . . as in this case. So, the real transition moment was
Sunday. Monday’s public events
were ceremony for the public.
Expensive yes, but ceremony must be served.
Another contribution:
“Interesting looking at your list of reasons for having
guns. Regarding the last one, I think Stephen Colbert hit the nail on the head
when he said, “Like anybody setting up a new government, the founders added a
clause that said, ‘If you don’t like what we’re doing, feel free to shoot us.’”
“Anyone familiar with modern military weapons including
WMDs, chemical and biological agents, neutron bombs, etc., knows there is no
defense against tyranny. Except the path that Ghandi and MLK Jr. took.”
My response:
Re:
reasons. Regardless of whether we
agree with any of the reasons, those are the reasons I know. Each and every one of us can reject one
or all of the reasons. Yet,
freedom means every citizen has the right to choose any one or a combination of
reasons for possessing firearms.
We may ridicule tyranny as a reason, but the Founders / Framers did not
see it that way. As I quoted in
Update no.578, Associate Justice
Story recognized and acknowledged tyranny as the preeminent reason for citizens
to possess firearms (1833).
Re:
defense. Resistance of tyranny can
take many forms, not just a frontal assault. Passive resistance works in some circumstances . . .
unfortunately not all. The beauty
of freedom is each of us gets to choose how we wish to defend our families, our
property and ourselves. Passive
resistance might work, or it might not.
Nonetheless, it will still be our choice.
. . . with this follow-up comment:
“I agree with your list is reasons. I think you've touched
all the bases. I agree that in the days of the formation of the Republic, a
population armed with muskets was a formidable force. I just don't believe it's
still true.
“Here's a quick read that is interesting. I remember in
basic training the majority of guys were idiots when it came to handling
weapons. Glad I grew up in the country.”
. . . along
with this link:
. . . and my follow-up response:
A
“bulwark against tyranny” may no longer be true; however, there are plenty of
citizens who believe it is true.
As I said, each of us is free to decide which of those reasons are
meaningful to us; we are also free to reject them all and reject guns in
general. That is precisely what
freedom is all about. This issue
is exactly like all the other social questions before us – one side or the
other is convinced they are correct, and with religious fervor, they seek to
impose their beliefs, their opinions, their values, their rejections upon ALL
citizens as vindication of their beliefs.
We must resist such temptations and seek our validation elsewhere.
Re:
training. Accidental discharges
have occurred since the Chinese invented gunpowder and the cannon. I was taught to always safe a weapon
first, before anything else. Some
folks never learn.
Yet, another
contribution:
“Hello, This bears on one of our discussions. I saw this on
Care2 and thought you'd like it as well. Care2 is the largest and most trusted
information and action site for people who care to make a difference in their
lives and the world.”
“Experts: Mental Health Gun Laws Likely Ineffective”
by S.E. Smith
www.care2.com
Published: January 21, 2013; 4:00 pm
My reply:
There
are so many perspectives on this issue.
The Smith article raises a number of interesting points.
Any
attempt to hang the gun violence solution on mental health professionals would be
wrong as Smith noted. Mentally ill
citizens have constitutional rights as well. Using this disclaimer to exclude mental health professionals
to focus on the tools of their crimes will not float.
I
would resist any temptation to hang this on mental health professionals, for
the reasons Smith gives, but for the reality that a stable solution will
require a far broader and deep network.
I feel part of Smith’s reaction is directly attributable to the specter
of law enforcement, the law, and government as prosecutor. The potential for violation of a citizen’s
personal rights and protections is enormous. Frankly, I would not entrust that subtlety to the black
& white of law enforcement and the crown prosecution service. We need an investigative, intelligence-like
service that does not have arrest, detention or prosecution authority, which is
how I see the social constabulary (SC).
We also need to provide guidance to couples before they become parents,
intentionally or accidentally. We
need a more informed and engaged citizenry that cares enough about their
communities to alert the SC, to intervene before disturbed individuals are able
to act and execute their dastardly deeds.
Comment to the Blog:
“First of all, I agree with you about Lance Armstrong. Those
in charge of ‘amateur’ athletics, from college football to the Olympics, keep
up the pretense that their organizations do not handle many millions of
dollars, euros, etc. That nonsense blinds them to the insanely high stakes and
accompanying desperation among the athletes.
“Next, you lost me in your paragraph that begins, ‘Ok, now
the President is on the verge of losing me.’ He lost me some time ago, but I
don’t understand what he has said or done recently to upset you.
“I will agree with spending as the central issue (or at
least one of them) so long as we stipulate that tax breaks have precisely the
same effect as spending. Call it what you will, the arithmetic works out the
same.
“Your discussion of Moore v Madigan entirely baffled me.
What were the origin, the decision, and the implications?
“The attention to that football player’s nonexistent
girlfriend makes me wonder what the various media are not covering. That story
is not as newsworthy as all that.
“The Biden Committee will get the same result as dozens of
government committees and commissions before it. Nothing.
“I would certainly like to see the gun show loophole closed,
but your example of the poorly handled no-fly list gives me pause. As you said,
the devil is in the details.
“Your argument against past assault weapon bans argues
effectively for clear definitions rather than lists of makes and models. I do
not see how it argues against a ban, though.
“I can easily agree with collectibles and hunting as reasons
to own guns. You did not define ‘sport’ and I do not know with any confidence
what you meant. I could go along with target shooting in its various forms,
which could be your intention. Guns for home and property defense tend to be
fired more by accident and panic than against actual threats. Fortunately, few
of those bullets find their mark. We already have reserve militia, which is
duly armed. Finally, the ‘counter to tyranny’ has failed. Americans have not
taken up arms against the PATRIOT Act and other usurpations of our civil
rights. Owning a gun will not prevent further infringement upon your rights.
“Of course, I do not agree with or approve of a newspaper
publishing the names and/or addresses of gun owners, any more than I would want
it to print the addresses of gay people or of some other unpopular minority.
“I have seen an article describing the difficulties even
specially-trained professionals face in determining whether a mentally-ill
individual has the potential to become violent. (I’m not sure whether I
succeeded in emailing that article to you; I recall the frustration but not the
outcome.) Expecting untrained and caring parents to do that job is unrealistic.
The neighbors cannot make good guesses either. I will remind you that the
mother of Adam Lanza (Newtown) paid the maximum price for not understanding her
son’s potential.
“I will say again that the tool a person uses in an attempt
to commit homicide does indeed matter. The difference between a firearm and a
knife or blunt object is the difference between your Harley and my 7-speed
bicycle. The differences in power and ease of operation change the entire
outcome.
“Your economic news draws a picture that you might not have
noticed. Germany has balanced her budget and at the same time her economy has
begun to shrink. Perhaps deficits and spending are not the true drivers of
their economic problems or others’. Certainly austerity has done nothing for
Greece but satisfy the demands of outsiders.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
Armstrong. Good observations. Money is a powerful corrupting force.
Re:
President. He focused on the debt
limit rather than spending cuts. I
appreciate the need to get Congress off the debt limit as a fulcrum for their
political gain, however, the debt limit is a façade in comparison to the
rampant spending without matching revenue that Congress has been doing in a
huge way, especially in the last decade.
President Bush (43) chose to fight an important (I might say vital) war
on the nation’s credit card rather than mobilize the American People to help
fight the war. This insane
spending is NOT a Republican flaw or a Democratic one; both parties have been
equally irresponsible. For the
President to imply the deficit and borrowing are Republican realities is just
flat wrong, and that is why he is on the verge of losing me in this argument.
Re:
revenue. I freely acknowledge that
the fiscal equation involves both revenue and expenses. My problem with the President rests on
his inordinate focus on the revenue element of the equation. He must focus the Executive on the
expense element, period. Yes,
Congress decides on what and how much to spend the Treasury upon, but the
President is supposed to be the leader of all Americans, Democrat and
Republican – We, the People. We
have not had a Federal budget in years; we have had continuing resolutions with
these damnable earmark spending riders, adding more spending and no vetos. The game has been one of extortion to
get spending on their pet projects and the President has not vetoed bills because
I imagine he feels the funding to keep the government running is more important
than the political fight over the spending. The President has a powerful light to shine on wasteful
spending, but he has refused to use that light, which simply allows the rats in
Congress to continue scurrying around in the dark, spending more and more
money. I am NOT too keen for
anymore debate on revenue until Congress does their job and makes a major
adjustment in expenses. As the
Italians say, Basta!
Re:
Moore
v. Madigan. The ruling was
not particularly remarkable. The
decision declared the Illinois public-carry law unconstitutional. I did note the dissenting judge’s use
of the Statute of Northampton as rationale for
a public-carry prohibition. My
primary focus in Update 579 was the
President’s gun violence proposal.
My apologies for the circumspect review, but it was not worthy of much
more.
Re:
Te’o. My wonder as well.
Re:
Biden Committee. Perhaps so.
[Split here in two parts to fit the allowed space.]
Re:
gun control. Like all Americans, I
want all firearms out of the hands of violent felons, mentally ill, dangerous,
and otherwise disturbed individuals who have the potential for gun
violence. The issue before us is
how do we accomplish that objective with respect for the rights of all
citizens. The President’s 23
Executive initiatives may yield some solutions, but as I wrote, this issue is
NOT all on the mentally ill. I
would be more supportive if he had even tacitly recognized the contribution of
parents and local communities to this problem and thus to the solution. Nonetheless, I anxiously await the
product of these initiatives.
Re:
gun ban. My point was if they can
put antique 100+ year-old rifles on an “assault weapons” ban, then I do not
trust Congress with such definitions and the protection of our constitutional
rights.
Re:
definitions. “Sport” = marksmanship – a human activities since our ancestors
learned to use projectiles many millennia ago. “Militia”: organized militia, yes, but only on active duty;
reserve militia, not yet. “Tyranny”:
That is not for Congress or the government to determine. That determination rests only with We,
the People. We have heard
rumblings of rebellion far more in the last decade than in my lifetime. Each of us can reject tyranny as
justification for possessing an appropriate gun, but that decision rests with
each individual.
Re:
identification/location. We are
agreed, then. Gun licenses or
concealed carry permits should be and must be private information; disclosure
should be a felony. My point was,
I am not interested in giving the government access to more private information
without strict assurances that such private data is protected to a far higher
degree.
Re:
mental health professionals. I
responded to the article. I do
agree. Mental health professionals
are NOT the solution, but they can contribute to the solution. As I noted, I do not see this element
going much farther without some intermediate, non-prosecutorial entity being
the actionable agency. My SC
proposal comes the closest, it seems to me.
Re:
Nancy Lanza. The public
information is sketchy, inconsistent and a bit confusing. It is my current understanding that she
repeatedly sought professional help in dealing with her disturbed son, and each
time she was told there was nothing we can do. The police say they cannot act until there is a crime;
unfortunately, his crime was horrific.
She apparently tried to convince the police he was a threat, but no
intervention and little treatment.
To my knowledge, Nancy Lanza, as well as Sung Tae & Hyang Im Cho,
made repeated attempts to gain intervention assistance; they feared their son’s
disturbed behavior, but no one listened.
We must find the means to listen and help as part of our community
engagement. Again, an intermediate
SC appears to be the best path.
Re:
tool. The tool(s) can never be the
root cause. I do agree the tool
can amplify a bad man’s action(s), but it is still his decisions, his planning,
his actions that cause injury – the root cause.
Re:
German economy. It is my
understanding that German fiscal policy and performance has been the dampener
in the face of seriously contracting exports – the country’s prime driver. I do agree that austerity, i.e., the
expense terms, are not and cannot be the sole solution. In Greece’s case, they have rampant
corruption and tax evasion, which compounds the problem. Conversely, attempting to increase
revenue in the face of mounting unemployment is a death spiral. The key is balance. The Germans have come the closest to
balance, which speaks to their fiscal policy; thus, my earlier comment of
President Obama’s public rhetoric.
My very best
wishes to all. Take care of
yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
The long history of the debt limit merely gives us a starting point of Congress’s evasion of the budget issue. Given that this is Year 96 of this discussion, perhaps the whole issue is moot if we have had this discussion through good times and bad, war and peace, and we still have the issue but we still have a nation. Congress has never missed a paycheck through all of this, and I doubt they will lose any money personally this time either. Maybe we should take another look at whether this is an economic issue or a long-running political red herring. After all, one reason we have the budget specifics that we have today is that unemployed people and sick people with no health insurance cannot pay into the system.
I am glad that General Allen has been cleared. That may be a sign of mercy for future scapegoats.
The Psychology Today article strikes me as pure speculation by someone with serious issues around sex. Impotence as an achievement? I don’t think so. I put more weight on your assertion of Victorian morality as an important force disrupting marriages and sexuality.
The Jane Brody article/blog post from the New York Times is more sensible and realistic. Even though it proposes a great deal of work, that work would most likely improve the odds for most marriages.
I would rather women did not serve in combat, but then I would rather nobody serve in combat. I suspect your other correspondent has not served in that capacity; he talks about people being “allowed” in combat as if it were like a pilot’s license or something people do for pleasure or status. His example of the NFL is particularly inappropriate.
The ongoing issue of Senatorial refusal to consider Presidential appointments has devolved from petty bickering to a real disruption of governmental processes. That particular issue gets little attention compared to other gridlock problems, but has come to deserve a spotlight.
Calvin,
Re: debt limit. Well said. The debt limit debate is simply a distraction – a slight of hand, a smoke screen – from the budget task and the real spending reduction issue.
Re: Congress. Most representatives and senators make far more money by their influence, largesse and corruption than they would ever make by their salary.
Re: General Allen. None of the Petraeus scandal should have EVER been made public. There was NEVER a breech of national security – the only State interest. There was no proper public interest . . . well other than the oh so typical salacious appetite.
Re: de Botton article. Agreed.
Re: Brody article. Spot on. If only . . .
Re: women in combat. I respect your opinion, and thank you for sharing it. We are all entitled to our opinions. Like you, I would rather no American have to endure combat, but as long as there are bad men in the world, I am afraid it is a burden our citizens must bear. Women are either equal or they are not. If they are, then they should have the right to serve in combat as long as they are qualified, capable and volunteer. Then again, men are not often given the option of volunteering.
Re: advice and consent of the Senate. Like virtually everything else in Congress, and perhaps in American politics in general, the constitutional process has been bastardized by severe parochialism. Some of the senators seem to believe Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, means they should approve ministers to their liking. They conveniently forget the advice and consent directive is in Article II (Executive) NOT Article I (Legislative). They are the President’s choice. While “advice and consent” is not defined, the Framers believed it was a check against nepotism, cronyism and corruption. I do not agree with Chuck Hagel on many topics, but he is President Obama’s choice, not mine.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment