25 February 2013

Update no.584


Update from the Heartland
No.584
18.2.13 – 24.2.13
Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,

Here, on the central Great Plains, Wednesday through Friday, we had the second greatest snowfall in our history.  I measured 25 cm (12 inches) on our back porch.  I have been in a near perpetual clearing effort as sheets of ice & snow pack slide off the roof.  Fortunately, neighbors assisted neighbors to clear walkways and driveways.  My aging joints, muscles, back and blood pressure measured more like 12 feet of snow.  We need the water, so I have to be happy with all this snow.  My body is reticent to say this, however we need more.  Our collective wish is not far off as the forecast predicts a comparable snowfall but his time with wind.  Blizzard warnings are up for Sunday night through early Tuesday morning.

Hawker Beechcraft Corporation emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy [542] on Tuesday as a private company and with a new (old) name – Beechcraft Corporation.  The company intends to focus on its core, historic business – turboshaft and piston powered, propeller aircraft.  The future of the company’s turbofan-powered aircraft remains uncertain.  All three product lines – Premier (390), Beechjet (400), Hawker series (987) and Horizon (4000) – ceased production a year or more ago and are up for sale individually or collectively.  The most significant achievement in the legal proceedings . . . the company’s debt burden was reduced by 90%.  The future is far brighter for the venerable aircraft manufacturing company than it was four years ago.

The follow-up news items:
-- The Press reported that General John R. Allen, USMC [USNA 1976], has declined the President’s nomination (re-instated) to be the NATO supreme commander [580] and decided to retire from active service after 37 years of distinguished service.  I shall add his case to my growing list of gross abuse of power by our Federal government.  In the tradition of the nautical services, I say godspeed and following winds, general.
-- Just a short note, I will acknowledge the convictions of the Birmingham Eight [269] in Woolwich Crown Court.  The al-Qa’ida terrorist cell met British justice without executing their dastardly intentions.  Congratulations to our British mates.  I trust the felons shall suffer appropriate punishment.

On Friday, the Kansas Supreme Court rendered its judgment in Frazier v. Goudschaal [KS SC case no. 103,487 (2013)].  The local Press reported the ruling as a landmark case, recognizing the rights of same-sex partners regarding parental rights.  I have not read the decision as yet, but I certainly will do so.  The surprising aspect rests upon the foundation of Kansas Amendment 1 of 2005 – the state’s constitutional condemnation of non-heterosexual marriage.  More to follow.

A curious and strange, “non-governmental” report emerged from a company known as Mandiant, illuminating the pervasive and expansive cyber-espionage activities of a People’s Republic of China (PRC) shadowy organization known as Unit 61398, which Mandiant claims is linked to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), 2nd Bureau (intelligence), General Staff Department’s (GSD) 3rd Department.  Mandiant has designated the collective apparatus as Advanced Persistent Threat no.1 (APT1).  Mandiant has somehow documented the activities of APT1 since 2006, and claims APT1 “has systematically stolen hundreds of terabytes of data from at least 141 organizations.”
            Kevin Mandia founded Mandiant in 2004.  He is a former United States Air Force officer and the current Chief Executive Officer of the company.   Mandiant focuses on helping organizations detect, respond to, and contain computer intrusions, and is headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia.

Another informative article regarding non-traditional relationships:
“New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You – What swinging couples and committed polyamorists can teach monogamists about love”
by Stephanie Pappas and LiveScience
Scientific American
Published: February 14, 2013
The article indicates 4-5% of Americans may be in non-traditional marriages.  I suspect the estimate may be low.  Perhaps we can all learn from these glimpses outside The Box.

News from the economic front:
-- According to the recently released minutes of the Federal Reserve’s January 29/30 policy meeting, the leaders of the central bank expressed growing unease with the Fed's easy-money policies and suggested they might need to pull them back before the job market is fully back to normal.  The central bankers voiced concern the Fed’s policies could lead to instability in financial markets. They are expected to assess the programs at its next meeting March 19/20.
-- The European Central Bank (ECB) claimed it earned €555M last year on its holdings of Greek sovereign bonds bought during the financial crisis.  The ECB also revealed that nearly half of its Securities Markets Program holdings are of Italian debt (€99B).  They also hold €43.7B in Spanish bonds, €30.8B in Greek debt, €21.6B in Portuguese bonds and €13.6B in Irish debt.
-- The European Commission (EC) reported the eurozone’s economic slowdown continues with France’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) forecast to grow by just 0.1% and Germany’s GDP by 0.5% in 2013.  The EC debt load is expected to hit 95.1% of GDP this year, the highest levels since the creation of the single currency (2002).
-- Moody's Investors' Service downgraded the credit rating of the United Kingdom from Aaa to Aa1, citing deterioration in the government's balance sheet and continued weakness in its growth outlook.

Continuation of comments from Update no.582:
“It took me awhile to get time to reply -- sorry... my comments inserted, I thought that was an easier way to take the dialogue forward. ...and let me reiterate, that I never would consider your comments offensive or against the Church. ...it's just that we come from a different perspective.”
[inserted text extracted from the original submittal:]
“(each Diocese is different -- some are self insured, some contract it out)”
“(and as we know, even when we do teach them, they don't always follow our good example -- even flawed example -- but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to uphold the standard of behavior even if we fall short of the standard).”  
“But we're all vulnerable to temptation -- another imperfect analogy: we're taught that speeding on roads is dangerous and can cause harm to innocent people, but how many of our citizens ignore the teaching of our public safety professionals. We often ignore what we SHOULDN'T do because of what we WANT to do -- i.e. have sex without worrying about the woman becoming pregnant.”
“Re: ‘. . . the decision to use contraception is a very personal and private matter.’  Agree, but that doesn't mean that every decision is a MORAL one.”  
“Which is why, God be praised, He forgives us when we sin!”
Re: ‘Similarly, is freedom of religion only for organized religious entities, or does it also cover individuals?  “I personally believe it should -- we used to have a classification for Conscious Objector to the draft laws -- but we're opening another can of worms here.”
Re: ‘Let me just ask, what is the purpose of excommunication?’ “-- nothing to do with this argument. It's usually reserved for persons who profess to be Catholic but who flout the authority of the Church or act against the authority or teachings of the Church in a public way -- (again) thank God that private sin is redeemed through the Sacrament of Reconciliation (often referred to as Confession).”
Re: ‘As I have written before, parents should decide how they wish to teach their children.’ “Totally agree, but my children didn't always follow our rules , and while there was always forgiveness, there were generally consequences.”
Re: ‘Freedom of choice seems to be an anathema to the Catholic Church and indeed most sects of the revealed religions.’ “I'm not sure what you're inferring. Of course, we are made in the image and likeness of God, and our freedom of choice comes from him. He loves us and wants us to follow his commandments, but He gave us the freedom to choose.”
Re: ‘Conversely, I do not want the Church dictating how individuals should live their private lives.’ “There's a BIG difference between dictating and promoting a code of morality that we believe is in conformity with God's law.”
Re: ‘the issue of contraception is NOT about government and religion.’  “This is where we disagree.” ‘It is an individual fundamental right to privacy.  Contraception is a private choice,’ “but a choice taken in opposition to the Church's stance on morality.”
Re: ‘being available for those who choose does NOT mean the Church is “paying” for contraception.’  “Of course it does -- because we have to pay an insurance company to provide those services if the government requires us to.”
Re: ‘It only means the Church respects an individual’s freedom of choice.’  “We DO respect that -- we just don't want to pay for them making a choice we're firmly opposed to.”
Re: ‘The challenge for the Church should be at the conscience level, not the paying level.’  “We should have the RIGHT to be at BOTH.”
My reply:
            Re: “self-insured or contracted.”  With 630 archdioceses and 2,167 dioceses in the world, and a fraction in the United States, there must be a complete range of organizations from uninsured to major group health insurance programs.  The purpose of PPACA is to raise the minimum acceptable standard for health care in the United States.  If any particular organization can pick & choose to diminish that minimum threshold, then the program will not work as intended.
            Re: “standard of behavior.”  This is precisely the point.  Like all moral choices . . . a private matter between each of us and God.  The behavior we are discussing is private, not public.
            Re: “temptation.”  Again, that is precisely the point.  Temptation is a personal struggle, like ethics, integrity or honesty.  It is not for the Church to prohibit the temptation, but to teach the conscience to make the correct choices in the face of temptation.
            Re: “choices.”  Yes, certainly, not all choices are MORAL ones, some are just simple choices like cheese or no cheese.  Some citizens do not see contraception as a moral choice, but more like a prophylactic one like an annual physical or teeth cleaning.  I recognize and acknowledge the position of the Catholic Church regarding contraception as a very deeply moral choice.
            Re: “excommunication.”  So, if I understand this, the Church punishes an individual who publicly defies Church doctrine, but leaves private defiance to the individual’s willingness to seek forgiveness or absolution in the confessional.  Again, if I understand this correctly, excommunication is punishment for not choosing to comply with the Church’s dogma regarding a very private choice.  So, if I keep my private choices private, then the Church will not object, and the Church will expect me to confess my sins in the confessional.  If that is correct, then why would the Church have any basis to object to private choices including contraception, as long as the choices remain private?
            Re: “consequences.”  Yes, there should be consequences for decisions or choices we make.  However, if my choices remain private, then again, my choices are between me and God.  The Church should not seek to prohibit my behavior.  Either I am taught properly, or I am not.
            Re: “freedom to choose.” If so, then why does the Church want to prohibit behavior it does not agree with?
            Re: “promoting.”  I do not see how availability is promoting; in fact, quite the contrary.  I would think the Church would please that employees chose not to succumb to the temptation.  Just because it is available, does not mean anyone has to avail themselves of a service or give into the temptation.  When the Church prohibits employees from having the contraceptive choice, then they are indeed dictating by their prohibition.
            Re: “choices taken in opposition.”  But, those are private choices, not public choices.
            Re: “insurance.”  Health insurance companies offer bone marrow transplants or arterial bypass surgery for those who need them.  If no one needs one, then the insurance company does not pay for what is not used.  It is just available.  Perhaps, then, it is the Church’s objection to the insurance company, not the service.  Perhaps the Church wants all health insurances to refuse to offer contraception.
            Re: “RIGHT.”  Yes, indeed, the Church has that right, and so should each and every individual employee.  Yet, in this instance, the Church seeks to exercise its RIGHT and deny the same RIGHT to employees.

Comments and contributions from Update no.583:
Comment to the Blog:
“Re the Hagel nomination: at this point Obama could have nominated anyone, no matter how skilled or conservative, and the Republicans would oppose the nomination. They have essentially become the anti-Obama party, the Whigs of our time. Reason and even political advantage no longer matter to them.
“Myra Bradwell’s story brings doubt on the ability of the Supreme Court and the sanity of our nation of its time. All the same, someone eventually remedied that mistake. You did not tell us how that came about, but it came about and no doubt the remedy then set a precedent for other cases.
“I appreciate your attention to the Trail of Tears. It’s an ugly story and we (the dominant American culture) have not yet learned our way out of that arrogant attitude. Unfortunately, the US Government has broken every treaty it ever made with Native Americans. The one possible exception is the legislation concerning the Qualla Boundary, a ‘land trust’ for the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation. (Andrew Jackson’s army thought they had left none behind, but they were of course wrong.) That is a more recent set of promises and had not been broken as of several years ago.
“I find it interesting that the more powerful EU economies have begun to suffer. The German government in particular has puffed itself up on the idea that they are somehow more virtuous than the Greeks or other poorer nations. Let’s see how their own people take to the austerity they have imposed on others.”
My response to the Blog:
Calvin,
            Re: Republicans.  It sure does seem to be an accurate observation.  However, I would like to point out the inverse of the same mindless opposition in the Bush-43 administration.  It is like Republicans & Democrats have locked horns and they cannot separate or give an inch.  Somehow, We, the People, must slay the bulls and find more moderate, success-oriented representatives.
            Re: Supremes.  The Bradwell decision joins many other myopic, bad decisions like Dred Scott, Plessey, Olmstead, et all.
            Re: Bradwell.  The history of who and how they eventually issued a law license to Myra was beyond my reach.  All I know is it happened, as recorded in several sources.
            Re: Native Americans.  Agreed.  History is replete with comparable stories of conquest and broken treaties – one of many tainted elements of the history of this Grand Republic.
            Re: Germany.  I suspect the Germans will fair better than the Greeks as they have less endemic corruption, graft and tax evasion.
   “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap


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

18 February 2013

Update no.583


Update from the Heartland
No.583
11.2.13 – 17.2.13
Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,

On Monday, the President of the United States of America hung the Medal of Honor around the neck of Staff Sergeant Clinton LaVor “Clint” Romesha, U.S. Army, 31, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in combat action on 3.October.2009, at Combat Outpost (COP) Keating, Kamdesh district, Afghanistan, while serving as a section leader, Bravo Troop, 3-61 Cavalry, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division.  Romesha is only the fourth living recipient of the Medal of Honor from the War on Islamic Fascism, and the 3,460th recipient in the history of this Grand Republic.

“The Art and Politics of ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ – The man behind the film about the hunt for bin Laden talks about how he combined facts with imagination and calls his Senate critics ‘intellectually dishonest.’”
by Matthew Kaminski
Wall Street Journal
Updated February 15, 2013, 7:15 p.m. ET
We have discussed and debated Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) used in the War on Islamic Fascism.  No one in this humble forum has raised the controversy surrounding the movie, “Zero Dark Thirty,” as noted in the Kaminski article above.  The movie received an ample amount of negative criticism for their portrayal of EIT and the contribution to Operation NEPTUNE’S SPEAR {2.May.2011} [489, 490, 503]. Kathryn Ann Bigelow did a magnificent job as director of the film.  Mark Boal wrote a masterful screenplay of a contemporary, complex event that required an artist’s conjecture to produce a compelling storyline.  I understand the political and public revulsion to the brutality of war, but that cannot and must not lessen the awesome creativity of Boal and Bigelow; they deserve honors . . . not disdain.

Regardless of our political leanings or whether we appreciate the message, President Obama’s rhetorical style remains awe-inspiring and formidable.  For those of us who appreciate fine-rhetoric, Tuesday night’s State of the Union speech was quite enjoyable.  Unfortunately, I am afraid the days of words inspiring a nation expired with Sir Winston Churchill.  President Obama has taken a more aggressive path of late, using his authority to issue executive orders; however, the proof of the pudding rests with his ability to herd the cats of Congress for the greater good of this Grand Republic.  We shall see how all this works out . . . I suspect in short order.

Now, we hear the Senate Republicans intend to mount a full-scale filibuster to block the confirmation of Senator Charles Timothy “Chuck” Hagel of Nebraska as Secretary of Defense.  This is just flat-assed wrong and spiteful in the worst way.  Senate Majority Leader Reid called for a cloture vote to conclude debate and failed [Senate: 58-40-1-1(0)]; Vitter of Louisiana was not present for the vote, and Hatch of Utah was present but abstained.  Republicans maintained their block integrity.
            I am not and never have been a fan of Chuck Hagel.  As a citizen, I laud his service to this Grand Republic, however I doubt I would ever vote for him for anything.  If I was a U.S. senator, charged with responsibility by Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, I would have to vote, yea, for Hagel as President Obama’s nominee to be Secretary of Defense; there is no question he is qualified and capable of performing as a key national security advisor and Cabinet officer to the President.  This is not a vote for Hagel; it is a vote for the President’s nominee; there is a significant difference the senate has apparently forgotten.  And, they are dumbstruck in utter ignorance as to why We, the People, hold them in such disdain and low esteem.

Would you be so kind to indulge me for a smidgen of significant history?
            Myra Colby was born in 1831.  She married an aspiring law student, James Bolesworth Bradwell, in 1852, against her parents’ wishes it seems.  James was admitted to the Illinois bar three years later, and opened a law firm in partnership with Frank Colby, Myra's brother.  Myra found her affinity for and studied the law in her husband’s firm.  No law school of the time admitted women.  In 1869, Myra took and passed the Illinois bar examination with high honors.  Per state law of the day, having met all the requirements, she petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court for admission to the state bar.  The court denied her application, noting among other things, “That God designed the sexes to occupy different spheres of action, and that it belonged to men to make, apply, and execute the laws, was regarded as an almost axiomatic truth.”  Not satisfied, Myra appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
            The Supremes heard the appeal of Mrs. Myra Bradwell on 18.January.1873, and rendered judgment the following April – Bradwell v. State of Illinois [83 U.S. 130 (1873)].  Associate Justice Samuel Freeman Miller wrote for the Court.  “We agree with him [Matthew Hale Carpenter, counsel for Myra Colby Bradwell] that there are privileges and immunities belonging to citizens of the United States, in that relation and character, and that it is these and these alone which a State is forbidden to abridge.  But the right to admission to practice in the courts of a State is not one of them.”  It was Associate Justice Joseph Philo Bradley who decided to hammer home the applicability of the doctrine of coverture in his concurring opinion. 
     “So firmly fixed was this sentiment in the founders of the common law that it became a maxim of that system of jurisprudence that a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband, who was regarded as her head and representative in the social state; and, notwithstanding some recent modifications of this civil status, many of the special rules of law flowing from and dependent upon this cardinal principle still exist in full force in most States.  One of these is, that a married woman is incapable, without her husband's consent, of making contracts which shall be binding on her or him. This very incapacity was one circumstance which the Supreme Court of Illinois deemed important in rendering a married woman incompetent fully to perform the duties and trusts that belong to the office of an attorney and counsellor.
      “It is true that many women are unmarried and not affected by any of the duties, complications, and incapacities arising out of the married state, but these are exceptions to the general rule. The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfil the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator. And the rules of civil society must be adapted to the general constitution of things, and cannot be based upon exceptional cases.
      “The humane movements of modern society, which have for their object the multiplication of avenues for woman's advancement, and of occupations adapted to her condition and sex, have my heartiest concurrence. But I am not prepared to say that it is one of her fundamental rights and privileges to be admitted into every office and position, including those which require highly special qualifications and demanding special responsibilities. In the nature of things it is not every citizen of every age, sex, and condition that is qualified for every calling and position. It is the prerogative of the legislator to prescribe regulations founded on nature, reason, and experience for the due admission of qualified persons to professions and callings demanding special skill and confidence." [emphasis added]
The Court did acknowledge that Myra was qualified to practice law, other than the fact she was a woman and worse yet married.
            Beyond our contemporary disgust with the ugly face of coverture, the far more shocking reality erupts from one sentence in Justice Miller’s statement for the majority in Bradwell.  His concept of constitutional law, and by default the majority of the Supremes of the day, does not conceive of rights beyond the Constitution, as if the 9th and 10th Amendments are irrelevant or do not exist.  The implication of Miller’s statement noted above is far more profound than coverture.  He states that delineated rights are the only rights protected by the Constitution.  He is, of course, correct . . . there is no right to practice law; thus, there was no constitutional protection for Myra Bradwell, which means there are no rights beyond those defined in the Constitution, i.e., if it is not written, it does not exist.  This is the argument of the strict constructionists.  The status of fundamental rights is essential to our future, to our freedom, to our citizenship.  We have discussed every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy among them.  We have yet to reconcile the founding principles with the Constitution and common law.  The Supremes could have taken a far different tack by differentiating between those rights implied by the 9th and 10th Amendments beyond the Constitution and the overarching State interest in the public good.  The doctrine of coverture was intended to control private affairs and conduct, and clearly substantiates the subservient status of human beings; again, the notion is clearly not consistent with the founding principles.  Even though the Bradwell ruling came in 1873, the legal principles expressed are vital for public debate and shaping this Grand Republic for generations to come.
            I must note in the light of my incessant proselytizing about a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy (as well as other fundamental rights retained by each citizen), We, the People, granted to the federal government authority to regulate public conduct for the common good.  There should be no doubt the government at its many levels has the authority to control public conduct, and it is only through the representative process that we can amend public law.  Where the conflict lays in my humble opinion is the interface or intersection of private and public domains.  It can be argued in Mrs. Bradwell’s case, the government sought to regulate public conduct, e.g., the practice of law, by restricting the recognition of women.  I shall never join that argument.  We, the People, must get serious about removing government from our private affairs, if we shall have any hope of preserving our cherished Liberty.
            To conclude our journey through history, Myra Bradwell was eventually admitted to the Illinois bar in 1890, on the basis of her original application, and she was granted a license to practice before the United States Supreme Court in 1892.  Unfortunately, Myra Colby Bradwell had little time to enjoy her triumph.  By 1893, she was diagnosed with cancer, and passed away in Chicago on 14.February.1894.
            The doctrine of coverture that hobbled Mrs. Bradwell has tenaciously constrained women for centuries.  Vestiges of the doctrine still exist in our customs, traditions and practices to this very day.  While American women have overcome many of those barriers, we still have a long way to go on the journey to achieve the promise embodied in the founding of this Grand Republic.  “Long journeys begin with small steps,” and the journey continues as we are not yet home.

From the books comes another sobering morsel of history.  In December 1830, the Georgia legislature passed and Governor George Rockingham Gilmer signed a series of laws expropriating the treaty lands of the Cherokee Indians in northwest Georgia.  The state made no bones about seeking to take possession of the gold, silver, and other mines on the Cherokee land.  The tribe filed suit for an injunction against action as a violation of the Treaty of Hopewell between the Cherokee Nation and the United States, signed on 28.November.1785, as well as a series of subsequent treaties and federal law [PL 7-I-013; 2 Stat. 139; 30.March.1802].  The case made its way to the Supreme Court and was decided on 18.March.1831 – Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia [30 U.S. (Pet.) 1 (1831)].  Chief Justice John Marshall wrote for the divided Court in what was a disappointingly shallow ruling against the Cherokees – more rationalization than scholarly jurisprudence.  Marshall decided the Cherokees were not an independent foreign nation; rather, they were a dependent state within a state of the Union.  His conclusion, the U.S. Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction, thus affirming the Georgia Supreme Court’s validation of the state relocation laws. Associate Justice Smith Thompson wrote an impassioned dissenting opinion in which Associate Justice Joseph Story joined; their argument was not sufficient to convince the majority.  Although not part of the case, we must note the federal government passed “An Act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi” (AKA Indian Removal Act of 1830) [PL 21-I-148; 4 Stat. 411; 28.May.1830] [509].  The combination of state and federal laws along with associated court ruling led to what would become the Trail of Tears – the forced relocation of the “Five Civilized Tribes” – Choctaw (1831), Seminole (1832), Muscogee {Creek} (1834), Chickasaw (1837), and Cherokee (1838).  The Cherokee Nation ruling was not a high point in judicial reasoning.  In a rare acknowledgment, the Court noted public protests intended to influence the justices.  At the end of the day, the ruling set the stage for what would become the reservation system in existence today.

News from the economic front:
-- After recent statements and actions by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan [578], the Group of Seven major economies issued a joint statement that reaffirmed their commitment to let market forces determine exchange rates, and that central-bank policy will be focused solely on domestic objectives, in an attempt to avoid a potentially destabilizing round of currency devaluations, the so-called currency wars.
-- Japan reported the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fell 0.1% in 4Q2012, or 0.4% on an annualized basis – the third contraction in the last three quarters.  The disappointing economic data will give the Japanese government some support for the meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bankers in Moscow, as the newly elected government faces criticism for its economic stimulation effort and the consequent effect on global currencies.
-- The German GDP fell by 0.6% and the French GDP shrank by 0.3% in 4Q2012 – the worst performance since the lowest point of the global financial crisis in 2009.  Italy’s GDP dropped 0.9% -- the 6th straight fall. The figure for the wider EU – all 27 member states – was a fall of 0.5% – deepening the bloc’s recession and posting its worst performance in almost four years.

London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) Debacle [552]:
-- The Justice Department and Commodity Futures Trading Commission are expanding their interest rate rigging investigation to interdealer brokers, including UK brokerage firms ICAP and R.P. Martin Holdings that deal in hard-to-trade assets.  While the firms are not yet accused of wrongdoing, however some of their employees played a crucial role in helping specific traders rig submissions by banks of estimated borrowing costs in different currencies.

No comments or contributions from Update no.582.

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

11 February 2013

Update no.582


Update from the Heartland
No.582
4.2.13 – 10.2.13
Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,

The follow-up news items:
-- The People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to ratchet up the tension over the disputed Senkaku Islands [567, 574].  Japan reported a People’s Liberation Army Navy ship aimed missiles at a Japanese naval vessel operating in the East China Sea.  Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera of Japan lodged a formal protest over the matter, and publicly said, “This is extremely abnormal behavior, and we believe with a small mistake it could have led to a very dangerous situation.”
-- Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov of Bulgaria announced the results of the investigation into the tourist bus bombing in Burgas in July 2012 [553].  The attack targeted an Israeli tourist bus. Tsvetanov laid blame for the attack on members of the military wing of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.  As a consequence, the European Union must surely reconsider whether to designate the Iranian-backed Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and crack down on its extensive fund-raising operations across the continent.
-- In an unusual twist, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments by the government and defendant against presiding U.S. District Judge Jed Saul Rakoff of the Southern District of New York in the case of SEC v. Citigroup [USDC NY SD case 1:11-cv-07387-JSR (2011)] [520].  As you may recall, Judge Rakoff rejected a US$285M SEC Consent Judgment against Citigroup Global Markets Inc.  Both the government and defendant objected to the judge’s action as beyond his authority.  I suspect that the case will go to the Supremes no matter how the appeals court decides, simply because of the rarity of such action.

A purported Department of Justice “white paper” titled: “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa’ida or An Associated Force,” has been circulated among various Press entities and as a consequence instigated quite a disturbance in the Force.  There are a number of prima facie facts that cause me more than a little concern. 
1.) The supposed USG “white paper” is amply watermarked with NBC News. 
2.) It is certainly not an official USG document – no letterhead. 
3.) It is undated and unsigned. 
4.) There is no attribution as to who generated the document.
To be blunt, the document looks like a plethora of spam docs circulated in cyberspace with malice of one form or another.  Normally, I would not have wasted my time reading such a document.  This whole sequence stinks to high heaven.  With all the yammering by the Press and various talking heads, I acquiesced.
            I am far more troubled by the back-handed disclosure of what surely has to be highly classified, national security information than I am by the subject matter of the “white paper.”  The Obama administration released a series of classified and/or sensitive Justice Department, Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memoranda from the Bush administration [381, 384].  According to the alleged government document, the Executive may use lethal force in a foreign country against a U.S. citizen, if three (3) conditions are met.
A. “an informed, high-level official of the United States government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States,
B. “capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and,
C. “the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.”
Having read numerous similar OLC memoranda, the language and content appear authentic, yet we have no means to establish veracity.  The opinion argument is a bit weak on the constitutional implications, but other than detail, it does make a reasonable case for and support of the actions of at least two administrations.
            After writing the above assessment, the White House apparently directed the Justice Department to release certain, related, classified documents discussing the legal justification for targeting American citizens abroad who are considered terrorists, to the two Congressional intelligence committees.  We may not get to see the actual documents until they are leaked or declassified.

After all these gut-wrenching convulsions about drone strikes, targeted killings, collateral damage, American enemies, due process, and such, the Wall Street Journal reported that “senior U.S. officials” are pressing to expand the targeting list to include the Algerian militant Mokhtar Belmokhtar [579], the self-proclaimed mastermind of last month’s attack on an Algerian natural-gas facility that claimed the lives of 37 foreign hostages.  The additions to the U.S. targeted-killing list would represent a significant expansion into northwestern Africa.
“Push to Expand U.S. 'Kill List' – Officials Press to Mark Algerian Militant Linked to Gas-Plant Attack as Target for Death or Capture”
by Siobhan Gorman, Adam Entous and Devlin Barrett
Wall Street Journal
Published: February 8, 2013, 10:32 p.m. ET
The absolutely staggering aspect of these latest revelations is the suggestion that Belmokhtar and so many other terrorist leaders were not on such a list a long time ago.  These bad guys are not new to terrorism and criminal activities.

The House of Commons voted to approve the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill that will enable non-heterosexual, same-gender marriage in the United Kingdom.  The generally reported Press vote count was 400-175.  I’ve tried to get a precise vote count.  A friend and collaborator in the Motherland pegged the Commons vote at 468-38.  The BBC published what they called “The full list of MPs voting for or against the government's same-sex marriage legislation” – that count is 396-172-5 (77).  According to the BBC’s list, Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative Party voted 127-136-5 (35) on the bill.  Regardless, the bill does not become law until the Queen grants her assent.  Until then, the legislation now goes to the House of Lords, which is expected to approve the new law.  However, Lord Carey of Clifton (AKA George Leonard Carey), the former Archbishop of Canterbury (1991-2002), publicly indicated the peers will “ask searching and uncomfortable questions about the legislation.”  I truly hope so.  Such questions usually illuminate quite adequately.

Regardless of your opinion / attitude regarding those who do not look like us, behave like us, or think like us, every human being should watch this video.
“Fifty shades of gay”
TEDxWomen 2012
FILMED DEC 2012 • POSTED JAN 2013 •
The speaker, iO Tillett Wright, offers a simple, concise, direct message to make us all better citizens.  Enjoy!

A classmate of mine offered this contribution:
Subject:  Ayn Rand
From:  "jim neale"
Date:  Wed, February 6, 2013 6:18 am
To:  "cap@parlier.com" (less)
"marc.farris@bbqtv.com"
Cap,     Marc Farris sent this to me.  Marc and I were roommates 2nd class year. 
“I thought you might be interested in reading this in your copious spare time. 
Marc may start reading your blog.  I recommended it to him.  Like you, Marc has copious spare time.
                                                                          Jim Neale
                                                        31st Company    USNA 1970
“Below is an article where the authors take lessons from Ayn Rand ‘Atlas Shrugged’ to suggest what we need to do to revive America. They are:
1) celebrate business,
2) be proud of profits and
3) forget about the public good.
Your thoughts???”
The article in question:
“3 crucial lessons Ayn Rand can teach us today”
by Yaron Brook, Don Watkins
FoxNews.com
Published February 02, 2013
My reply:
Jim,
         I’m not sure whose spare time you are referring.  Certainly, not mine, and definitely not copious.  I’ve wanted to return to writing novels, but this damnable Update consumes all my capacity.  I’m still a working stiff with collateral jobs.  Fortunately, my wife is supportive.  I look forward to “retiring” in a year or so; then, my full-time job will be writing; I want to continue the Update as long as it is engaging, and I must get back to my novels – too many stories to tell.
         Marc (and anyone) is welcome to contribute to the Update forum with whatever opinions they wish.  I would be honored to add him to the distribution list, if he wishes.  Or, he can sign up on the Blog.
         Now, to Ayn Rand . . .
            In the main, I would agree.  However, from my perspective, the treatment by Brook, et al, smacks of selective interpretation.  Yes, Rand was an out-spoken proponent of free-market capitalism.  Again, in general, I have always agreed with her (and others).  Unfortunately, there are bad men in the world.  The free-market capitalism of Rand’s vision is quite akin to the Wild, Wild West . . . survival of the fittest, of the most firepower, and of the fastest gun.  If all men were good, then there would be no need for regulation; unfortunately, that is a utopian notion.
            It can be argued that communism is the ideal political system – everyone is equal by definition, all for one, one for all.  However, human nature has never been and probably will never be worthy of such utopian concepts.  Capitalism does encourage the profit motive, which is a powerful motivating force.  As noted in the Brook article, that profit motive has led to incalculable innovation and progress.  Yet, I cannot subscribe to the suggestion that un-regulated, free-market capitalism, as it inherently treats human beings as consumable resources like any other raw material.  Benevolent capitalism can and does indeed work on its own.  There are good business leaders who see labor as a valued asset to be nurtured, cared for, and protected.  Again, regrettably, not all businessmen are so enlightened.
            Ayn Rand’s capitalism is just as impractical as Karl Marx’s communism, as neither acknowledges the frailties and inherent flaws of mankind.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
 . . . follow-up comment:
“I read your comments and agree with them. 
“While [at the library] , I saw "Atlas Shrugged" and checked it out.  I hear folks refer to it often enough.  Ayn's birthday is February 2.  That book has 1166 pages.  This ain't going to be easy like "TWA 800 Accident or Incident" was.   But, hey, I am already up to page 7.”
 . . . my follow-up comment:
            My parents always pumped Ayn Rand’s work and especially “Atlas Shrugged.”  I was never much of a fan.  My father was a perpetual, staunch, anti-union man, having lived in the middle of Walter Reuther’s longshoreman organizing efforts in San Francisco.  I was never a pro-union guy, but I was enough of a historian to recognize the destructive forces of corporate & individual profit and the need for unions to balance the ledger – one of many reasons I am so attached to the word balance.  Rand did not look kindly on the union movement.  Too many “businessmen” are enamored and blinded by profit, their own greed, and the paucity of any sense of community.  The quarterly report to the board and bankers, and their associate bonuses are the extent of their visible horizon.
            I left the cockpit for management with the belief you could treat people with respect and still make money.  Clearly, I was not successful, so perhaps my premise was invalid . . . although I am not yet willing to concede the point.

Surprise, surprise!  I was pleased to learn from the National Conference of State Legislatures that bills legalizing death with dignity are being considered in Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and to my utter amazement in Kansas.  I would to think my efforts have contributed to the Kansas surprise, but I have not been so recognized.  There are also bills related to the issue under consideration in New Hampshire, New York, Arizona and Montana.  There is hope yet for more compassionate laws before I reach that stage of my life.

We noted a recent ruling of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case of Noel Canning v. NLRB [DC CCA no. 12-1115 (2013)] [580].  The right-leaning talking heads hyped the ruling as a smack down of President Obama.  The case mutated from a simple labor dispute to a constitutional challenge of significant proportion on a variety of levels.
            Noel Canning, a Division of the Noel Corporation, petitioned for the Judiciary to review a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision finding that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA or Wagner Act) [PL 74-I-198; 49 Stat. 449; 5.July.1935] by refusing to reduce to writing and execute a collective bargaining agreement reached with Teamsters Local 760.  The NLRB decided for the union.  The company challenged the decision, claiming the NLRB did not have a quorum and thus had no authority to render judgment.  Three of the five statutory board members were given “recess appointments” by President Obama in January 2012.  The DC Circuit’s decision focused on the interpretation of two words in the Constitution – “recess” and “happen.”  The three-judge appeals court panel agreed unanimously that the meaning and usage of “recess” in Article II, Section 2, Clause 3; namely, a recess only occurs between sessions of Congress, as opposed to adjournments that usually happen for holidays or other times where Congress is not otherwise in session.  Chief Judge David Bryan Sentelle summarized the court’s decision, “[T]he Board lacked authority to act for want of a quorum, as three members of the five-member Board were never validly appointed because they took office under putative recess appointments which were made when the Senate was not in recess.”   Judge Thomas Beall Griffith wrote a concurring opinion to voice his contention the court should have stopped at their decision on recess.  He disagreed with his colleagues when they went on to further narrow the President’s authority to make recess appointments to only those Executive vacancies that actually occur or “happen” during an intersession recess, contrary to common practice for the last century. 
            While I agree with the DC Circuit’s decision and interpretation of the Constitution, and I suspect if the case goes to the Supremes, they will concur, I am troubled the current state of the U.S. Senate.  By withholding their constitutional “Advice and Consent,” they are essentially paralyzing the NLRB, rendering it toothless and without authority to perform its statutory functions.  We have discussed the “Advice and Consent” provisions of the Constitution [Article II, Section 2, Clause 2] [581].  With a paucity of specificity, the Senate has applied its rather liberal interpretation regarding it Advice and Consent authority.  If the Supreme Court sustains the Noel Canning decision, we will have further dysfunction in the federal government as well as even more erosion of union influence in the labor market.

News from the economic front:
-- Several sources reported that Justice Department and state prosecutors intend to file civil charges alleging wrongdoing by Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services in its rating of mortgage bonds before the financial crisis erupted in 2008.  The Justice Department had been in settlement talks with S&P, however, negotiations broke down when the USG indicated it would seek a settlement in excess of US$1B, which would wipe out the profits of S&P’s parent company, McGraw-Hill Company, for an entire year.  The likely move by prosecutors would be the first federal enforcement action against a credit-rating firm for alleged illegal behavior related to the crisis.
-- Indonesia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) expanded by 6.1% in 4Q2012, compared to a year earlier.  Demand for everything from cement to instant noodles has continued to drive robust economic growth in Indonesia, defying the global uncertainty and domestic concern about resurgent economic nationalism and widening trade deficits.
-- President François Gérard Georges Nicolas Hollande of France has issued a clear warning over the current strength of the euro damaging the European economy, calling for international action to dampen currency distortions.  He declared, “The euro should not fluctuate according to the mood of the markets.”  Hollande also said, “A monetary zone must have an exchange rate policy.  If not it will be subjected to an exchange rate that does not reflect the real state of the economy.”  He is advocating for “an indispensable reform of [the] international monetary system.”
-- The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects economic growth to be slow and jerky in 2013, in part because of USG fiscal contraction, but it anticipates better economic performance in 2014, as the recovery takes hold.  The CBO reported economic growth and recent legislation have cut the federal budget deficit in half in the past four years, but federal debt will still hit historic levels if more isn't done.
-- The European Central Bank (ECB) kept its main refinancing rate steady at 0.75%, despite mounting concerns a strengthening euro exchange rate might strangle prospects for growth later this year.
-- The Financial Times reported that EU leaders agreed a seven-year budget after a final bargaining session in Brussels lasting more than 24 hours.  While the details are not yet available to the public, according to FT, the fiscal conservatives like the UK and Germany apparently prevailed over those member states seeking more robust spending.
-- The PRC’s exports increased 25% from a year earlier, the fastest pace since April 2011 and up from 14.1% in December.  Imports increased 28.8%, more than four-times December’s 6% rate, suggesting strong growth both in the PRC and elsewhere for 2013.

London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) Debacle [552]:
-- The Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS) agreed to pay £390M (US$612.6M) in fines to the U.K. Financial Services Authority, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice, for the bank’s involvement in the LIBOR scandal.  RBS is 82% owned by U.K. taxpayers and is the third of 16 lenders to be punished in the rate-fixing investigation.  RBS indicated the bank’s involvement was predominantly linked to 21 employees, who have either left the bank or been disciplined.  We can only hope the managers who decided to execute this fraud will face the weight of criminal justice.
-- A former star trader in Tokyo, Hideto “Eddy” Takata, a derivatives trader who worked for several investment banks until 2008, claims that Japan’s banks have collectively kept the Tokyo InterBank Lending Rate [TIBOR] benchmark “artificially high” since the global financial crisis to boost profits on domestic products such as mortgages.  He has accused Japanese banks of operating a “cartel” in loan pricing, forcing higher rates on millions of borrowers and hampering central bank efforts to spark lending in the world’s third-largest economy.  I suspect we shall soon add TIBOR to the LIBOR scandal.
-- So we don’t lose focus . . . the infamous 16, involved, international banks are:
·      Barclays [UK] – US$454M fine [550]
·      Bank of America [U.S.]
·      BTMU [Japan]
·      Citibank [U.S.]
·      Credit Suisse [Switzerland]
·      Deutsche Bank [Germany] – US$654M LIBOR profit [578]
·      Lloyds TSB [UK]
·      HSBC [UK]
·      HBOS [UK]
·      JPMorgan Chase [U.S.]
·      Rabobank [Netherlands]
·      RBC [Canada]
·      RBS [UK] – £390M (US$612.6M) in fines, 21 employees involved [582]
·      UBS [Switzerland] – US$1.5B fine, two charged [575]
·      West LB [Germany]
·      Norinchuckin [Japan]
I trust none of us will lose sight of what these banks have done.

Comments and contributions from Update no.581:
“And now my reason for this reply -- Many supposedly ‘constitutional rights’ cause people to elevate the simple subject matter of a ‘right’ to an exalted status without actually reading what the Constitution says about the subject.  For gun rights, people ignore the fact that the framers of the Bill of Rights premised the entire ‘right’ on the presupposition that a ‘well, regulated militia’ was involved and did not give the individual rights except in context with his or her participation in that militia. On the supposed ‘freedom of religion’ article, people often ignore what the Bill of Rights says and broaden it to a universal concept, rather than the narrow restriction on the power of Congress regarding religion that was actually included. ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ is a fairly direct restriction on Congress' powers which collaterally gives the people a right to be free to exercise their religion without interference of Congress. Never has it been held that Congress (and States after the 14th Amendment) does not have the power to legislate on matters dealing with moral issues, simply because those moral issues are within the belief system of some religion or the other. Ask the old Mormons whether Congress has the power to legislate about plural marriage. Ask Cardinal Mahony whether the US Courts have the power to force the Catholic Church to identify child molesters contrary to church dogma and policy.  Exercise of religion does not mean the adherents of a religion are free to ignore the law of the land. Giving all citizens the right to the same level of medical care does not infringe on a religion's ability to teach, proselyte, organize and celebrate (i.e. exercise) their faith. A religion that believes child marriage of any girl who is menstruating is valid in the sight of God, does not mean Congress or the states cannot restrict the practice of child marriage. A religion that disagrees with contraception or abortion cannot be restricted from speaking out and striving to change the law and urge others to act in a manner they believe is correct, but they cannot violate the law or the rights of others in that process. The Courts have already ruled that a citizen does not have the right to withhold payment of taxes because he disagrees with what the government does with the tax money. So, too, a business (even a religious entity) that is required by law to pay insurance for its employees, cannot refuse to pay the insurance because they disagree with how the insurance company (or the employee) pays for medical services.  People need to read the Bill of Rights - it is a compilation of words, and if you ignore any words on its face and assume words that are not there, you will come up with a loony result.
My reply:
            Re: constitutional rights.  Thank you for your observations.  Well said and spot on.  I’ll pass on the militia (for another time) and focus on religion – the topic at hand.  Unfortunately, Judeo-Christian religious interpretation has exerted extraordinary political influence in this country from the Witch Trials of 1692 to this very day, across so many issues like pornography, polygamy, obscenity, non-heterosexuality, age of consent, prostitution, psychotropic substance consumption, et cetera ad infinitum.  I do not believe folks are trying to impose upon religion.  I defend the right of any person or organization including religious entities to speak their mind and to use their inherent power of persuasion to convince others of the rightness of their beliefs.  Where we get crosswise comes when religion tries to impose their beliefs on others.  To me, the debate about contraception and religion is just a subset of private versus public, individual versus government.  The USG’s PPACA provisions simply make contraception available to all citizens.  It is an individual’s private decision whether to avail themselves of that service.  If an employee of a religious organization believes in the dicta of the religion and chooses not to use the service, it is and should be their free choice alone, not the dicta of an employer.
            I think we are agreed.  Unfortunately, the Obama administration appears to be caving to the religious dicta of some organizations.  Far too many Americans believe it is their moral right to dictate how all Americans should live, believe, act, and think.  That is NOT freedom.

Comment to the Blog:
“I have had numerous conversations regarding the issue you raise vis-à-vis religious freedom of institutions v. private choice. Most people (not putting you in that corner necessarily) don't fully understand the religious freedom piece of the issue.
“The real issue is often obscured by people’s opinions on the provision of contraceptive services -- which misses the point.
“The issue IS: Can our government require Church organizations to fund practices which contradict their religious principles?
“The issues are NOT: 1) Do you agree that contraception is a much health benefit that should be available for all women?, or 2)Do you agree with the Catholic position on contraception?, or even 3) Do Catholics themselves practice what their Church teaches and believes? Discussions on these and similar questions mask the true issue at stake.
“The real point is that if the government requires the Church to offer the option of having birth control measures available, and if that option is exercised by any employee, Catholic or non-Catholic, the Catholic Church would then be compelled to fund services it deems morally wrong.
“The implementation of the proposed HHS mandate would establish the principle that our government can override by legislation (or executive order) a position held in faith by a religious institution. This principle, if allowed to stand, would give our government the precedent to impose on religious institutions even further secular policies which conflict with their teachings and beliefs. This would be a crack in the wall protecting religious freedom and the separation of church and state in America that we all, regardless of our personal stance on the specific issue of contraception, must not allow. That consequence would truly be a blow to religious liberty and is why the Catholic Church opposes the HHS mandate requiring them to fund contraceptive measures for its employees to which it has a religious and moral objection.
My response to the Blog:
            I believe I understand the Catholic Church’s position on contraception.  The church has every right to espouse whatever position it wishes . . . as long as that position does not cause injury to another person or impose upon the freedom of choice of another citizen.
            To me, this issue boils down to its most fundamental element – private versus public; individual versus collective.  I do agree the government does not have the right to impose its will on religious organizations.  There are numerous Supreme Court decisions that affirm that protection.  I appreciate why religious organizations like the Catholic Church object to laws like PPACA, well at least the contraception provision as well as others I imagine.
            I see this debate from an entirely different perspective.  Does a religious organization have the right or authority to impose its will on an individual’s fundamental right to privacy and an individual’s private freedom of choice?  Where do we draw the line?  What obligation does the government have to protect the individual rights of citizens, even in those instances where a conflict exists, as in this question?
            That said (or asked), I have mixed feelings regarding this related question of employment law.  I could easily argue . . . caveat emptor . . . a person who accepts employment with the Catholic Church should know what he is getting into regarding dogma.  U.S. employment law was largely created to protect the individual from the power of the employer.  As with all questions, our challenge is finding the balance between the employee and employer, between the individual and the collective.  What is the public interest for a government, a corporation, or a church to impose upon the freedom of choice in a citizen’s private matters?
. . . follow-up comment:
“Here's where I believe your argument rubs wrong...
“The Catholic Church doesn't impose it's will on anyone -- it merely makes a stand on what people should do. It doesn't cause injury or impose on anyone's freedom to choose what they do.
“Use an analogy:
Your son says he wants to go to see a movie and wants you to give him the money. You say ‘What movie?’ It turns out that it's something you don't think is appropriate for him. You tell him you're not going to pay for him to see it. He may use his own income from mowing the neighbor's lawn if he wishes, but you're not going to subsidize behavior that you object to.
“It's not a perfect analogy, but the point is the Church believes strongly that sexual activity should be between married partners and that any sexual activity should be open to the creation of new life. No one, including the leadership of the Catholic Church, is blind to the fact that many choose to disregard this, but yet our role is to stand for the values that we believe flow from the teachings of Christ. We don't ‘impose our will,’ but we do proclaim our values even though they aren't necessarily followed by all Catholics -- we are after all, ALL sinners, which is why we all need God's grace!!
“But yet, to REQUIRE the church to pay for behavior that people freely choose to engage in that the Church deems it morally objectionable IS a violation of freedom of religion.”
 . . . my follow-up response:
Wil,
            Sex, religion and politics are always volatile and sensitive arenas.  I try very hard to be respectful without being intimidated.  I have no desire or intent to rub anyone wrong.  If I did so, then please accept my humble apologies. 
            Re: imposition.  I suppose as with most views, it all depends upon perspective.  The analogy is a good one; let’s run with it.  First, I do not know about how health care for employees of the Catholic Church is handled, but our family health care (outside the military) was partially paid for by the company, as a benefit of employment, and a significant contribution by each employee.  It is not paid for entirely by the employer.  So, I suspect it is not a simple benevolent allowance bestowed by the employer.  Second, the analogy illustrates my point fairly well.  We can deny funds for a movie we do not approve of, or we can teach our children to make good choices on their own.  Third, it is like the Church does not believe in the power of its argument.  If the child (employee) cannot or does not make good choices, then perhaps I failed as a parent to instill proper values in my child.  Just because a service may be available, there is no requirement or obligation to use the service, like going to an open bar event and having a soda because you don’t approve of alcohol.  Fourth, the decision to use contraception is a very personal and private matter.  Like all moral decisions, they are between me and God, no one else.  Similarly, is freedom of religion only for organized religious entities, or does it also cover individuals?
              I started to delve farther into the aspect, but unfortunately my words sounded like I was attacking the Catholic Church, so I deleted the paragraph.  I have no interest in attacking the Church.  The 1st Amendment Establishment Clause is vital to the substance of this Grand Republic.  Let me just ask, what is the purpose of excommunication?
            Every citizen should be protected to believe as they wish to believe, to worship God’s greatness (by whatever name or means they choose).  As I have written before, parents should decide how they wish to teach their children.  The Catholic Church’s position on sex outside church-sanctioned, bilateral, heterosexual marriage is well understood, I do believe.  We have but to look, and not so deeply, to see a wide variety of societal issue to see the weight of Judeo-Christian moral dicta.  Freedom of choice seems to be an anathema to the Catholic Church and indeed most sects of the revealed religions.  I am NOT arguing against the Church’s dogma or dicta. 
            I certainly recognize and acknowledge the conundrum we face.  I do not want the government dictating to religious organizations.  Conversely, I do not want the Church dictating how individuals should live their private lives.  To me, the issue of contraception is NOT about government and religion; it is an individual fundamental right to privacy.  Contraception is a private choice.  As I see it, the Church can and should clearly state it’s objection to the use of any contraception – that is their protected right to do so.  Yet, once again, being available for those who choose does NOT mean the Church is “paying” for contraception.  It only means the Church respects an individual’s freedom of choice.  Because it is available does not mean any employee of the Church will use that service; if no one uses it, there is no paying for what is not used.  The challenge for the Church should be at the conscience level, not the paying level. 

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