25 March 2013

Update no.588


Update from the Heartland
No.588
18.3.13 – 24.3.13
Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,

General James N. “Chaos” Mattis, USMC, announced his retirement after 41 years of service to this Grand Republic.  Thank you so very much, “Chaos,” for your noble service.  Godspeed and following winds, General.

The so-called Republican Party “autopsy report,” titled: Growth & Opportunity Project, released on Monday, focused on the state of the organization and pulled few punches.  The various talking heads from both left and right offered up grandiose pronouncements on the content and meaning of the report.  I skimmed it, or rather sped-read it, as I had little stomach to study the document.  I have tried to stand back from the recalcitrance of the established major political parties, yet in this instance, I cannot resist the temptation.  Thus, I shall make my own pronouncement.  As long as the religious right dominates, or at least holds influential sway over the Republican Party, they shall be deemed unworthy of my vote or my support.  The religious right has every right to their beliefs, and I laud their willingness to fall on their sword for their beliefs, while I condemn their actions with singular intent to impose their beliefs on everyone else regardless of the beliefs of anyone else.  Nonetheless, I find little common ground with those who seek to impose their beliefs, their values, their sense of morality, and their dicta on all citizens in direct opposition to the Founding Principles of this Grand Republic.  Freedom means freedom for all . . . or none; freedom cannot be parsed as it was in our not so glorious past.  We must terminate this nonsense that freedom is only for the majority, or the wealthy, or the conformists, or the chosen, or the righteous.  Freedom is freedom, period.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the Obama administration intends to shift control of the offensive drone program from the Central Intelligence Agency to the Department of Defense.  According to the Journal, the move is “intended to shift the covert drone program to one that is subject to international laws of war and undertaken with the consent of host governments.”  A variety of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have been operated as intelligence collection systems since the Balkan operations.  Naturally, finding bad guys led to the installation of missiles that could home in on the LASER spots used for precise location of their targets.  The first public record of a Hellfire missile being fired from a modified RQ-1 Predator drone on a test range in Nevada was circa 16.February.2001, and the first operational use of the newly designated MQ-1A occurred some time after the beginning of the War on Islamic Fascism.  We have debated the use of drone strikes in this forum for many years and especially since the termination of Anwar al-Awlaqi in Yemen [511; 30.September.2011].  The President as Commander-in-Chief must have the authority to eliminate adversaries, especially in wartime.  President Carter issued Executive Order 12036 [24.January.1978] to prohibit assassinations (presumably for political purposes), and the Carter order was amended and affirmed by President Reagan in Executive Order 12333 [4.December.1981] [512].  The next step will be a judicial warrant and after that the target must be tried in court, convicted and sentenced to death.  Of course, then there will be the inevitable appeals.  The enemy battlefield combatant will die of old age before the order for execution can be issued.  I think we can all recognize and acknowledge the moral dilemma of killing even in wartime.  While refinement of operational control may be reasonable and appropriate, I do not like the implications of this change . . . if the Journal’s supposition or perhaps “knowledgeable source” information is correct.  I’m just sayin’!

Vice President Joe Biden went to the Vatican in Roma, Italia, for the inauguration of Pope Francis I.  Along with other diplomatic and cleric dignitaries, Joe and his wife Jill meet the Pope for a quick chat in the receiving line.  Some folks noted that Joe did not kiss the papal ring.  The etiquette observation raises an important principle.  Joe was not there as a Roman Catholic believer, which he is.  He was not even there as an American citizen, which he most assuredly is, also.  Joe Biden was present with the Pope as the Vice President of the United States of America and the direct representative of the President and of this Grand Republic.  It would be quite appropriate for him to kiss the Pope’s ring in the two former states, if he was so inclined, but NOT as the latter.  Good for him and the nation he represented.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Mason Reid of Nevada decided to remove the assault weapons ban portion from the bill given that provisional title, then later in the week, he decided to proceed with the remainder of S.150 after the Easter/Passover break, despite his estimate that there are not sufficient votes in the Senate for passage of even the reduced S.150 bill.  I still believe universal background checks will be dead-in-the-water until there are sufficient protections for the privacy of individual citizens and the practical details of such processes are worked out.  As I have written before, I am not too keen on having more laws to restrict guns for law-abiding citizens until there is a more comprehensive approach to the root-cause of gun violence. 

Next week, the Supremes will hear oral arguments on two, highly anticipated cases: Hollingsworth v. Perry (the Proposition 8 case from California) and U.S. v. Windsor (the chosen Defense of Marriage Act case).  We reviewed the Perry case [530], but I have not read the Windsor case, which is similar in content to Massachusetts v. HHS [1CCA no. 10-2204 (2012)] [547].  On the eve of oral arguments, numerous commentators have offered a variety of opinions.  Mike McConnell is a law professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at the Stanford Law School, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution as well as a former federal judge.  His opinion best illustrated (although implicit in his words) the far larger question of freedom and citizenship.
“The Constitution and Same-Sex Marriage – Next week the Supreme Court will be asked to decide an issue in an area in which it has said it has no jurisdiction”
by Michael McConnell – OPINION
Wall Street Journal
Updated: March 21, 2013; 7:37 p.m. ET
McConnell observed:
“The court has held that "regulation of domestic relations" has "long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States" (Sosna v. Iowa, 1975).”
“If the court dismisses the Proposition 8 case on standing grounds and strikes DOMA down on federalism grounds, the combined effect would be to reaffirm America's democratic, decentralized decision-making process without imposing an answer—one way or the other—to the same-sex marriage question.”
“By taking such a path, the court would be spared from imposing a single nationwide definition of marriage as a matter of constitutional law, and from having to rule, for all time, that there is or is not a constitutional right to same-sex marriage—a momentous step that some justices might be reluctant to take.”
I understand and appreciate that the law cannot and must not be all expansive, one-size-fits-all.  Yet, to my little pea-brain, this Grand Republic began with We, the People . . . not some royal charter or superior grant of authority.  I appreciate the McConnell argument, yet he fails to recognize or even acknowledge the root issue as we saw in a variety of Supreme Court rulings – the appropriate reach of federalism.  If marriage as currently defined – uniquely between one woman and one man – is a matter of the federal government or even of the states, then, we need to know what is the public element(s) that authorizes any government entity to intrude upon the private choices of individual citizens?  These are cases of private versus public, of the individual citizen versus the State.  Thus, I do not agree with Mike McConnell, and I strongly urge the Supremes to see the larger constitutional issue in these cases . . . as if anyone cares about my opinion on such things.  After all, I am neither an attorney at law nor an expert on constitutional law.  I am only a citizen of this Grand Republic who cares about freedom for all, not just for those who choose to conform to the dicta of the majority.

News from the economic front:
-- I have no idea what to write about the situation in Cyprus.  Decisions are being made in Brussels, Frankfurt, Washington-DC, and Nicosia that are beyond public visibility and are directly affecting events.  All I know and along with the other debt stressed European Community countries this is serious stuff.  The continuing damage to the European banking structure may well be incalculable. 
-- J.P. Morgan Chase has reportedly reached a settlement with customers of MF Global Holdings [515, 555] valued at US$546M, presumably to bring an end to a major effort by customers to recover funds from the securities firm’s 2011 collapse.
-- The U.S. Federal Reserve Open Market Committee indicated the U.S. economy has returned to “moderate” growth after a “pause” at the end of last year.  They also noted some signs of improvement in the jobs market, and affirmed the Fed’s intention to continue the US$85B per month, bond-buying program.

Comments and contributions from Update no.587:
“I don't understand this debate over gun shows. Ever since the Clinton gun restrictions, there is a Federal Law that requires all dealers at gun shows to do a background check. Only transactions between private citizens that are not in the retail/wholesale, gun/firearm are exempt.
REGARD: "The Senate Judiciary Committee approved S.150 (notionally, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013) intended to ban almost 160 specific military-style assault weapons by a party-line vote of 10 to 8.   The bill has been placed on the agenda for the full Senate, and even if passed, the bill must also pass the House and be signed by the President.  My opinion of this foolish legislation has not changed."
“I call your attention to a more serious area - that of enforcement by the Federal Govt. of existing gun laws. Refer to the following: <http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=44791>”
My response:
            Perhaps the other contributor will chime in here.  However, I believe the issue was establishing a threshold or above responsibility before any kind of gun transfer.  Criminals move guns in the black-market, and that is not likely to change.  Private citizens trade firearms, and I cannot imagine the level of USG intrusion to affect that transaction.  Yet, transfers at gun shows can be improved by a general service provided at shows and everyone encouraged to avail themselves of the service offered . . . for protection of the community.  The objective is to keep firearms out of the hands of those who do not deserve them.  The question for all of us is, where does that threshold lay?
            Re: Grassley article.  The URL takes me to the Grassley page, but I cannot find a relevant article.  A clue would be useful. 
 . . . round two:
“The Grassley article was just his letter pointing out some reasons he had to be against the proposed bill and pointing out the total lack of law enforcement for present laws. The only people obeying the laws are law-abiding citizens and the background check lawbreakers are not being punished.  All transactions at gun shows that involve a dealer must go thru the regular background checks required if you were to buy a gun at a store. If you have private citizens going thru background checks when they transfer a gun to another private citizen at gun shows, what is to prevent the Govt. from requiring background checks when you give a gun to your child or spouse. (That is proposed in some parts of the present proposals before the SJC.)”
 . . . my response to round two:
            Re: Grassley.  Amen brother!  I’m a long way from convinced we need more laws restricting firearms, and especially S.150.  As I’ve indicated previously, I could support universal background checks, but only after appropriate and stringent felony laws are put in place to protect the privacy of individual citizens and seriously restrict any collateral usage of the accumulated data.  Likewise, I want to see serious efforts to identify and treat the mentally ill before we consider legislation like S.150.  We must focus on the root cause, not the peripheral symptoms or tools.
            I’ve not seen the private, intra-familial transfer language, as yet.  Can you point me in the proper direction?
Thx again for yr contribution to this important debate.
Cheers,
Cap
 . . . round three:
Subject:  RE: Update no.587
From:  "Leon" <9no-el3 cfl.rr.com="">
Date:  Tue, March 19, 2013 5:35 pm
To:  "'cap'"
“You will see that several guns with thumbhole stocks, large magazines, and are semiauto will be banned and cannot be exchanged even among relatives. While SOME 22's are probably excluded, I wouldn't trust the BTF as far as I could throw one of them nor the Attorney General who wants to try military combatants in US courts and won't prosecute gun lawbreakers now.  Somehow we have to get over the idea that if an army doesn't belong to one country, doesn't wear one uniform, and have patches, we are not at war. The British thought the same several hundred years ago.
“I wrote you a few years back that I thought the extreme Muslims would make this a Holy War and that is what it is and we think it is a political war-how foolish we are in our wisdom!”
. . . my response to round three:
            Re: Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.  We hear the Senate Majority Leader withdrew the weapons ban portion of S.150, much to the consternation of its shepherd, Senator Feinstein.  I would say, Harry was correct to do so – not likely to pass.
            Re: Holy War.  You may well be correct; yet, I am reticent to support the notion.  To do so risks making religion the centerpiece of the war rather than the violence employed by the jihadists to accomplish their dominance both in the Muslim world and the West.  We tried Holy Wars a millennium ago and that did not turn out so well.  Further, the propagation of religion should and must be undertaken by the power of persuasion and the efficacy of the argument, not by the sword.  If our faith cannot resist the seduction of Islam, then perhaps our faith is not as strong as we thought.

Another contribution:
The police won't investigate the theft of your car, much less the theft of a gun.  While at the Academy, someone broke into our home and stole almost all of our guns, as well as a lot of other stuff.  The police weren't even interested.  Typically, police concentrate on crimes of violence, not property crimes unless there is a very high value of an item(s).
My reply:
            Re: property crime.  Good point . . . which makes all this gun registration, tracking nonsense even more obnoxious . . . everything to serve the government rather than the proper orientation.  Were any of the weapons ever found or returned?
 . . . answer:
Subject: RE: Update no.587
From: "Fred Peck"
Date: Thu, March 21, 2013 4:48 pm
To: "cap@parlier.com"
Cap,

“None of our guns or other valuables were recovered.  We had a pretty good idea who the culprit was and told the police, who failed to follow up on it.  My older brother was an Anne Arundel County cop for about 6 years.  Made Sgt, but the rotating shifts were too hard on him.  Now he's a substance abuse counselor for Maryland health services.  Most of his clients come to him through the legal system.

Comment to the Blog:
“I apologize for my assumption that you were not sincere. I misunderstood your intent.
“My comment led us off topic. People are imperfect, and I intended to suggest that we find a reasonable standard that we may hope to meet rather than idly wish for perfection. Most of the developed world has lower rates of homicide than the United States. Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that we adopt the developed world’s rate as a goal in our pursuit of safety.
“I resist the comment about ‘bad men.’ I know as a writer that conflict drives any story, but I agree with the Buddhists that dualism is an illusion. Using conflict to drive the story is also much of the history of politics. Politicians achieve much more of what they (or their owners) want if they can point to an enemy or threat from outside that they can use to justify whatever is their real aim. That is no news. Hence my comment on ‘scary’ things.
“On top of that, stories only connect with our psyches if they help us understand something. Uncle Tom’s Cabin helped people to understand slavery from its author’s viewpoint. The same applies to Huckleberry Finn. Now we have Fifty Shades of Gray, about freeing one’s own sexuality. (I have not read that one yet.) For the writer, that connection runs deeper, or it should. This is why I encourage people who write at all to use their writing to understand themselves and their worlds.
“Students of mental illness have learned a great deal since Sigmund Freud, but a great deal of learning remains, and funding has gone away. Until our society finds the willingness and ability to learn more and implement the results, we must treat the symptoms. This killing hurts us all too much to wait for the politicians to understand the complexities of mental illness.
“In regard to Mayor Bloomberg, I find a different route but share your conclusion of ‘right idea, wrong method.’ My route is very simple. Rather than deal with the many moral issues in this, let’s simply look for patterns in what happens. Take a starting point of ‘people’s use of some substance or behavior disturbs society as a whole.’ Compare the results of gradual regulation and taxing of something, for example tobacco v. banning another example, as we tried with alcohol. Tobacco use is less than half of what it once was, while alcohol use actually increased during Prohibition and remains very high. On top of that, banning something people want results in a black market operated by criminals with all its accompanying ills. The goal underlying a given campaign affects the results. If Mayor Bloomberg wants results more than he wants votes, he will find another route to them.
“Your linked article (“18-year-olds are too young to be in porn”) is intellectual laziness. Mr. Lane generalizes from a single example and gives no further evidence. His key point is total speculation and he never directly states his unsupported guess that early sexual contact led the young lady to her appearance in a pornographic movie. Apparently that performance was a one-time thing, but he doesn’t focus on that either. Most likely the young lady has found a life lesson in her excursion into explicit video. In a merciful society she would merely have learned that porn is not for her and perhaps some important things about her sexuality. As it is, she is trapped in her celebrity. I wish her peace and prosperity, and I wish the writer would grow up.
“There is another Pope. I see it as no concern of mine. I note with some irony that he ignores the security lesson of his predecessor, who was shot and seriously wounded. I would not want to work in his security detail at any wage.
“JP Morgan Chase lost $6.3 billion on the bad business you mentioned, and it barely made a blip on their corporate radar. I hope their eventual punishment for misleading regulators and investors will get their attention, if such punishment ever happens.”
My response to the Blog:
            Re: assumption.  No worries.  Happens to all of us.
            Re: homicide.  I am all in favor of reducing homicide, and all violence for that matter.  An objective of a lower homicide rate is certainly a noble goal – the challenge is how?
            Re: conflict.  The storytelling tool does not have to be violent to be useful or successful.
            Re: “bad men.”  For your supplemental reading, I suggest: “War is a Racket” by Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, USMC (Ret.).
            Re: writing.  Well said; also, a noble pursuit.
            Re: mental illness.  Yes, the killing hurts absolutely.  Yet, the root cause of the killing lies in the mind of the killers.  Killing without lawful purpose demonstrates a profound lack of respect for human life.  The killers learn to hate or never learned respect for others in person or property.  Yet, not all killers are mentally ill in the classic sense; they may well be and probably are a product of abusive, negligent or complacent parents – thus, my oft-espoused demand to hold parents accountable for the conduct of their children.
            Re: Bloomberg.  Word on the street says he wants to appeal Judge Tingling’s decision, which means he still believes his way is the correct way.  The way to alter human behavior in a free society rests in helping individuals convince themselves to change.  Until the individual has convinced himself, prohibition is hopeless without sacrificing the freedom of everyone.  I vote for freedom.
            Re: 18yo.  “Intellectual laziness” . . . spot on!  I wish her peace and prosperity as well.  She did not deserve what happened to her.
            Re: Pope Francis.  Regardless of religious preference or belief, he will have an impact on society.
            Re: financial hooliganism.  Again, spot on!  These perps deserve to join Bernie Madoff, not get bonuses.

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

18 March 2013

Update no.587


Update from the Heartland
No.587
11.3.13 – 17.3.13
Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,

A good friend, intellectual and debate foil continues to offer fodder for an important public topic.  The extended thread is far too long for this humble forum; however, this latest extract should prove useful to all of us.
            “I don't think we discussed exactly what was the subject of this thread. I see little point in isolating the Newtowns, Columbines, and similar tragedies. Ugly as they are, they constitute a relatively small percentage of the firearms deaths in this country.
            “Your idea of using neighbors, relatives, and others to detect those dangerous people makes a bad situation worse. In the absence of real professional knowledge, people will use guesswork and prejudice to make those referrals. Think of the worst nosy neighbor you ever had when your children were at home. Now give that person the power to make endless trouble by referring you to the ‘social police’ over any behavior, condition, or appearance of which they disapprove. The experts to which they refer you cannot discern the future of your or your child's condition, personality trait, or whatever it is, if it even exists. (Remember that article?) The rest of your family and friends would rather not make trouble unless they're sure of a problem, and they're not sure because they have no expertise. Most of them won't intercede on your behalf either, for the same reason. Get the picture? You're a writer, Cap. Work out believable characters and play that situation out in writing. It makes ordinary corrupt cops look almost benevolent.
            “Good luck with trying to ‘intercede at the root level’ with the political climate as it is. Even people who seek treatment and/or medication for their known conditions cannot get those needs met. Expanding services beyond what they have been in the past is unlikely any time soon. I saw a story on NBC News this morning about James Holmes (Tucson, Gabrielle Giffords and many others). Apparently, he was one of the more obvious contenders to be a shooter, but was on his own and buying guns as he chose. That is a very long way from what you envision.
            “My regulatory focus would be less on the type of firearms (beyond the items you mention, at most) and more on tracking sales and finding some way to locate stolen weapons. I'm not sure that a background check is realistic in private sales among friends, but certainly gun shows could use modern technology to at least surface-level checks. Cell-phone companies have been checking credit while the customer stands at the counter for a long time now.
            “I have heard very little discussion of stolen weapons recently, but one of the ironies of all this is that many ‘home defense’ weapons and some hunting guns go through the hands of burglars who typically sell them to other criminals. We recently had a large-scale theft from a shooting range near here as well, but that is a security question, not the same as thefts from homes. Registration could help with thefts from homes to a degree by making it easier to trace the firearms if law enforcement ever finds them, but that is reaction not prevention and probably would only bring an additional charge if and when a criminal was arrested.”
My response:
            Alrighty then!  Yes, I agree absolutely, unequivocally and unreservedly . . . I want all violence, not just gun violence, to end, just as I want world peace and the end to all war.  Yes, tragedies like Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Columbine and such are relatively rare in the larger context, yet they are quite dramatic, shocking and disgusting.  In the instance of Newtown, the event is being used to justify the imposition upon the freedom of every single citizen, not just those who choose to exercise that freedom; thus, the sensitivity to that particular rationale.
            Re: neighbors.  Well said and quite appropriate.  I do not want my neighbors in my private affairs any more than the government, but the government has far more power and effect than the neighbors, well except perhaps in small communities.  Then again, small communities tend to police themselves far more effectively than big cities.  I see my suggested Social Constabulary (SC) as an intelligence apparatus with no enforcement authority [which must be retained by Law Enforcement (LE)].  There are two key, vital elements to any intelligence collection operation – accuracy & reliability.  The collectors quickly sort out reliable from unreliable, and I do not believe will take long to identify a nosy, possibly malicious neighbor.  In fact, if the SC works properly, such troublesome reports will work to the detriment of the false accuser.  If a citizen sees a boy torturing an animal or bullying another boy, it needs to be reported and recorded.  A pattern of behavior will usually emerge.
            Re: story.  I have considered a novel to explore the good and bad aspects of the SC, isolation camps and blackhole prisons – fiction of course.  Who knows what tomorrow may hold?
            Re: root level.  I hold no naiveté regarding interceding at the root level.  Conversely, I am not willing to sacrifice my constitutional rights because we cannot find the will to deal with the root cause.  I have already stated my support for proper treatment of mental illness.  We are tragically deficient in that arena as Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, et al, so graphically demonstrate.  In my vision, at least the SC could collect and correlate such information, and those data might help us find the means to properly treat the mentally ill among us.
            Re: background checks & tracking.  As I believe I’ve stated previously, I am in favor of universal background checks, but only after there are laws and procedures put in place to ensure the privacy of such information and the specific limits on the use of those data.  The government has repeatedly proven itself unreliable in protecting the privacy of individual citizens; we don’t need to be amplifying its untrustworthiness.  Let’s see the protections, then we can expand checks & tracking.
            Re: registration.  Same argument.  The fear is once registered, it is a simple, small step to confiscation.  Where are the assurances and protections?  The government does not have the serial numbers of my weapons, and I have no intention of providing them.  If one or more of my weapons is stolen, I will certainly provide the requisite identifying data.
            Thank you for the continuing debate; this is important.
 . . . with this rebuttal:
            “I suspect you intended your statement about ending all violence as sarcasm. All the same, it leads to a valid question: what can we use as a reasonable standard for the level of violence we tolerate in our society? Perhaps using an average or median of developed nations in general would make a good starting point.
            “Anything scary will be used to justify any number of actions. No news there. Some people sell more guns, some people seek regulation, some people write books. Whatever. The largest example of this is 9-1-1, which has been used to justify a never-ending military action.
            “I still do not think neighbors and relatives will be useful in detecting mentally ill or otherwise dysfunctional people. Beyond that, you propose a government information-collecting effort in that paragraph but use two paragraphs to oppose less ambitious similar efforts further along in your email.
            “I think if you write stories with realistic characters based on people you have closely observed, perhaps supported by carefully designed studies, you will find a far better path to understanding society than that of reliance on unsupported intellect regardless of whose intellect produces the ideas.
            “We both support treatment for the mentally ill, but as of now we are voices in the wilderness. I see no way to make that a priority in Washington and the state capitals when the infrastructure is falling apart, the public schools are being starved of funding, and huge funding is wasted on the ‘war’ on drugs.”
 . . . to which I replied:
            Re: peace.  No!  Absolutely not, my words were offered with sincerity, not sarcasm.  I truly wish every living human being could live in peace, without violence.  I am idealist enough to think every human being wishes the same.  No level of violence is acceptable.  Yet, the realist in me recognizes and acknowledges that there are bad men among us, and there are bad parents who create those bad men.  The challenge for those of us who seek peace and non-violence is to find those bad men and intervene before they can hurt anyone else.
            Re: anything scary.  I’m not sure what to do with that.
            Re: neighbors.  Perhaps not; relying on family or neighbors is NOT the answer, only a fraction of the sources that should assist the SC in finding the bad men & bad parents.  The key to the SC is that information must be treated as intelligence, thus classified and restricted from use.  The purpose is not to collect all information, only that information that are indicators of potential future violence or threat.
            Re: stories.  Perhaps so.
            Re: mental illness treatment.  Indeed!  “War on drugs” – spot on!  But, all that said, the lack of mental illness treatment gives me little interest in sacrificing the freedom of all citizens.  Mental illness is a lot closer to the root cause for some (and probably more than we think) of the perpetrators.  We must get to the root cause if we have any hope of intervening before violence can injure others.
            Violence-prone individuals generally do not spontaneously combust; there is usually a progression or build-up that begins in early childhood.  We must get to the root cause to affect outcomes.  The key for us is collectively seeing those signs before combustion.

I have resisted the whole Bloomberg, nanny-state, drink-size kerfuffle until now.  To be frank, I figured such regulation was inevitable in New York City, and further, such limitations were the realm of local choice.  Then, on Monday, before the drink restriction became effective, a New York state judge declared the rule unconstitutional.  My curiosity had to be served.
            Judge Milton A. Tingling, Jr., Supreme Court, Civil Branch, New York County, heard the appeal and rendered appellate judgment in the case of NY Statewide Coalition v. NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene [NY SC index no. 653584/12 (2013)].  It is informative to note the whole of petitioners in this case – New York Statewide Coalition of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; the New York Korean-American Grocers Association; Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union; Local 812, International Brotherhood of Teamsters; the National Restaurant Association; the National Association of Theatre Owners of New York State; and the American Beverage Association.  The so-called Portion Cap Rule (PCR) on “Sugar Sweetened Beverages” (SSBs) is actually Amendment §81.53 to Article 81 of the New York City Health Code that was passed unanimously by the New York City Board of Health (BoH) on 13.September.2012, at the behest of Mayor Michael Rubens Bloomberg.  As noted by Judge Tingling, the PCR is a BoH rule.  Neither the state legislature nor the city council was able to pass similar or related PCR laws.  The PCR sets a maximum cup size of 16 ounces permissible for sale and self-service of SSBs available at food service establishments.  The beverages covered by the PCR are those that are calorically sweetened, greater than 25 calories per 8 fluid ounces of beverage, and contain no more than 50% milk or milk substitute.  Judge Tingling enjoined the city from enforcement of the PCR and based his injunction on the BoH’s violation of separation of powers doctrine, in that Mayor Bloomberg defined the object and language and the BoH adopted the Mayor’s language without the checks and balances under which the legislature or council must operate.  Mayor Bloomberg vowed to appeal Judge Tingling’s ruling presumably to the state supreme court as a whole and/or the U.S. Supreme Court.
            I appreciate Bloomberg’s willingness to do something about an important societal issue.  I truly do.  However, like so bloody many community challenges, his grievously misguided effort offended the freedom of choice of every citizens, resident or visitor in a rather lame attempt to “do something.”  This is the nanny-state at perhaps not its worst but in the same order of magnitude as other more serious state infringements on our freedom of choice.  In a democratic state founded upon personal freedom, change must come via the power of persuasion, by convincing citizens to alter their behavior by their choice, NOT by the dictum of the State.  It would be easy, indeed effortless, for me to accept the PCR as I rarely drink SSBs anymore and even more rarely buy any drink greater than 16 fluid ounces.  The PCR would probably never affect me.  Yet, the PCR is offensive to me on many levels, and I do not think Judge Tingling went anywhere near far enough in condemning such unilateral rules.  SSBs like so many other societal ills are symptoms, NOT the root cause.  We must find leaders and legislators who see beyond the façade of symptoms and zero-in on the root cause of problems.  Mayor Bloomberg is simply wrong on this foolish action as well as many others, and he is unfortunately not alone in his foolishness.

In the form of another ill advised, shallow proposal . . .
“18-year-olds are too young to be in porn”
by Charles Lane
Washington Post
Published: March 11, 2013; 11:32 PM EDT
Lane indicated he was inspired to write his opinion by the plight and misfortune of Melissa King, former Miss Delaware Teen USA, for an alleged hard-core pornographic video that she performed in shortly after her 18th birthday and was reportedly paid US$1,500 for her participation.
            Where do I begin?
            I appreciate and respect the fact that most Americans are disturbed by pornography in general, and even more so by anyone getting paid for sex, and especially someone barely to the age of majority.  I believe we have every right to be offended.  I would also like to think we have matured a little since the righteous indignation of Anthony Comstock.  Yet, once again, passing laws to validate or enforce our sense of propriety is just as wrong as the Portion Cap Rule noted above.  There are very few among us who create and pass these damnable morality laws.  I could launch off into another tirade about imposed morality on private conduct; however, the issue in this instance is the legal age of majority.  Lane’s concern is King’s age.  He suggests the minimum age for sex workers, or the porn industry, join the national minimum drinking age at twenty-one years of age [PL 98-363; 98 Stat. 435, 437; 17.July.1984] [542].  Given the Supremes’ inclination to use the Commerce Clause to validate morality laws {South Dakota v. Dole [483 U.S. 203 (1987)] [570]}, they will likely follow along the same path if Lane’s suggestion becomes law.
            The basic law defines the age of majority as 18 years; children become official adults, responsible for their actions, and their parents are no longer responsible.  Then, we pass laws to confirm they are only kinda responsible in certain ways that do not offend our sense of morality.  I have always been offended by the dichotomy of our foolish morality.  We can draft an 18-year-old male into military service, yet we do not consider them old enough to consume an alcoholic beverage.  In this instance, we are debating whether we need a law to prohibit adults less than 21-years-of-age from working in the erotic entertainment business.  My opinion is quite simple.  Whatever threshold we determine that children become legal adults and no longer the responsibility of parents, then that should be it.  Our continued restriction on young adults is simply not justifiable regardless of the Supremes’ lame rationale in South Dakota v. Dole.  Once again, I recognize the well-informed, insightful and intellectually grounded, dissenting opinion of Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor; she has long been the voice of reason.  Whether an 18-year-old woman chooses to have a drink, or make a pornographic video, or enjoy the interaction of being a sex worker must be her choice and hers alone.  The law has no place in those choices or any other private choice of citizen’s in a free society.

Habemus papum!
            At 19:06 [A] CET {14:06 [R] EDT}, Wednesday, 13.March.2013, the Conclave of Roman Catholic Cardinals announced the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina, a 76-year-old, Jesuit intellectual and Archbishop of Buenos Aires, to be the 266th pope – Pope Francis I – the first pope in a millennium from outside Europe and the first to choose an original moniker in 1200 years.  He did not waste time laying down the marker that he is a conservative cleric.  While we are likely to see a fresh and imaginative approach to papal interaction with the people, Pope Francis made it quite clear he is not keen on reform or modernization.  On the whole, the Francis papacy is more likely to be business as usual.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved S.150 (notionally, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013) intended to ban almost 160 specific military-style assault weapons by a party-line vote of 10 to 8.   The bill has been placed on the agenda for the full Senate, and even if passed, the bill must also pass the House and be signed by the President.  My opinion of this foolish legislation has not changed.

News from the economic front:
-- A joint statement by the European Union (EU), European Central Bank (ECB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) [AKA the troika] acknowledged a dispute over the redundancy of civil servants that has stalled talks between Greece and the international lenders, delaying disbursement of a €2.8B financial aid installment due this month and reignited fears the country’s bailout program maybe veering off track.  This is only the second time in almost three years of regular reviews of Greek progress on economic reform that the troika has left Athens without agreeing specific measures with the government.
-- A Senate panel voiced its displeasure with J.P. Morgan Chase [442, 468, 477] for misleading regulators and investors about the scope of losses on its London “Whale” trades last year [543].  Estimates put the bank’s trading losses at US$6.3B.

No comments or contributions from Update no.586.

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

11 March 2013

Update no.586


Update from the Heartland
No.586
4.3.13 – 10.3.13
Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,

The follow-up news items:
-- All this nonsense about sequestration [585] is subterfuge and fretting about the façade.  The issue we should be debating and focusing on is tax reform, just as Speaker of the House John Boehner of Ohio said all those months ago [569, 577].  If we want to increase the contributions of those most able to contribute, then elimination of the tax breaks, incentives and loopholes that enable them to protect their income from the tax collector would be a very good start.
-- The conclave of the College of Cardinals has been set for the coming Tuesday to elect the successor to Pope Benedict XVI [583].  By the next Update, we may have a new pope.  Given the struggles of the Catholic Church, the selection could prove to be quite interesting.

Well, that was quite entertaining! 
            The Senate Intelligence Committee voted 12 to 3 to approve the nomination of John Owen Brennan as director of the Central Intelligence Agency on Tuesday, hours after the White House agreed to provide more information on the legal basis for targeted killings of Americans believed to pose a terrorist threat.
            Seeking not to be ignored, Senator Randal Howard “Rand” Paul of Kentucky decided to carry out an old-fashioned, Mr. Smith filibuster.  He was protesting against the potential use of armed drones inside the United States and maintained the floor for 13 hours until the call of nature got the better of him.  He claimed success as the Senate received a letter from the Attorney General stating that the president does not have the “authority to use a drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil.” Shortly thereafter, the Senate voted 81-16-0-3(0) on the cloture motion to end debate.  The Senate then voted 63-34-0-3(0) on nomination number PN48 to confirm Brennan as the next Director Central Intelligence (DCI). 
            My first reaction to the Paul filibuster was one of disgust in that his action represented the gross dysfunction of Congress.  The confirmation process is one of qualification not protest.  Yet, at the end of the day, I am compelled to acknowledge the inner-workings and hidden mechanisms of senate procedure worked as it was intended to work, despite my opinion of Rand Paul.  I think what Paul did was wrong, yet I staunchly defend his right to do so, as he operated within the rules.

Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, 47, was arraigned in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on a charge of conspiracy to commit terrorist acts.  He is a former teacher, preacher, the son-in-law of deceased, al-Qa’ida leader Usama bin Ladin, and one-time vociferous mouthpiece of the terrorist organization.  Ghaith reportedly fled Tora Bora in 2001, along with the al-Qa’ida leadership, and then moved from Pakistan to Iran where he was supposedly under house arrest for several years.  He was eventually released and moved to Turkey.  The Turks deported him to Jordan, where he was turned over to the FBI.  Our government apparently decided to treat him as a criminal rather than as an extra-national, battlefield combatant.
            I agree with Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina; bringing Ghaith to New York for criminal trial sets a terrible precedent given Ghaith’s contribution to the enemy’s war effort.  He is not an American citizen.  He is not even a citizen of another nation.  He is an extra-national enemy battlefield combatant and should be treated as such.  However, my opinion on such things does not matter squat.  The deed is done.  We shall have to endure a long and protracted public trial and the obscenity of his political statements of abuse, mistreatment and justification . . . that is unless he decides to plead guilty and claim martyrdom.

The Commerce Clause has been the primary tool used by the Federales to intrude upon private lives, affairs, and “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness,” thus, my concern regarding the basis and evolution of the legal interpretation.  The constitutional authority grew from the failure of the Articles of Confederation and the negotiations of the Constitutional Convention.  
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
The words of the Commerce Clause have remained the same since they were settled in 1787, however, the teeth of the Commerce Clause grew from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden [22 U.S. {9 Wheat.} 1 (1824)] that set the tone for subsequent and amplifying decisions.
            The story of Gibbons illustrates precisely why the Commerce Clause is essential and vital to the public welfare and the success of this Grand Republic. 
Thomas Gibbons operated the Stoudinger and the Bellona, steam-powered ferryboats, between Elizabethtown and other places in New Jersey, and New York City.  The State of New York passed legislation granting exclusive licensing authority to Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton for all watercraft powered by fire or steam to navigate the waters of the state.  Gibbons claimed his vessels were compliant with Federal licensing law [PL 2-II-008; 1 Stat. 305; 18.February.1793] and the state law violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.  To make matters worse, neighboring states passed retaliatory laws like Connecticut that prohibited any vessel holding a New York state license from entering its waters.
            Speaking for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice John Marshall declared the New York State law unconstitutional and extended the definition of commerce to include not just the exchange of goods and remuneration, but also the means to transportation including the movement on state navigable waterways.
            While I believe the later Court has extended the Commerce Clause too far, the Gibbons Court did exactly as the Constitution intended.  The freedom of commerce has been an essential, vital element in the success and power of this Grand Republic.  Just imagine if Thomas Gibbons had failed in his appeal, states might have enacted laws to protect intra-state commerce and essentially exclude inter-state commerce by requiring transfer of goods at state lines, or different gauge rails, or state transit fees, creating enormous commercial inefficiency solely for local gain.  I will argue that Gibbons enabled American economic energy and power.

News from the economic front:
-- The European Commission (EC) fined Microsoft €561M (US$733M) for breaking its commitment to offer millions of users of its Windows system a choice of rival Web browsers. The EC action made Microsoft the first company to break a voluntary EC agreement, which would have allowed 15 million European consumers to pick alternatives to its Internet Explorer browser.
-- Bank of Japan Governor Masaaki Shirakawa kept the central bank’s ¥101T asset-purchasing program unchanged, while leaving its key interest rate near zero.  The Financial Times [of London] reported that analysts had expected policymakers to hold off from further easing, especially January’s adoption of a 2% inflation target and a pledge to move to open-ended asset-purchases beginning next year. 
-- The U.S. Federal Reserve reported the net worth of American families rose by US$1.17T (1.8%) to US$66.07T in 4Q2012 – the highest level since 4Q2007, as rising home values and gains in stock holdings boosted household balance sheets.  The Great Recession began in December of 2007 and technically ended in June 2009, although I surmise many Americans would have a hard time recognizing the technical definition.  I wonder how they determine such personal information.
-- According to a Federal Reserve “stress test,” 17 of the 18 largest U.S. banks could weather a sharp economic downturn with adequate buffers against losses.  Goldman Sachs would likely lose US$20B in a financial crisis, making the bank one of the weakest in the industry and limits its ability to pay dividends. One smaller bank, Ally Financial Inc., scored lowest in one key measure, largely due to its association with troubled mortgage lender Residential Capital LLC.
-- The Labor Department reported the U.S. economy added 236,000 jobs in February –much stronger performance than expected – and the unemployment rate fell to 7.7%, the lowest in more than four years.

Comments and contributions from Update no.585:
“CMC's message to Marines about sequestration.  Well said.  I appreciate the common sense “Tamer” continues to display.”
S/F, Lew
CMC White Letter 1-13.pdf
My reply:
Lew,
            Spot on!  Semper Fidelis.
Cheers,
Cap
[PS: It seems the other service chiefs released similar letters to their personnel as a cautionary alert.]

Another contribution:
“I don't know if you're interested in astronomical events but this could be a big one. Get yourself and the youngsters out to a 'darksky' spot and educate the little ones and the big ones too! (Not explosive like the Russian meteor of last week).
“First sunshine of spring here [UK] today, what a relief.”
From spaceweather.com:
“NAKED-EYE COMET: Comet Pan-STARRS (C/2011 L4) is now inside the orbit of Mercury and it is brightening as it approaches the sun.  Observers in the southern hemisphere say the comet can be seen with the naked eye even through city lights.  Currently, it is about as bright as the stars of the Big Dipper (magnitude +2 to +3).  The comet could become even brighter when it moves into northern hemisphere skies in the second week of March.”
My response:
Peter,
            Indeed; always interested in space.  Thank you for the link.  I’ve not seen the comet yet, but I certainly will give it a look see.
Cheers,
Cap


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