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?
. . . round three:
“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:
“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.”
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 :-)
2 comments:
My version of the autopsy report on the Republican Party: “we relied on middle-aged white males whose memory of the ‘good old days’ we could distort and manipulate for so long that now they’re old (or dead) white males and all the other groups have us figured out. The whole Tea Party thing is backfiring.”
As long as anyone has the ability to kill people with no accountability, the Constitution is effectively cancelled. I find myself in direct agreement with Rand Paul on the drone issue. And we are not at war.
I agree that Joe Biden, in his capacity as Vice President of the United States, ought not to kiss the Pope’s ring or defer to any other head of state except the President of the USA.
As I understand it, the “assault weapons ban” no longer includes assault weapons. Does it have a new name?
Ought not the choice of who people marry be left up to the persons being married? Why should that choice be delegated to anyone else? This entire issue is silly. At least one argument in use, that such freedom violates the religious rights of churches, is utter nonsense in its own right, and resembles the sophistry over contraceptive coverage. As clergy myself, I can tell you unequivocally that the clergy cannot be forced to perform marriages. I myself can and do set conditions (a small but significant level of counseling) without which I will not marry people. Other clergy are free to exercise their freedom of religion by setting their own conditions.
Calvin,
Re: your version – LOL, good one.
Re: war. If the only definition of war is a document passed by Congress that contains the explicit, direct words “This is a declaration of war,” then I suppose you are correct. From my perspective and understanding of history, that definition has not been valid since 27.June.1950. We have been legally at war since 18.September.2001, and we remain at war. The Constitution has NOT been cancelled. And, I do not agree with Rand Paul.
Re: Biden. Agreed.
Re: assault weapons ban. Not to my knowledge. There usually is a new title, and it often mutates during the legislative process.
Re: marriage. Yes, precisely; that is my point. Marriage is a private matter, predominately left to the individuals involved, with the proviso that there are legitimate, bona fide, public interests in a marriage contract and thus within the domain of the State, e.g., free choice, majority age or parental consent, knowledge of the terms, et cetera. Personally, I believe there should also be a requirement or limitation associated with self-support, i.e., I think it is categorically wrong and unacceptable for the State (us) to support multiple partners, children or other byproducts without constraints or conditions – the more support, the more constraints. No one that I am aware of has ever even suggested “forcing” religious organization to perform or sanction non-traditional marriages. Their argument is hollow and moot.
Re: PPACA. Personally, I think this whole religious resistance to PPACA is bogus.
Thank you for your opinions.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment