Update from the Heartland
No.606
22.7.13 – 28.7.13
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Alternative opinions and perspective with respect to the
Zimmerman-Martin incident [536, 537] in these two video essays:
“The Lynching”
by William Alfred "Bill" Whittle
Published on July 19, 2013
and
“Pastor Ken Hutcherson to Rev. Al sharpton: ‘Not Again’”
by Dr. Ken Hutcherson - Senior Pastor of Antioch Bible
Church
Published: July 9, 2013; 3:00pm
Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) is
considering a formal, official pardon for Alan Mathison Turing, OBE, FRS, an
accomplished mathematician and major intellectual contributor to breaking the
German Enigma codes, so vital to winning World War II. He committed suicide on 7.June.1954, as
a consequence of the pending prosecution for his homosexuality – the loss of a
great mind because the powers that be disapproved on his private pursuit of
Happiness. HMG decriminalized
homosexuality on 27.July.1967, not in time to
save Alan Turing, but undoubtedly the parliamentary action has saved other good
souls. It is disappointing it has
taken 60 years to recognize the State’s contribution to Turing’s demise. Better late than never!
The House of Representatives rejected amendment
H.AMDT.413 to H.R.2397, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014, by
a vote of 205-217-0-12(1). Representative
Justin A. Amash of Michigan introduced the amendment to seriously restrict the
authority under §215 of the USA PATRIOT Act of
2001 [PL 107-056; 115 Stat.
272; 26.October.2001; reauthorized: 9.March.2006
(PL 109-177; 120 Stat. 192); reauthorized
again: 27.February.2010 (PL 111-141; 124 Stat. 37)], which enabled the various warrantless electronic
surveillance programs carried out by the National Security Agency (NSA),
including PRISM. I imagine this
will not be the last attempt to constrain the NSA contribution to waging war
successfully in the War on Islamic Fascism. The method proposed in Amendment 413 is NOT the way to
improve controls on the nation’s warrantless surveillance programs, so I say
thank goodness the House rejected the proposed amendment.
I finally
completed my reading of the second marriage case – United
States v. Windsor [569 U.S. ___ (2013);
no. 12-307] {the first being Hollingsworth v. Perry [569 U.S. ___
(2013)] [604]}. This case addressed directly the
constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA) [PL
104-199; 110 Stat. 2419; 21.September.1996], specifically
§3 of DOMA [110 Stat. 2419] that defines marriage as “. . . a legal union
between one man and one woman . . .” [547]. By a slim majority (5-4), the Supremes
affirmed the ruling of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals that
declared DOMA §3 an unconstitutional violation of Edith
Windsor’s 5th Amendment right to equal
protection under the law. Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy wrote for the
majority and the Court, “DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to
protect. By doing so it violates
basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal
Government. The Constitution's guarantee of equality ‘must at the very least
mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group
cannot’ justify disparate treatment of that group.” As is so often the case, the dissent offers us the most
illuminating insight into the decision; so it is here. Associate Justice Antonin Gregory
Scalia: [AKA Antonin the Impaler] wrote an unusually scathing, rather personal,
dissenting opinion that is too voluminous to recount in this humble forum. He declared, “Some might conclude that
this loaf could have used a while longer in the oven. But that would be wrong;
it is already overcooked. The most expert care in preparation cannot redeem a
bad recipe. … [T] he Constitution does not forbid the government to enforce
traditional moral and sexual norms. . . . [T]he Constitution neither requires
nor forbids our society to approve of same-sex marriage, much as it neither
requires nor forbids us to approve of no-fault divorce, polygamy, or the
consumption of alcohol.” He went
on to observe, “However, even setting aside traditional moral disapproval of
same-sex marriage (or indeed same-sex sex), there are many perfectly
valid--indeed, downright boring--justifying rationales for this legislation.” Further, Scalia noted, “It is one thing
for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose
change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes
humani generis, enemies of the human race.” I appreciate, acknowledge, accept and tolerate Antonin the Impaler’s
moral disapproval and general aversion to non-heterosexual citizens and the
immoral acts he imagines they engage in.
He is an American citizen, like you and me, no more no less, and he is
entitled to his personal, social beliefs, choices and associations. Yet, as an associate justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States of America, he is obligated to put his
personal beliefs aside and interpret the law. Further, as a judge, he can and will disagree with his
fellow judges. Associate Justice
Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. tried to take a less emotional and less personal
approach to his dissenting opinion.
He said, “Our Nation is engaged in a heated debate about same-sex
marriage. That debate is, at bottom, about the nature of the institution of marriage.” The reality is, Sam is correct in that
the Constitution makes no reference whatsoever to marriage or any aspect
related to marriage, just as it does not mention abortion, drugs, prostitution,
gambling, or any other contemporary social morality question . . . well, other
than treason. For the
fundamentalists or strict constructionists to stand upon such thin ice is
remarkable. Using their reasoning,
citizens with dark skin pigmentation would still be enslaved, or at least
denied equal rights and the right to vote in some states.
I
will argue that the issue before the Court was a citizen’s fundamental right to
her pursuit of Happiness, and NOT about
whether the People can dictate how everyone else should conduct their marriage. Marriage is a public-contracted,
private arrangement that meets certain proper public interests, i.e., free
consent (thus adult or with parental approval), and at least to my thinking,
the parties understand the terms & conditions of the arrangement. I could also argue that there should be
public interest in full disclosure of certain impediments like sexually
transmitted diseases, infertility, genetic anomalies, and such; however, that
could easily be construed to state-dictated due diligence, which ultimately would
be inconsistent state intrusion into a private matter, and I will have none of
that. So, this question is really
and ultimately about a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and the very
nature of a free society. It is
NOT the proper domain of the State to dictate how any citizen should live their
private lives. After all, each and
every one of us has “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
“Unalienable” meaning the State has NO authority to intrude upon or
abridge those rights without clearly defined, proper, state interests, e.g.,
injury or harm to another citizen’s person or property, good order and
discipline, and other public interests.
Thus, I do not see Windsor, or Hollingsworth for that
matter, being about how we think everyone should live their marriage, or who
they can love; it is about a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and the
proper place of the State, even though the Supremes were not able to see that
reality. So, I place Windsor
and Hollingsworth
in the same category as other landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education
[347 U.S. 483 (1954)], the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [PL 88-352; 78 Stat.
241], Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)], and Lawrence v. Texas [539
U.S. 558 (2003)], to name just a few.
The ink was
not quite dry on the Supreme Court’s Windsor and Hollingsworth decisions, when
we have Representative Timothy Alan Huelskamp of Kansas (no less), who
introduced H.J.Res.51 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States relating to marriage, i.e., codifying DOMA in the Constitution. After all, the social conservatives in
Kansas passed referendum state constitutional Amendment 1 on 1.November.2005, prohibiting
any recognition of same-sex marriage in the state. The H.J.Res.51 resolution was referred to the House
Committee on the Judiciary where I expect it to die a slow, quiet death.
We have this related opinion:
“A gay-marriage ban with limits”
by Jackie Gardina
Washington Post
Published: July 25, 2013
I appreciate Gardina’s argument and support her
conclusion. However, her rationale
is a two-edged sword. Consistency
among the states was precisely one of the primary reasons used by Congress to justify
DOMA. I think we are quite likely
to see many more challenges by the states regarding the current disparity in
the definition of marriage among the various states. We have a long way to go on this particular question.
News from the economic front:
-- The preliminary HSBC Holdings, Manufacturing Purchasing
Managers' Index (PMI) for the People’s Republic of China (PRC) fell to 47.7 in
July, compared with a final reading of 48.2 in June. A figure below 50 indicates economic contraction. The preliminary July PMI represents an
11-month low, suggesting a continued slowdown in the world's second-largest
economy.
Continuing
contribution from Update no.604:
“Concur
on a couple of points. Crump’s
statement was incorrect on facts and inflammatory. Not to equivocate, but Zimmerman’s attorney’s did him no
service with some of their comments. West’s comment about the prosecution being a travesty was
‘unhelpful’-and was close to, if not outright, worthy of a legal ethics
sanction. And the other DC’s
comment that “if Zimmerman were black, there wouldn’t be a trial,” is also
wrongheaded and unhelpful. And
BTW, had Martin been white, there might not have been a confrontation, or even
a following by Zimmerman. They
aren’t doing their client any favors with those comments.
“Can’t
agree on Zimmerman’s worthiness as a voluntary watch. The homeowners’ assn would probably
agree, as it cost them about $ million to settle a lawsuit. As one FL policemen noted in a recent
article, a neighborhood watch is just that – a watch. Not to confront and get into an
altercation. I am sure police are
reinforcing that to neighborhood watch people in the state. And in an interview with Sean Hannity
he showed no remorse…saying “it was God’s will that Martin was killed”. Not normal, if you saw the interview,
shows something is wrong with the man. I saw the interview after the event- and
again, was very surprised that the defense lawyers let him do it- although one
was seated next to him.
“Don’t
think the case was political. The
local PD did a poor job of investigating- actually no investigation- from what
I read, they initially took Zimmerman’s story at face value. And why no drug test for him afterwards?
(Although one was done on the
autopsy for Martin). The Sanford
PD is a piece of work by the way, using WWII era U.S. military ribbons for
police officers. They thought
nobody would notice, and made a conscious decision to use military ribbons. According to Military Times. Navy Cross
winner Jeremiah Workman noted police wearing
military ribbons got a hold of them and said they told him they didn’t have
their own awards system, so they went to the Army-Navy
store around the corner and picked out Defense Department military ribbons to
fit their own format. The WWII was
selected, the police department official told Workman, because they knew there weren’t many veterans from that period
alive so they didn’t think people would notice. The Fraternal Order of Police said they
had never heard of that-using U.S. military ribbons for police (aside from
those that policemen/women may have actually earned.) When publicized, the Sanford PD immediately stopped using
the military ribbons. Unbelievable.”
My reply:
If
the Zimmerman trial was not a political event, then it sure became one in short
order. While it is not unusual for
the state to intervene in a murder case, it is not particularly common
either. The installation of a
special prosecutor for this one case verges upon extraordinary.
I’ve
picked up a couple of on-line opinions from other sources that offer worthwhile
alternative perspectives. I am
posting them in this week’s Update.
Your advance link:
I maintain that Trayvon Martin was
NOT the innocent he has been portrayed to be and the available public evidence
suggests he was the aggressor. I
do believe Zimmerman was just trying to keep eyes on him, when Martin turned
and escalated the situation into violence that led to his death. Fortunately, Zimmerman was armed or he
would have been the murder victim by an unknown assailant.
Unfortunately,
there are a lot of folks who feel it acceptable to use military combat action
medals for their fraudulent purposes.
It is very disappointing, if true, regarding the Sanford PD. Hopefully, the latest Stolen Valor Act
will pass judicial muster this time around so they bozo’s can be successfully
prosecuted for their fraud.
. . . follow-up comment:
“Don’t know if the Stolen Valor Act would work—moot anyway,
as the Sanford PD stopped the practice after it was publicized. Not sure
if they were using valor or meritorious award ribbons, although it looked like
one Sgt had an Army Good Conduct medal ribbon.. It was incredibly
stupid of them—the authorities made a concerted decision to use the WWII era
ribbons, since they ‘didn’t think any vet would notice anymore.’
What poor judgment.
“Several years ago, a leading businessman in NJ was shown to
be a bogus Marine general - going around in public, in a dress uniform with
Vietnam-era ribbons. He was prosecuted, got a minor punishment, but was
greatly humiliated. Somehow he started telling people stories and it
gradually ‘got out of hand.’
“He got detected when he started making public appearances
in uniform and making speeches. A newspaper article got some retired
Marines curious and his story unraveled.
“Then there was Frank Gansz, who was an asst football coach
when we were at Navy. He was a USNA grad, who went into the Air Force, as
many in his generation did- pre USAFA. He had overstated his flying career-
and even his athletic career at Navy. Didn’t wear awards, but exaggerated
his record and claimed combat experience, when he had none.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
The
latest version -- Stolen Valor Act of 2013 [PL 113-012; 127 Stat.
448] – only covers combat action awards, not more general awards like GCM. Moot indeed. Thank goodness they terminated the practice. There are numerous stories of false
claims. In all cases, I am
reminded of Admiral Boorda. I met
him a few times by association with Admiral Zumwalt. The last time was a month or so before his suicide,
ostensibly over an erroneous but mistaken use of a combat V device, as I
recall.
. . . along with another round of
comments:
“I also met Adm Boorda just a week
before his death…at Embassy Moscow. He had just finished visiting Russian
naval facilities in the St. Petersburg region. He was utterly stunned by
what he saw..Russian crew AND their families living on ships, due to having
been relocated from Baltic countries. They were in pretty bad shape. They
could not have sortied—and didn’t while I was there.
“Regarding his wearing a V device...it
was brought up by retired Army colonel, David Hackworth. But
Hackworth didn’t understand the difference between the Army/USAF “V” device and
the USN/USMC “V” device for Comm and Achievement Medals.. For the Army,
it denotes "participation in acts of heroism involving conflict with
an armed enemy". For the Navy and USMC, denotes combat heroism or
recognizes individuals who are "exposed to personal hazard during
direct participation in combat operations" For Air Force, it
denotes heroism or being "placed in harms' way" during contingency
deployment operations.
“Thus the Navy “V’ for a Navy Com or
Achievement Medal can mean something else than the Army medals with
“V”. Boorda was in a surface situation where he was exposed to personal
hazard in conflict with an armed enemy, as far as I understand. He should
have been awarded a V- as others on his crew were- it was considered an
oversight and could have been rectified. It was not the scandal that
Hackworth – and another journo, Roger Charles- tried to foment. (Charles
was a retired Marine, USNA ’68). And Charles should have understood the
difference. There were other reasons put forward for Boorda’s
suicide. Criticism from retired and active Admirals over Tailhook actions
was one offered. Others were personal reasons. And a couple years
ago, I was told by a retired senior officer who was in a position to know that
the medals were definitely not the reason.”
. . . and my reply:
Thx
for the explanation. I simply
accepted Bud Zumwalt’s statement prima
facie, and did not delve into the matter further. The V device seemed like a very weak rationale for such a
drastic action, but I heard no other hypothesis or justification. Still a tragic loss. My interaction with him was quite friendly,
open and animated.
Comments
and contributions from Update no.605:
Comment to the Blog:
“The notion that the 9-11 event compares to Pearl Harbor
(your linked article) is ludicrous. Had 9-11 been treated as the criminal act
it was, the USA would not be in this mess. The Oklahoma City bombing and
numerous other precedents going back to Roman times give us the appropriate
context for dealing with such incidents. Now we have given the worst elements
of government an excuse to remove all civil rights worldwide. Of course, much
of the world will not go along with that, which aggravates an already ugly
situation.
“The Zimmerman trial and its aftermath go on and on, of
course. The use of wrongful death suits to bring consequences in situations
such as this is not unusual. I will point out here again the hazards of using
untrained citizens for police functions. My belief is that this and future
incidents will reveal that Neighborhood Watches and other neighborhood snooping
activities do more harm than good. We simply cannot rely on random people to
control others’ actions. That opportunity draws too many George Zimmermans.
“Caring about his community” is not nearly enough qualification, as we have
seen.
“I will assure you that I or any of my five brothers would
have responded similarly to Trayvon Martin if someone had followed us in our
youth through the streets of our little town. If we had died in the ensuing
incident, someone would have been convicted, assuming they lived long enough to
be apprehended by law enforcement rather than the other brothers. We are white.
“I will address Biblical issues about homophobia only to the
extent of reminding all and sundry that United States law is not, or should not
be, based on any given form of religion. I am not a part of the Abrahamic
religions and will not address their internal quarrels.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
9/11 vs. Pearl Harbor. Both events
were coordinated mass attacks on the United States by international agents. To equate the Murrah Building attack
with 9/11 seems to be a much farther stretch to me. The USG has not “removed all civil rights worldwide.” I understand, acknowledge and accept
that 9/11 and al-Qa’ida present unique ambiguities, especially in the light of
a rather minimalist response by Congress with both AUMF laws, but they were
properly enacted and executed laws nonetheless. Exaggeration does not extend the public debate.
Re:
Neighborhood Watch. I do
agree. It is a watch, i.e., be
attentive to who is soliciting or traipsing through your neighborhood. It is not law enforcement. If we do not care for our communities,
who will? The police are not
sufficient in number to protect everyone all the time. Snooping is much more than watch;
snooping involves an invasion of privacy or property. I do not support any snooping.
Re:
Zimmerman. The portrayal of George
as some gunslinger intent upon murder and denying freedom of movement to
Trayvon is wrong, in every way and not supported by facts. Trayvon did not need to die, but I
believe he instigated his death; he battered George without consideration that
he could be armed. Fortunately for
George, he was armed and probably saved his life.
Re:
followed. As with you and your
brothers, I am attentive to what goes on around me. There are peaceful, non-violent ways to deal with being
followed. Trayvon’s choice was not
one of those methods.
Re:
Judeo-Christian morality. I agree
with your observation. I will
simply add that our forefathers chose to codify their morality in common
law. While some of that morality
is appropriate, e.g., murder, theft, endangerment, et cetera, the portions that
deal with private conduct are wrong and contrary to the principles of the
Declaration and the laws set forth in the Constitution; but, those private
morality laws remain on the books and are enforced by zealous, sanctimonious
prosecutors. This is my crusade .
. . to get government out of our private lives and affairs.
. . . round two comment:
“Pearl Harbor was a military attack executed by a foreign
nation. The 9/11 attack was a criminal act committed by criminals. The attack
at the Murrah Federal Building and various other radical actions back through
time were treated as criminal acts, and that works both legally and as a policy
approach.
“If you have not perceived that the United States Government
has not claimed worldwide rights to violate the privacy and take the lives of
anyone it pleases, I suggest you study the record on this subject. The ‘War on
Terrorism’ is a flimsy defense at best.
“The Neighborhood Watch amounts to an organized nosy
neighbor committee. You may define snooping as distinct from watching but you
will have a difficult time supporting that distinction, particularly in this
instance.
“George Zimmerman was intent on not letting Trayvon Martin ‘get
away.’ The notion of dealing with him peacefully does not pass the test of
reality. Martin faced the choice of unjust suffering or self-defense.”
. . . my response to round two:
Re:
criminals. Frankly, I could argue
this either way. There is no point
is wasting your time or mine debating the fine points of definitions in this
particular case, as the lines are too blurred . . . which I might add is part
of the problem as well as advantage al-Qa’ida enjoys. As for me, I choose to err on the side of caution and
conservatism.
Re:
USG. If you take the argument to
the extreme, perhaps. Certainly, I
will agree; there is that risk.
The difficulty for us is where do we draw the line . . . between
intelligence and prosecution, between terrorist and criminal, between action
and paralysis, ad infinitum.
Re:
Neighborhood Watch. Perhaps that
is your experience. It is not
mine. I will also respectfully
disagree re: snooping. When you
are on a sidewalk, you are generally in the public domain; your only right to
privacy rests upon your person and property. I have just as much to that public domain as you do. If someone is loitering or acting
suspicious in the public domain around my property, my watching them is NOT
snooping. I am far more interested
in stimulating folks to care about their communities and help the police do
their duty, and when necessary defend their person or property from those
intent upon doing harm.
Re:
“get away.” He did say that. He was trying to keep an eye on him
until police arrived or he left the neighborhood. “Unjust suffering”?
Really? What suffering, if
he had just kept walking? Defense
against what? Are you now claiming
that Zimmerman assaulted Martin? If
so, there is no evidence to support that hypothesis, just as there is no
evidence to support Zimmerman as the aggressor. Now, we have the one hold-out juror publicly stating
Zimmerman murdered Martin . . . although she acknowledges the state did not
prove its case. If we are bound and
determined we wish to lynch George Zimmerman based upon our perception that
Trayvon Martin was this innocent-as-the-new-fallen-snow, young boy, simply walking
home to dad’s place, then get the rope and have at it. I will not be joining the lynch
mob. I do not and cannot subscribe
to that notion.
. . . round three:
“You do not see a clear distinction between criminal acts
versus wars? I do, and I believe blurring that distinction has cost the USA a
huge amount in money, lives, and international standing. However, that blurring
did a great deal for the Bush (43) presidency, which had record low popularity
numbers in early September of 2001.
“I do not see what is extreme about seeing the US
Government’s actions as they themselves describe them. They have not targeted
any kind of suspects but rather have gathered everyone’s information. The
Presidents in question (Bush 43 and Obama) claim a ‘right’ to kill anyone they
choose without due process in any form.
“‘Stimulating folks to care about their communities’ has
been attempted over and over without any greater long-term success than the
“wars” on drugs or poverty. Psychologists or sociologists could explain that,
but I doubt you pay any attention to those fields.
“Being followed in darkness constitutes a form of suffering
to me, due to the fear involved. I cannot imagine a rational news-watching
person in this country not being afraid in that situation. Being expected to do
nothing about the stranger following me certainly aggravates that. Picturing
Mr. Zimmerman as some kind of innocent party ignores the fact that he was
outside his training and ignoring direct suggestions of the police dispatcher.
Apprehending anyone is beyond the scope of any Neighborhood Watch, as well it
should be. We clearly differ on the value of nosy neighbors.”
. . . my response to round three:
Re:
criminal. I would like to you hear
description of the distinction between criminal acts versus war? Is a presidency about popularity?
I
do believe you are over-stating the President’s “right to kill” whomever he
wishes. I am not aware of one
person who was targeted by the United States and was not an enemy of the state
under the authority of the AUMF. I
suspect your opinion on this matter rests upon your belief that al-Qa’ida and
its affiliates are “criminal” enterprises and thus should be accorded due
process of law. If so, then we
shall respectfully disagree. I
have not been able to make that intellectual leap-of-faith as yet.
For
the record, I pay attention to anyone who has a cogent argument regardless of
whether I happen to agree with them at the moment, including psychologists and
sociologists. The “war on drugs”
was wrong from the get-go, despite my early support – prohibition of private
conduct in a free society will NEVER work, no matter how much money we
spend. Poverty – we’ve
discussed. If we do not care about
our communities, who will? If we
don’t care, then it should be no surprise when situations degenerate to
vigilantism, violence and survival of the fittest. The police cannot and never will be able to do it all.
We
have no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman was outside of his training. He was trying to keep sight of Martin
in an apartment complex; it cannot be done from a car. There is NO evidence he was trying
“apprehend” Martin. And, from the
available evidence, Martin seems like more of a racist than Zimmerman. As I’ve said before, there are many,
non-violent ways of dealing with someone who might be following you. Martin appears to have made a bad
choice, and he paid the price.
Bottom line: we will never know what happened that night. Either one of them could have been the
aggressor, the bad man. Just
because Zimmerman was legally armed and was able to survive does NOT make him
either the aggressor or a bad man.
Re:
nosy neighbors. No, I do not think
we disagree. I certainly do not
want the neighbors and anyone else poking into my private affairs. We may be quibbling over what
constitutes concerned citizen versus nosy neighbor – a worthy topic of debate.
As
always, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
