28 January 2013

Update no.580


Update from the Heartland
No.580
21.1.13 – 27.1.13
Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The House of Representatives decided to punt on the exceeded debt limit [577] and passed H.R.325, by a vote of 285-144-0-3(3).  The legislation is provisionally titled as the No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013, and is now in the Senate.  The proposed law is actually quite simple.  Section 1 explicitly states the current debt limit law [31 USC §3101(b)] “shall not apply” from enactment through 18.May.2013.  The title comes from §3 of H.R.325, which impounds in escrow the congressional pay of all members of either chamber that has not passed a budget resolution by 15.April.2013.  The bill allows the House majority party to avoid a brutal slog-fest over the debt limit and presumably focus on passing a reasonable budget.  The bill makes no mention of sequester or spending reductions.  We await the Senate.
{Just an historical FYI: the original debt limit was established by the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 [PL 65-I-043; 40 Stat. 288; 24.September.1917]            [502] and has been amended . . . well . . . a lot of times, which I am not inspired to count.}
-- General John R. Allen, USMC [USNA 1976], the out-going Commander, International Security Assistance Force (Afghanistan), was cleared by the Defense Department’s Inspector General of any professional misconduct in the Petraeus scandal [569, 570].  Allen’s nomination to be Commander-in-Chief, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) was placed on hold pending the outcome of the investigation, and it is not clear whether the President will continue to support his nomination.  General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., USMC, has been confirmed by the Senate and will relieve Allen next month. 
-- The American jihadist David Coleman Headley [AKA Daood Sayed Gilani] [492] was sentenced to 35 years in prison for his role in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack [363/4]. Headley meticulously scouted the targets for a 10-man, Pakistani-based, militant group that killed 160 people, injured many more, and did millions of dollars in damage.
-- U.S. District Court Judge Leonie M. Brinkema (née Milhomme) of the Eastern District of Virginia sentenced former CIA agent John C. Kiriakou [528, 577] – the first CIA officer to face prison for disclosing classified information.  At the sentencing, Judge Brinkema said she would respect the plea deal, but also emphatically said, “I think 30 months is way too light.”  The judge said, “this is not a case of a whistle-blower.” She went on to describe the damage that Kiriakou had created for the intelligence agency and an agent whose cover was disclosed by him.  Spot on, Judge Brinkema . . . way too easy.

Just a little observation, if I may be so bold.  I truly believe Americans understand and are justly proud of being free.  This Grand Republic is based upon freedom.  Yet, most American citizens have not and some still do not enjoy equality to savor the freedom we believe in so strongly.  It took nearly 75 years before all white men could vote.  It took a horrific, bloody, civil war plus another 100 years before citizens with dark skin pigmentation could freely vote or marry the person of their choice.  It took 144 years before female citizens could vote, and some will / can argue they are still under the yoke of the coverture in societal expectations.  To this day, 237 years hence, a significant fraction of the citizenry of this Grand Republic still do not enjoy the equality and freedom our founding promised them.  While we have more obstacles ahead to realize this promise, we struggle with governmental intrusion into our private lives and affairs, and the erosion of those precious rights so begrudgingly won by unfathomable sacrifice.  As we debate the social issues of our time, let us not forget our heritage and the expectations of the Founders for a government of the People, by the People, and for the People.  This has not been an easy or smooth journey.  Let freedom ring!

An interesting article:
“12 Rude Revelations About Sex – In order to transcend the discomfort that sex typically stirs, you may need to radically rethink desire, marriage, fidelity, and much more.”
Psychology Today
Published on January 02, 2013 - last reviewed on January 02, 2013
There are several elements that I might quibble with in de Botton's assessment / opinion.  He does mention the impact of religion on our sexual attitudes and morals, yet I believe he seriously underplays the impact.  The Judeo-Christian, Victorian-era morality most of us were taught and indoctrinated with as children is the power that forces our sense of modesty, shame with our nakedness, and core belief that sex is a very private, very adult, and in many cases, only-for-procreation activity.  We condemn promiscuity, adultery, prostitution, masturbation, contraception, pornography, virtually anything sexual that might interfere with marital procreation.  De Botton implies our prudishness regarding sex is genetic, hereditary and natural.  I shall respectfully disagree.  Our anatomical modesty and sexual prudishness are taught to us from second one of extra-uterine life, and those reinforcements still occur to this day.
"That's just my opinion, but I could be wrong."

Another related interesting article:
PERSONAL HEALTH JANUARY 14, 2013, 2:37 PM
That Loving Feeling Takes a Lot of Work
“That Loving Feeling Takes a Lot of Work”
by Jane E. Brody
New York Times
Published: January 14, 2013;  2:37 PM

We have a variety of Press outlets in the colonies that voiced and repeated concerns about recent public remarks by Captain Prince Henry of Wales [AKA Prince Harry].  However, this is the article that got my hackles up:
“Prince Harry faces growing criticism over 'candid' descriptions of killing Taliban fighters – Prince Harry faces growing criticism over his unguarded descriptions of killing Taliban fighters, with one front-bench MP suggesting he had been too ‘candid’”
by Gordon Rayner, Rob Crilly and Zubair Babakarkhail in Kabul
The Telegraph [of London]
Published: 22 Jan 2013; 3:44PM GMT
I am aghast, appalled and otherwise gobsmacked by all this drivel and nonsense about the frank, honest and direct remarks of Prince Harry, regarding the killing of Taliban fighters.  Harry was seconded from The Blues and Royals to 662 Squadron, 3 Regiment, Army Air Corps, Camp Bastion, Helmand Province, Afghanistan.  He was assigned and served as the Copilot-Gunner (CPG) on a British Army AH-1 (WAH-64D) attack helicopter crew in combat.  His job was to kill people in the most efficient, effective manner possible.  What on God’s little green Earth do we expect him to say . . . I enjoyed playing nice with my Taliban buddies.  When he is in that seat, he is a warrior with a trigger to powerful weapons intended to rain destruction on the enemy; he is not some pampered prince.  Let us get real folks!  Well done, Harry.  Spot on!  Godspeed and following winds!

News sources reported on recent statements from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) indicated the isolated, rogue nation intends to launch another ICBM as well as detonate another nuclear test shot.
“UN expands sanctions on North Korea”
by Geoff Dyer in Washington
Financial Times [of London]
Published: January 23, 2013; 2:16 am
A friend, colleague and frequent contributor sent along this comment:
Subject: North Korea rocket testing.
From: "Peter Gipson"
Date: Thu, January 24, 2013 9:35 am
To: "cap"
Cap,
“We need to be worried, seriously worried over the flagrant obsessive disregard of UN warnings by N. Korea. Only bad can come of this. But who wants another Korean war? Surely the Chinese who like to conduct ‘out of balance’ trading with the western world should be acting against their aggressive and foolish neighbours. I’m certain you’ll have views on this situation.”
With this link:
Regs from eastside, Peter.
North Korea set for new nuclear, rocket tests aimed at striking the United States
Hyung-Jin Kim, Associated Press | Jan 24, 2013 8:03 AM ET
 . . . to this article:
“North Korea set for new nuclear, rocket tests aimed at striking the United States”
National Post [of Canada]
Published: Jan 24, 2013; 8:03 AM ET
 . . . along with my response:
Peter,
            I suppose the latest Kim wants to pick up where his granddaddy left off in 1953.  I cannot imagine the PRC encouraging the DPRK in poking at the USA, but who knows.  Given the PRC’s provocative stance regarding the Senkaku Islands as well the myriad shoals and sandbars in the South China Sea, perhaps the PRC is using the DPRK as its stalking horse with respect to U.S. military assets in the region.  I gave up a long time ago trying to understand the disturbed reasoning of the Kim family as dictators of the DPRK.  Their bellicose chest-beating will not accomplish anything.  Frankly, I would love to see an Aegis cruiser off the coast engage the next rocket early in the ascent phase as a clear demonstration to the Kim regime, although our allies to the south would probably not look kindly on such an exercise.
            Semper vigilans,
Cap

Out-going Defense Secretary Leon Edward Panetta lifted the military’s ban on women in combat, which will open up hundreds of thousands of additional front-line jobs to them.  The topic sparked several parallel threads.  This is just one of those threads.  It began with this article:
“The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat – A Pentagon push to mix the sexes ignores how awful cheek-by-jowl life is on the battlefield”
By Ryan Smith
Wall Street Journal
Published: January 23, 2013
 . . . to which our common contributor offered up his rant:
“I'm exhausted from this rapid-fire assault by the Obama administration & handlers, along with their embedded alphabet news agency mouthpieces for change. This socialist administration has become more emboldened since the so-called re-sElection, and is working in a sinister pace to undermine America and much of what our nation has stood for. It's been the 2nd Amendment lately, but now it is women in combat. It's all happening quickly. Perhaps it is well designed (crafted) to cause major division amongst the commoners, as we've not seen the divisive partisanship politics like this in some time, as well as distractions from the reality of global economies and fragile geopolitics.
“The enemy of the state is using race/class/wealth/party divisive warfare all the while they state they are united us and assuring the equality of any/every demographic/psychographic segment possible (while deceiving the majority).
“Let the Marine [Smith, above] provide a reason why women in combat makes no sense. Then read the article below about Obama's lies on equality. I did not say I did not believe women cannot be in the military, I am talking front lines which is combat. Women do a great-great job as pilots, cops, firefighters, and many professions, but this one is pushing the limits.
“Is our military good for winning, excellence in delivering blows to enemies, or is it all about equality now?
“Welcome to the United State of Egalitarianism (USE). Soon, expect us to be equal with our pets and other animals, and then the poodles can serve too on the front line (not equating a woman with a poodle, but this is for an example of where we are heading. If you have a pet turtle and believe he has rights too, well make sure you take him to the welfare office to sign him up).
“Everyone has rights, yet none of us will be left with the traditional rights.
“Something sinister is up, our local golfer Phil Mickelson said the other day that because of state and federal taxes, he may need to move from San Diego. A day later he reverses course and said he should not have said that, that it was insensitive. Then last week I reported that the Whole Food founder John Mackey told NPR that ObamaCare was not just socialism but actually "fascism" and then a few days later he reverses course as he is being threatened and harassed by the various MAFIAS that operate out there in the social segments. Mackey went on CNN, invited to talk about his new book CONSCIOUS CAPITALISM and the gal host tried to take him apart for saying ObamaCare was "fascism" and he said maybe he used the wrong wording and then she continued to punish him going as far then as articulating the NEW BASE LINE for all of us (regardless of the 1st Amendment) that the "fascism" word was used during the Nazi days "and we really want that word out of the public forum." CNN dictating to us our modern vocabulary now. Watch the Orwellian interview here:
“That female anchor (change-agent) would be great with Piers Morgan.
“Welcome to the New World ODOR (their attempt at their order is a big odor).”
 . . . I offered this simple response:
One of these days, we will grow up.  The eternal optimist in me tells me so.  This foolish nonsense of Victorian-era morality must and will end someday.  Equality means equal, not kinda equal, so let's get over our antiquated prudishness and realize the true meaning of our creed.
 . . . to which the contributor added:
“I don't think equality is anything at all about treating people equal. I is just more government group think, government regulation, government control, government expansion, government taxation, and government power in our faces.
“We are not all created equal. You and I have different plumbing than a woman. Does this make you and I superior? No. Do men have certain attributes that make them more suitable to specific tasks? I believe so.  Just like women are better in specific functions. I've affirmed that in professions where it was traditionally male dominated, three areas I know about...piloting, law enforcement and firefighting, women have done a great job excelling. Not all women, just like not all men cut it, but some women. Of course there are LAPD and SDPD guys that will argue with me that they believe many women in patrol, should not be, only because they don't have the physical attributes or 'GET IN YOUR FACE' nature that a man might more naturally have (as in, when a cop is down on the ground in a fight-for-life with the perp trying to grab his gun, he would rather see the meanest and most built male as his next cover unit). This is not to say women are less. How did we get to this point where everyone has to be equal? Liberals.
“With this decision on females into front-line combat, does this now mean a Down's syndrome person (bless their souls) or let's say an obese man who claims discrimination, is allowed to go to the front-lines because our military will be forced to reduce its standards? In other words, where does all of this go? We are not created equal, for all tasks. God may see us equal but let's face it, man does not see other men/women equal. Everyone has their built-in biases and prejudices any always will because before we get to the Utopian era, World War-III will occur due to perhaps religious wars, resources wars, or men in high places that don't see you and I as their equals.
“So let's open up professional football, say NFL, to women football players. I suspect that will happen because some butch female who wants to play with the boys, will end up finding some thirsty lawyer who will sue to get the women out on the field with the guys. It will happen, it's only a matter of time.
“My opinion is all of this equality stuff is about illusion by the directors of grand theatre, distracting us, and promoting the lie that our GOV wants to protect the "weaker" or new protected class, while stomping on our First Amendment, 2nd, 4th, and more. If the GOV cared so much about EQUALITY, why is it not protecting the millions of babies slaughtered in America each year all for a woman to have her "CHOICE" protected?
“Did you know female military service members are experiencing record pregnancy rates from fellow military men? Is this the type of distraction we really need? I believe women are great in many professions, better than or equal to men. Men are better in other professions. But the progressives cannot accept that and want to equalize gender, and eventually I suppose the cow down the street will have just as many rights as a human (nothing against cows, they are really kind animals).
“Here's another take Sir Parlier, what happened to the MAN protecting the WOMAN? By sending women into the front-line, isn't that a collective way of saying to females "we're gonna put you out right where the highest risks are, you are no longer elevated and protected!?"
“Call me paranoid, me thinks the reason they want to bring women into the front-line, is because we have the perpetual & expanding war model and there are many more wars to fight, and/or to diminish the quality of the front-line by distracting them while dividing them on these cultural hot point issues propagated by our own corrupted suits in Washington.”
 . . . to which I responded:
            Alrighty then, game on!
            In the Internet parlance of the day, OMG, it seems this thread left the reservation.
            If you will permit me, perhaps a few overarching observations:
1. I believe we are confusing definitions.  The equality of which I speak is equality under the law.  I am not talking about personal behavior or conduct.  There is no State interest in forcing association.
2. Equality under the law should have nothing to do with any of the social factors, i.e., age, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, disability, et cetera.  If a person chooses to not associate with anyone with dark skin pigmentation that is their choice, their private business . . . along as they do not interfere with or impose upon the other person’s private choices.
3. Re: “Sir Parlier.”  No need for flippant or sarcastic notations, if we are to have a productive debate.
            First, since women in the combat arms spark this little tête-à-tête, please allow me a historical note: on 25.October.1943, the Soviet Union awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union medal [the Soviet equivalent of the Medal of Honor] to Major Lyudmila Pavlichenko, the most successful female sniper in history with something like 192 confirmed kills during the Great Patriotic War.  There are American women equally as capable with a rifle as Pavlichenko.  Are we to be denied their service to this Grand Republic?
            Now, I would like to address a few of your points.
            Re: “not all created equal.”  I’ve re-read your words several times, and I believe I understand your point.  However, the argument sounds remarkably similar to the Supremes in Plessy v. Ferguson [163 U.S. 537 (1896)].  Are you really arguing that separate but equal is a valid constitutional interpretation? 
            Re: “more suitable.”  I absolutely agree, just as there are men who are more suitable to certain jobs.  I believe you made the argument for performance standards, if so, then I agree there as well.  Yet, to claim we are different because of any one or combination of the social factors noted above is to argue on the molecular level that there was not, is not, and will never be equality.  That is a specious argument not supported in law.  That said, I have always advocated for bona fide performance standards, and I would argue vehemently against diminishment of those standards to accommodate any of the social factors.  The Marine Corps recently conducted a test evaluation of four female officers joining the Infantry Officers Course (IOC); all four failed to complete as well as a significant number of men.  That is as it should be.
            Re: standards.  I believe you erroneously assume military standards will be arbitrarily and capriciously lowered to accommodate women.  Some ill-informed citizen may in fact argue for such diminishment.  We must not allow that to happen.  If it does, then I shall be the first to acknowledge your premonition, opinion and assertion.  I have more faith in our military institutions.  We must stand guard to keep the so inclined politicians from “forcing” the military to reduce their standards.  Conversely, if a woman can pass standards and wants to serve in that capacity, then I say God bless her service.
            Re: NFL.  I say the same criterion applies.  If they meet the standards and wish to play, then more power to them.
            Re: illusion.  It would seem you have a rather poor view of equality.  I understand the difference
            Re: abortion.  I am perfectly willing to debate the controversial issue; however, I shall not deflect the current thread.  Your choice to open a new thread.
            Re: pregnancy.  The arguments surrounding the pregnancy issue are real, profound and inescapable.  There are women who use pregnancy as a means to manipulate men and the system – not new, not going to change.  One more leadership challenge.
            Re: man protecting the woman.  Really?  As in Victorian chivalry?  Or, as in the doctrine of coverture that portrays a wife as the property of the husband, who in turn is obligated to protect, provide for and place on a pedestal of procreative reverence?
            It is way past time to grow up and move beyond anatomy and an antiquated morality.  Sex is a cerebral function that often involves anatomical features.  Men and women shit and piss, and clean their parts when they are able – all the same.
            “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

The Senate passed two procedural resolutions – S.Res.15 & S.Res.16 – to approve modest changes to Senate rule XXII.  The Press reported the changes to Senate rules, limiting the window for application of the filibuster should a senator choose to resist a piece of legislation.  They retained the 60-vote threshold for overcoming a filibuster but limited the procedure to the early phases of the senate legislative process.

Senator Dianne Emiel Feinstein (née Goldman) of California introduced S.150, provisionally titled the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.  I have not found the text of the proposed law, as yet.  The process has begun.  The proposed bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee and in short order, the committee expects to open hearings next week.  I doubt the bill makes any attempt to deal with the root cause issues, but it is hard to criticize the language when I have not yet read it.  We have difficult days ahead.

A three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously agreed that President Obama violated the Constitution last year by appointing three members to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was not technically in recess, circumventing Senate Republicans who had held up his picks for months.  I have not yet been able to read the Canning v. NLRB [DC CCA no. 12-1115 (2013)] ruling, but the review will come in due course.

News from the economic front:
-- Jens Weidmann, President of Deutsche Bundesbank, warned of competitive exchange rate devaluations as a consequence of the erosion of central bank independence around the world.  The potential threatens to spark off an every-man-for-himself mentality that would diminish or negate the already lethargic economic recovery.
-- The Bank of Japan bowed to pressure from the new Abe government, and agreed to adopt a 2% inflation target as well as strengthened its monetary-easing program in a bid to rid the economy of its long-running deflationary pressures.  The prospect helped devalue the yen (see note above).
-- Bank of England Governor Sir Mervyn Allister King, GBE, FBA, 64, urged Her Majesty’s Government to do more to stimulate the “disappointingly slow” economic recovery and sought to reduce the burden on the central bank.  He also dismissed suggestions made by his designated successor, Mark Carney, now governor of the Bank of Canada, for the Bank to ease monetary policy further by abandoning its inflation target.
-- Economy Minister Akira Amari of Japan struck back at the public comments of Jens Weidmann (above), and other German and UK officials who have raised concerns about the new Japanese government’s assertive efforts to loosen monetary policy.  Amari dismissed criticism that the Japanese government is trying to revive its economy at the expense of the nation’s trading partners by intentionally weakening the yen.  I suspect Weidmann is closer to correct than Amari.
-- International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director Christine Madeleine Odette Lagarde (née Lallouette), speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, continue to preach her mantra of late.  “We stopped the collapse, we should avoid the relapse, and it’s not time to relax.”  Lagarde maintains the IMF assessment that the global recovery is likely to improve this year and next, but at a slower pace than appeared likely three months ago.
-- Great Britain’s economy contracted 0.3% in 4Q2012, increasing the likelihood it would slide into a “triple-dip” recession and increasing the pressure on Her Majesty’s Government.  The economy, which was essentially flat for 2½ years, pulled out of its shallow double-dip recession in 3Q2012, but contracted again.
-- The European Central Bank (ECB) indicated approximately 278 banks are due to repay €137B in low-rate funding on 30.January, a sign of a gradual return to health for the eurozone’s financial system.  The ECB’s so-called longer-term refinancing operations were greeted as an important effort in restoring confidence in the eurozone’s financial system and ultimately led to the ECB pumping €1T into about 800 banks.

The Stanford Fraud [375]:
-- James M. Davis, 64, former chief financial officer of Texas financier R. Allen Stanford’s financial house of cards, was sentenced to five years in federal prison for his contribution in the more than US$7B Ponzi scheme, despite being the prosecution’s star witness in the whole Stanford debacle.  Davis joins another former Stanford executive, former chief investment officer Laura Pendergest-Holt who was sentenced to three years in federal prison.  Two others, former chief accounting officer Gilbert Lopez and former global controller Mark Kuhrt, are scheduled to be sentenced on 14.February.  Prosecutors are still waiting on the extradition of an indicted, former, Antiguan financial regulator to face federal investment fraud charges in the U.S. 

Comments and contributions from Update no.579:
“Strange you should mention congress in the language you used. Even over here we hear that your Congress is not the most popular show in town. However, will your people see the sense to change the present incumbents and give you the government you need?
“But hey, this borrowing business, hell's teeth, we're all at it and it must stop. There is no 'piggy bank' on ours and your side of the pond and providing we can maintain our Triple A I assume it will continue until the 'piggy' has fat.
“One other baffling point in our BBC news last night, Mr. President, why two inaugurations, one private yesterday to meet the deadline and one big time today? At which, (it says) 100s thousands are expected to witness. Now that doesn't come cheaply Cap my friend. Three cheers for the Triple A?”
My reply:
            Re: Congress.  Indeed, the aggravation level with Congress is quite high; however, they remain the legislative body of this Grand Republic, no matter how dysfunctional they may be.  We, the People, elected these bastards, and it is our responsibility entirely to vote the bastards out.  Unfortunately, as Lord Woodhouselee articulated (1813), the inmates have gained control of the keys to the Treasury, and they want to keep their lackeys in office to do their bidding.  Eventually, we will get the government we need; the only question is when and how much must we endure?
            Re: borrowing.  Borrowing is a resultant, a by-product; the primary issue is spending.  Congress has sole responsibility for spending; they alone decide on what and how much to spend the Treasury.  They must rein in their penchant for slathering the palms of their rich buddies and contributors.  Pardon my cynicism.  I’ve just been watching these bozos too long.  We have to shine a bright light on their spending and overcome the corruption of campaign contributions and money in general.
            Re: inauguration.  The 20th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1933 and established noon (EST) on the 20th of January after a presidential election as the moment for the transfer of power – out with the old, in with the new, in one instant.  When the 20th of January occurs on Sunday, the President is sworn in at noon per the Constitution, and the public celebration usually occurs on the next day . . . as in this case.  So, the real transition moment was Sunday.  Monday’s public events were ceremony for the public.  Expensive yes, but ceremony must be served.

Another contribution:
“Interesting looking at your list of reasons for having guns. Regarding the last one, I think Stephen Colbert hit the nail on the head when he said, “Like anybody setting up a new government, the founders added a clause that said, ‘If you don’t like what we’re doing, feel free to shoot us.’”
“Anyone familiar with modern military weapons including WMDs, chemical and biological agents, neutron bombs, etc., knows there is no defense against tyranny. Except the path that Ghandi and MLK Jr. took.”
My response:
            Re: reasons.  Regardless of whether we agree with any of the reasons, those are the reasons I know.  Each and every one of us can reject one or all of the reasons.  Yet, freedom means every citizen has the right to choose any one or a combination of reasons for possessing firearms.  We may ridicule tyranny as a reason, but the Founders / Framers did not see it that way.  As I quoted in Update no.578, Associate Justice Story recognized and acknowledged tyranny as the preeminent reason for citizens to possess firearms (1833).
            Re: defense.  Resistance of tyranny can take many forms, not just a frontal assault.  Passive resistance works in some circumstances . . . unfortunately not all.  The beauty of freedom is each of us gets to choose how we wish to defend our families, our property and ourselves.   Passive resistance might work, or it might not.  Nonetheless, it will still be our choice.
 . . . with this follow-up comment:
“I agree with your list is reasons. I think you've touched all the bases. I agree that in the days of the formation of the Republic, a population armed with muskets was a formidable force. I just don't believe it's still true.
“Here's a quick read that is interesting. I remember in basic training the majority of guys were idiots when it came to handling weapons. Glad I grew up in the country.”
 . . . along with this link:
 . . . and my follow-up response:
            A “bulwark against tyranny” may no longer be true; however, there are plenty of citizens who believe it is true.  As I said, each of us is free to decide which of those reasons are meaningful to us; we are also free to reject them all and reject guns in general.  That is precisely what freedom is all about.  This issue is exactly like all the other social questions before us – one side or the other is convinced they are correct, and with religious fervor, they seek to impose their beliefs, their opinions, their values, their rejections upon ALL citizens as vindication of their beliefs.  We must resist such temptations and seek our validation elsewhere.
            Re: training.  Accidental discharges have occurred since the Chinese invented gunpowder and the cannon.  I was taught to always safe a weapon first, before anything else.  Some folks never learn.

Yet, another contribution:
“Hello, This bears on one of our discussions. I saw this on Care2 and thought you'd like it as well. Care2 is the largest and most trusted information and action site for people who care to make a difference in their lives and the world.”
“Experts: Mental Health Gun Laws Likely Ineffective”
by S.E. Smith
www.care2.com
Published: January 21, 2013; 4:00 pm
My reply:
            There are so many perspectives on this issue.  The Smith article raises a number of interesting points.
            Any attempt to hang the gun violence solution on mental health professionals would be wrong as Smith noted.  Mentally ill citizens have constitutional rights as well.  Using this disclaimer to exclude mental health professionals to focus on the tools of their crimes will not float.
            I would resist any temptation to hang this on mental health professionals, for the reasons Smith gives, but for the reality that a stable solution will require a far broader and deep network.  I feel part of Smith’s reaction is directly attributable to the specter of law enforcement, the law, and government as prosecutor.  The potential for violation of a citizen’s personal rights and protections is enormous.  Frankly, I would not entrust that subtlety to the black & white of law enforcement and the crown prosecution service.  We need an investigative, intelligence-like service that does not have arrest, detention or prosecution authority, which is how I see the social constabulary (SC).  We also need to provide guidance to couples before they become parents, intentionally or accidentally.  We need a more informed and engaged citizenry that cares enough about their communities to alert the SC, to intervene before disturbed individuals are able to act and execute their dastardly deeds.

Comment to the Blog:
“First of all, I agree with you about Lance Armstrong. Those in charge of ‘amateur’ athletics, from college football to the Olympics, keep up the pretense that their organizations do not handle many millions of dollars, euros, etc. That nonsense blinds them to the insanely high stakes and accompanying desperation among the athletes.
“Next, you lost me in your paragraph that begins, ‘Ok, now the President is on the verge of losing me.’ He lost me some time ago, but I don’t understand what he has said or done recently to upset you.
“I will agree with spending as the central issue (or at least one of them) so long as we stipulate that tax breaks have precisely the same effect as spending. Call it what you will, the arithmetic works out the same.
“Your discussion of Moore v Madigan entirely baffled me. What were the origin, the decision, and the implications?
“The attention to that football player’s nonexistent girlfriend makes me wonder what the various media are not covering. That story is not as newsworthy as all that.
“The Biden Committee will get the same result as dozens of government committees and commissions before it. Nothing.
“I would certainly like to see the gun show loophole closed, but your example of the poorly handled no-fly list gives me pause. As you said, the devil is in the details.
“Your argument against past assault weapon bans argues effectively for clear definitions rather than lists of makes and models. I do not see how it argues against a ban, though.
“I can easily agree with collectibles and hunting as reasons to own guns. You did not define ‘sport’ and I do not know with any confidence what you meant. I could go along with target shooting in its various forms, which could be your intention. Guns for home and property defense tend to be fired more by accident and panic than against actual threats. Fortunately, few of those bullets find their mark. We already have reserve militia, which is duly armed. Finally, the ‘counter to tyranny’ has failed. Americans have not taken up arms against the PATRIOT Act and other usurpations of our civil rights. Owning a gun will not prevent further infringement upon your rights.
“Of course, I do not agree with or approve of a newspaper publishing the names and/or addresses of gun owners, any more than I would want it to print the addresses of gay people or of some other unpopular minority.
“I have seen an article describing the difficulties even specially-trained professionals face in determining whether a mentally-ill individual has the potential to become violent. (I’m not sure whether I succeeded in emailing that article to you; I recall the frustration but not the outcome.) Expecting untrained and caring parents to do that job is unrealistic. The neighbors cannot make good guesses either. I will remind you that the mother of Adam Lanza (Newtown) paid the maximum price for not understanding her son’s potential.
“I will say again that the tool a person uses in an attempt to commit homicide does indeed matter. The difference between a firearm and a knife or blunt object is the difference between your Harley and my 7-speed bicycle. The differences in power and ease of operation change the entire outcome.
“Your economic news draws a picture that you might not have noticed. Germany has balanced her budget and at the same time her economy has begun to shrink. Perhaps deficits and spending are not the true drivers of their economic problems or others’. Certainly austerity has done nothing for Greece but satisfy the demands of outsiders.”
My response to the Blog:
            Re: Armstrong.  Good observations.  Money is a powerful corrupting force.
            Re: President.  He focused on the debt limit rather than spending cuts.  I appreciate the need to get Congress off the debt limit as a fulcrum for their political gain, however, the debt limit is a façade in comparison to the rampant spending without matching revenue that Congress has been doing in a huge way, especially in the last decade.  President Bush (43) chose to fight an important (I might say vital) war on the nation’s credit card rather than mobilize the American People to help fight the war.  This insane spending is NOT a Republican flaw or a Democratic one; both parties have been equally irresponsible.  For the President to imply the deficit and borrowing are Republican realities is just flat wrong, and that is why he is on the verge of losing me in this argument.
            Re: revenue.  I freely acknowledge that the fiscal equation involves both revenue and expenses.  My problem with the President rests on his inordinate focus on the revenue element of the equation.  He must focus the Executive on the expense element, period.  Yes, Congress decides on what and how much to spend the Treasury upon, but the President is supposed to be the leader of all Americans, Democrat and Republican – We, the People.  We have not had a Federal budget in years; we have had continuing resolutions with these damnable earmark spending riders, adding more spending and no vetos.  The game has been one of extortion to get spending on their pet projects and the President has not vetoed bills because I imagine he feels the funding to keep the government running is more important than the political fight over the spending.  The President has a powerful light to shine on wasteful spending, but he has refused to use that light, which simply allows the rats in Congress to continue scurrying around in the dark, spending more and more money.  I am NOT too keen for anymore debate on revenue until Congress does their job and makes a major adjustment in expenses.  As the Italians say, Basta!
            Re: Moore v. Madigan.  The ruling was not particularly remarkable.  The decision declared the Illinois public-carry law unconstitutional.  I did note the dissenting judge’s use of the Statute of Northampton as rationale for a public-carry prohibition.  My primary focus in Update 579 was the President’s gun violence proposal.  My apologies for the circumspect review, but it was not worthy of much more.
            Re: Te’o.  My wonder as well.
            Re: Biden Committee.  Perhaps so.
[Split here in two parts to fit the allowed space.]
            Re: gun control.  Like all Americans, I want all firearms out of the hands of violent felons, mentally ill, dangerous, and otherwise disturbed individuals who have the potential for gun violence.  The issue before us is how do we accomplish that objective with respect for the rights of all citizens.  The President’s 23 Executive initiatives may yield some solutions, but as I wrote, this issue is NOT all on the mentally ill.  I would be more supportive if he had even tacitly recognized the contribution of parents and local communities to this problem and thus to the solution.  Nonetheless, I anxiously await the product of these initiatives.
            Re: gun ban.  My point was if they can put antique 100+ year-old rifles on an “assault weapons” ban, then I do not trust Congress with such definitions and the protection of our constitutional rights.
            Re: definitions. “Sport” = marksmanship – a human activities since our ancestors learned to use projectiles many millennia ago.  “Militia”: organized militia, yes, but only on active duty; reserve militia, not yet.  “Tyranny”: That is not for Congress or the government to determine.  That determination rests only with We, the People.  We have heard rumblings of rebellion far more in the last decade than in my lifetime.  Each of us can reject tyranny as justification for possessing an appropriate gun, but that decision rests with each individual.
            Re: identification/location.  We are agreed, then.  Gun licenses or concealed carry permits should be and must be private information; disclosure should be a felony.  My point was, I am not interested in giving the government access to more private information without strict assurances that such private data is protected to a far higher degree.
            Re: mental health professionals.  I responded to the article.  I do agree.  Mental health professionals are NOT the solution, but they can contribute to the solution.  As I noted, I do not see this element going much farther without some intermediate, non-prosecutorial entity being the actionable agency.  My SC proposal comes the closest, it seems to me.
            Re: Nancy Lanza.  The public information is sketchy, inconsistent and a bit confusing.  It is my current understanding that she repeatedly sought professional help in dealing with her disturbed son, and each time she was told there was nothing we can do.  The police say they cannot act until there is a crime; unfortunately, his crime was horrific.  She apparently tried to convince the police he was a threat, but no intervention and little treatment.  To my knowledge, Nancy Lanza, as well as Sung Tae & Hyang Im Cho, made repeated attempts to gain intervention assistance; they feared their son’s disturbed behavior, but no one listened.  We must find the means to listen and help as part of our community engagement.  Again, an intermediate SC appears to be the best path.
            Re: tool.  The tool(s) can never be the root cause.  I do agree the tool can amplify a bad man’s action(s), but it is still his decisions, his planning, his actions that cause injury – the root cause.
            Re: German economy.  It is my understanding that German fiscal policy and performance has been the dampener in the face of seriously contracting exports – the country’s prime driver.  I do agree that austerity, i.e., the expense terms, are not and cannot be the sole solution.  In Greece’s case, they have rampant corruption and tax evasion, which compounds the problem.  Conversely, attempting to increase revenue in the face of mounting unemployment is a death spiral.  The key is balance.  The Germans have come the closest to balance, which speaks to their fiscal policy; thus, my earlier comment of President Obama’s public rhetoric.

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

21 January 2013

Update no.579


Update from the Heartland
No.579
14.1.13 – 20.1.13
Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,

The follow-up news items:
-- The House passed HR 152 (provisionally: Hurricane Sandy relief act), adding another US$50.5B in aid to help northeastern states rebuild after Frankenstorm Sandy [568], in addition to HR 41 [PL 113- xxx; 127 Stat. xxx; 6.January.2013] [577].  The bill goes to the Senate.  I recognized that US$60B does not sound like much in today’s parlance of trillions, however, this is more spending with NO offset, which means more borrowing that Congress has directed (or will soon direct) and then the bastards turn around an beat up on the President for asking the debt ceiling to be raised.  This is the nonsense we must suffer until we elect responsible representatives.  Our next opportunity is less than two years away.  I know this relief funding is desperately needed in the affected region, to rebuild infrastructure and lay the groundwork for recovery.  The Hurricane Sandy relief funding is one good reason to borrow money in the short term as it is necessary but unplanned expenditure.  However, in the harsh, bright light of the federal debt and massive borrowing, such spending must be offset by comparable spending reductions in other areas, as the federal government as no savings account for unplanned expenditures like the rest of us must do.
-- This public crucifixion of Lance Armstrong [567] is getting tiresome.  I dare say all the cyclists at the Tour de France level were enhancing by some means back in Armstrong’s era.  So, they are using a public square pillory to cover for their ineptness or complacency.  Armstrong was wrong, just as all the other enhancers in the myriad of popular professional sports were also wrong, but let us stop the hypocrisy of thinking Armstrong was a bad guy.  His choice was do what everyone else was doing, perhaps do it better, or do not compete.  Let us not be quite so sanctimonious as Armstrong suffers the consequences of being the designated fall-guy for a complacent, duplicitous sport.
-- The House may vote next week on a plan to raise the nation's debt ceiling [577] for three months – an approach intended to defuse the threat of a near-term government default while putting pressure on the Senate to pass a budget before addressing the debt ceiling for the long term.  It is not clear whether the budget will consider the significant spending reduction required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 [PL 112-025; 125 Stat. 240; 2.August.2011] [503, 504].  The new strategy apparently came from a Republican retreat in Williamsburg, Virginia.

OK, now, the President is on the verge of losing me.  Up to this point, I tended toward the President versus the House of Representatives in this persistent, perpetual, wrestling match of over whose favored largesse gets cut.  Even the usually hard-line, conservative, Americans for Prosperity (AFP), backed by the industrialist Koch brothers, is urging Republicans to show restraint during U.S. debt ceiling negotiations.  The AFP wants an end to the political standoff, which is an encouraging sign.  I think I understand what the President is trying to say; however, I think he chose a very poor tack in this latest engagement.  I cannot resist the urge . . . what is it these fools do not understand?  It’s the spending, stupid!  The debt ceiling is NOT the issue.  Congress decides on what and how much to spend.  It is their spending that is the ONLY issue here.  Using the debt limit debate as leverage to gain spending cuts they seek is quite akin to holding a pistol to the head of the American People.  Yet, the President is wrong; we simply cannot keep borrowing money to pay for things we cannot afford.  Congress must cut spending.  BT

How timely . . . given current events! 
            I reviewed the recent decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the case of Moore v. Madigan [7CCA nos. 12-1269, 12-1788 (2012)] that declared unconstitutional the Illinois law [720 ILCS 5/24–2] that forbids a person, with exceptions mainly for police and other security personnel, hunters, and members of target shooting clubs, to carry a gun ready to use, i.e. loaded, immediately accessible – within easy reach – and uncased.  The three-judge panel split 2-1; neither opinion was directly attributed.  The two, principal, contemporary, Supreme Court cases utilized to substantiate the majority opinion were: District of Columbia v. Heller [554 U.S. 570 (2008); 26.June.2008] [342], and McDonald v. Chicago [561 U.S. 325 (2010); 28.June.2010] [448].  Along with the ruling, the court issued a 180-day stay to allow the Illinois legislature time to draft compliant legislation.  While an appropriate judicial decision, I doubt the Moore ruling will add to the jurisprudence of the 2nd Amendment.
            Interesting enough and sufficient stimulant to my curiosity regarding history, the dissenting judge in the Moore ruling used the Statute of Northampton [2 Edw. III, c. 3 (1328)], which says “no man great nor small, of what condition soever he be, except the king's servants in his presence . . . be so hardy to come before the King's justices, or other of the King's ministers doing their office, with force and arms, nor bring no force in affray of the peace, nor to go nor ride armed by night nor by day, in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the justices or other ministers, nor in no part elsewhere.”  The law was intended to preserve the public peace and avoid “terrifying the good people of the land.”  Blackstone refers to the Statute of Northampton in Book IV, Chapter 11, pp.148-9 (1769), in a rather off-handed manner, especially in light of his notation in Book I, Chapter 1 (the Absolute Rights of Individuals), p.139: a citizens’ right to “having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law,” which was declared in An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown (AKA English Bill of Rights) [1 Will & Mary Sess 2, c 2 (16.December.1689)] [368].  The dissent cited the Statute of Northampton as a clear example of governmental restriction of bearing arms in public; the majority in Moore was not so convinced.  I might add, at the time of the Statute of Northampton, the common weapons were swords, knives, armor, and the vaunted English Long Bow.  Individual firearms were not used by the military until the 15th Century, and personal firearms did not become commonplace until the 18th Century.  Thus, the Statute of Northampton hardly seems significant in our current debate.

In a week when we should be debating a serious constitutional issue and societal problem, the broadcast Press seemed to be dominated by the conundrum swirling around Notre Dame senior linebacker Manti T’eo and whether his fictitious, “deceased,” “girlfriend” was an intentional fraud for the sympathy vote in the Heisman Trophy voting.  Yawn!  I can only conclude the broadcast Press is far more concerned with sensationalism and personal failure than the serious constitutional question before us.  So, off we go into the weightier topic. 
            The Biden Committee on Gun Violence made its report to the President ahead of schedule.  On Wednesday, President Obama held a press conference to announce his action plan, presumably based on the Biden Committee report and recommendations, although it is not clear to me whether he was responding to the committee report or something else, and signed a memorandum (or perhaps an order, not sure as yet) to implement 23 specific, executive actions. The total cost of the president's proposed executive actions has been estimated at US$500M, with no definition of how we are to pay for these actions.  I reviewed the titles or descriptions provided by the White House for all 23 actions.  First, as we all know, the devil is in the details.  They sound good and reasonable things to pursue in general.  However, I must confess to a fair amount of apprehension regarding the various suggestions associated with background checks and personal information. 
            The President declared his intention to push for universal background checks, i.e., close the gun show loophole.  We have but to look at the Westchester County (New York) Journal News fiasco last month.  On one hand, I am in favor of universal background checks for gun sales or transfers to reduce the likelihood of bad or unstable men acquiring firearms; however, I want strict procedures to protect that information.  My fear erupts from the potential for the government to use that information adversely, e.g., confiscation operations.  If we cannot find a method to protect that information, then I say no background checks; let us find another way.  Now, of course, it is not clear to me how we protect the medical records of citizens while we alert the background check system that a particular citizen is not qualified to purchase a firearm – again, protection of data.  And, who determines these classifications?  The government has not shown proficiency in using the “no fly” watch list.  What makes us think they will do better with universal background checks?
            The President called for immediate congressional action on a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban, voicing his disapproval of “weapons designed for the theater of war” in the hands of the civilian populace.  He also ended his speech with a simple challenge, “Let’s do the right thing.”  I agree with the President in general, and I think he did an impressive job with a sensitive and controversial speech.  We all agree we need to do the best we can to prevent events like Newtown, Oak Creek, Aurora, Blacksburg, DC, Granada Hills, Columbine, et al.  [I have not included the Islamic jihadist events like Ft. Hood, Little Rock, et cetera.] The real difficult part will be deciding and agreeing to what is the “right thing”?  In addition to the 23 executive action items, the President also asked Congress to pass legislation to prohibit assault rifles, large capacity magazines (> 10 rounds), and required universal federal background checks on all gun purchases or transfers of ownership.
            OK!  Let us get right to the heart of the popular focus in this critical debate.  We are debating semi-automatic, not automatic, rifles that look like military rifles.  The actual military weapons are already prohibited for civilian possession or use by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) [PL 73-474; 48 Stat. 1236; 26.June.1934] [311] that restricted weapons, which are “capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm” [NFA § 1(a)], and are designed “to shoot, automatically or semiautomatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger” [NFA § 1(b)].  The law was aimed at the Thompson submachine gun, designed in 1919 and popular among the criminal subculture of the Prohibition era; the Tommy gun entered military service in 1938 as the M1921, firing a 0.45 ACP cartridge, in automatic mode only.  The first true assault rifle was the German Sturmgewehr (storm rifle) [StG 44] that entered military service in 1944.  An assault weapon has one common distinguishing feature – a fire mode selector – safe; semi-automatic (one trigger pull = one shot); automatic (one trigger pull = multiple shots).  The weapons commonly referred to as assault weapons in the Press, e.g., Bushmaster 0.223 caliber rifle or AR-15, are NOT assault weapons; the Bushmaster simply looks like the military version – the M-16 rifle.  Other design features that tend to get lumped into the so-called “assault weapons” description include: a pistol grip, a collapsible or folding stock, a flash suppressor, a muzzle brake, a threaded barrel, a bayonet lug, or an integrated grenade launcher.  Appearance does not come close to breaking the threshold of a proper State interest.  If it did, we would be attempting to prohibit toys, squirt guns, paint ball gun and such.  If fact, I will argue strongly to the contrary; we need those weapons readily identifiable by any citizen.  Are we really serious about attempting to prohibit an object based on appearance?  I will argue for those distinctive shaped weapons to make them more readily recognizable and hopefully assist early warning and defensive action(s).  With so much interest in assault weapons, I went back to the last federal assault weapons prohibition that lasted 10 years and expired – Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (AKA Federal Assault Weapons Ban) [PL 103-322; 108 Stat. 1796, 1997; 13.September.1994] and particularly § 110106 that established Appendix A to Section 922 of Title 18 [108 Stat. 1796, 2000] – a 10-page list of banned weapons.  A number of listed weapons are neither assault weapons nor semi-automatic rifles.  For example:
·       [108 Stat. 2000] E.M.F. 1860 Henry Rifle -- a single-shot, lever-action, firing a 0.44-40 cartridge, presumably on the prohibited list due to the 13-round, under barrel, tubular magazine. 
·      [108 Stat. 2003] Navy Arms 1874 Sharps Plains Rifle -- a single-shot, breech-loader, firing a 0.45-70 cartridge.
Banning antique firearms like the Henry and Sharps rifles simply does not make sense.  I have no intension of producing an exhaustive list of the nonsensical exclusions on the 1994 prohibition.  The Henry and Sharps rifles have NONE (as in not one) of the features that define an assault weapon even in the most liberal sense.  These examples are precisely why considering an assault weapons prohibition is a really bad idea.  It did not make sense in 1994, did not achieve its professed intended purpose, and makes even less sense in 2013.
            In the spirit of compromise, I could support limiting civilian magazine capacity, and I could accept drawing the line at 50 rounds or belt-fed weapons to preserve some reasonable capability in the Reserve Militia sense.  I do not buy the 10-round limit proposed by the President and prohibited by the now-expired 1994 ban.  The process of changing magazines can be accomplished in short order with just a little practice.  Most of these perpetrators planned their crimes with considerable detail including target practice and can, could or should include the magazine changing sequence.  The magazine limitation is simply symbolic and not contributory.
            Folks have struggled with the purpose and meaning of the 2nd Amendment, which has probably caused more political debate than perhaps the 14th Amendment.  For what it is worth, I see these reasons to protect a citizen’s right to “keep and bear arms”:
1.     Collectibles – historic, aesthetic, or whatever
2.     Hunting
3.     Sport
4.     Self-defense (person & property)
5.     Reserve Militia
6.     Counter to tyranny
There are perhaps other reasons.  We may not agree with the viability of these reasons, yet a citizen’s reason to own a firearm is a personal and private question.  In a free society, a citizen’s reasons for owning and using a firearm is only relevant to the individual and is NOT a matter of State interest.  In fact, I do not want anyone to know if or what firearms I may or may not possess, and with which I may or may not be proficient.  This is precisely why I reacted so strongly to the News Journal action last month.  They intentionally and with malice of forethought acquired and disclosed the addresses of citizens in their area who owned firearms or held a firearm permit.  The newspaper acquired that private information from the government.  If the government cannot protect private information, then it does not deserve to acquire or possess such personal information.  I will argue against ANY background check process if that information is not protected from public disclosure or unreasonable collateral use.
            The State’s interest in this arena stands upon public safety, harkening back to the Statute of Northampton, which is an overriding concern as a collective, e.g., freedom of speech versus capriciously yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.  The State has a proper and sustainable responsibility regarding firearms, e.g., arbitrary discharge in a crowded city.  Yet, to claim that a school tragedy trumps all citizens, circumstances, environments, reasons and times is a bridge too far.  Those of us who do not support governmental infringement on our constitutional rights cannot stand on the words alone.  President Obama has now joined Mayor Bloomberg in saying we need to keep rapid-fire weapons and large capacity magazines out of the hands of those who do not need or deserve them.  As I’ve said before [578], we are and should be debating where we draw the line on “need” and “deserve.”  All citizens do NOT deserve 30 round banana-clips or 100 round drum magazines, e.g., mentally ill, unstable, violent individuals, or convicted violent or gun felons.  Rather than attempt prohibition of certain weapons for ALL citizens, let us define the restrictions on those individuals who endanger or have the potential to threaten public safety.
            Now that I have spent all this time and words on guns, I must ask. When are we going to recognize the contribution of parents to these tragic events?  When are we going to acknowledge our failure to intercede when we see signs of aberrant behavior?  Mental illness, medications, abuse, et cetera, are generally contributing factors.  Many of these factors are recognizable in public venues.  I am disappointed in what I have seen and heard so far that there was no mention anywhere of citizen contribution to safe streets and schools.  We had the perfect opportunity to address parental and community involvement with prevention, to attack the no-snitches, ain’t my bizness, mentality in our culture.  I appreciate the desire to respect the privacy of other citizens; however, we must find some balance between privacy and public safety.  If We, the People, have no stomach for alerting law enforcement to suspicious or aberrant, public behavior, then how on God’s little green Earth can we justify infringing upon our constitutional right to “keep and bear arms”?  Congress has no authority over private conduct.  However, Congress can pass a non-binding resolution describing public awareness, signs to look for, and how to report such conduct; they can also present actions to take when they see a citizen with a drawn gun in inappropriate conditions.  I would much rather see federal spending to assist states and local governments in establish a Social Constabulary (SC) to provide a non-law-enforcement means to alert government assets to suspicious, threatening, aberrant or violent behavior before a perpetrator has an opportunity to act, or confront a perpetrator before he can act to either surrender or complete their intended final act.  On the sad part of the public portion of the equation, the parents of Seung-Hui Cho and at least the mother of Adam Lanza sought governmental help to treat their sons disturbing mental illness – they received little or none, as generally none existed.  We must have the means to treat these individuals before their demons drive them to act out against innocent citizens.
            The bottom-line in this whole debate is and remains about the root cause of these tragic events is an individual consumed by his demons of frustration, anger, resentment, disturbance, and mainly profound disrespect for life and other human beings.  We must find the means to intervene at the individual level to prevent these devastating events before they occur.

I extracted this exchange from another medium:
“As I am not a gun owner, I don’t directly have your feelings toward the gun control mandates that have come down.  I ask for you side of the story.  Specifically, why are you so concerned?  Is it that gun control is a precursor to further governmental controls on you life?  Is it that you are being diminished as a group?  I sit that your toys are being taken away?  I as sincerely, not to raise a stink here but I want to understand.”
My response:
            Re: “why are you so concerned?”  If we were debating freedom of speech or the Press, or our protection against unreasonable search & seizure, would the question be warranted?  We are debating a constitutional right of all citizens that was established in 1791 that should be done with calm, sober, intellectual focus.  I am seriously concerned any time the government infringes or presses upon a constitutional right.  The Supreme Court has long affirmed that the government must have and demonstrate a compelling and overriding interest to impose upon fundamental or constitutional rights of citizens.  That is why I am so concerned.
            Re: “Is it that gun control is a precursor to further governmental controls on your life?”  Short answer: Yes!  We have already allowed far too much intrusion by the government into our private lives and affairs.  I have not seen the appropriate overriding governmental interest for such restrictions.  What happened in Newtown was tragic to the extreme and heartrending, but the root cause was a disturbed perpetrator who was allowed to carry out this crime, not the tool he used.
            Re: “Is it that you are being diminished as a group?  This issue has nothing to do with feeling diminished.
            Re: “Is it that your toys are being taken away?”  Long guns like the Bushmaster 0.223 caliber rifle are hardly toys.  They are serious weapons that should be kept out of the hands of disturbed people like Adam Lanza.  The difficulty rests upon how to do that task without infringing upon other citizens.  Law-abiding, peaceful citizens should not be asked to sacrifice their constitutional rights because a community failed to intercede with a person who had a long, clear history of instability.  Lanza planned his action with cold premeditation, and the people who could do something to stop him before he acted failed to do so.  Let us solve that problem first, before we talk about banning firearms.
            I invite you to read the Update nos. 574 & sub.  You are welcome to voice your opinion, comment and debate any element or issue you wish.  This is the process of democracy as it should work.
            “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

News from the economic front:
-- The German Federal Statistics Office reported that the government ended the year with a fiscal surplus of 0.1% of GDP – the first balanced budget since 2007.  A sharp slowdown in company investments in plants and machinery put the German economy into contraction in 4Q2012.  Germany has been a rare bright spot among the grim ranks of eurozone economies, but even Germany is feeling the stress.
-- The PRC’s GDP expanded 7.8% last year – the lowest rate since 1999 – dragged down by global economic struggles and a domestic campaign to deflate a property bubble.  However, the country finished 2012 on a higher note as they posted 7.9% year-on-year growth in 4Q2012, a sign of potential better performance in 2013.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that Federal Reserve officials in 2007 seemed to underestimate the growing risks in the U.S. financial system before shifting to a state of high alarm, based on newly released transcripts from the central bank's meetings that year. That year proved to be a pivotal one as the crisis built and Washington began its move toward an aggressive intervention, which bore full fruit in 2008.

Comments and contributions from Update no.579:
[An unusual exchange:]
Contributor:
“The story about the rapper and the Oxygen Channel show must have actually been an ONION story!!!”
Me:
An ONION story??
Contributor:
“You know the satire newspaper (and website).
Me:
Nope; not familiar with it.  I suppose I should educate myself.  Nonetheless, I believe it is a bona fide news item; there is seriously such a program ‘All my Babies Mamas.’  Go figure.
Contributor:
“Here is the link to the site: http://www.theonion.com/.
“It has even entered the modern lexicon…when as story is really far-fetched (but true) it is described as an ‘Onion story.’”
Me:
Well, I learned something.  Well in that context, yes . . . an onion story . . . far-fetched but true; sad to say.
P.S.: just a ludicrous FYI: After Update no.578 was distributed, the Oxygen Channel announced the show “All My Babies Mamas” was cancelled.  Perhaps there is sanity in the World.

Comment to the Blog:
“You make an interesting set of comparisons among that rapper, Warren Jeffs, and the unidentified New York City woman. As nearly as I can tell, the only real common feature among these people is their large numbers of children. While Mr. Jeffs and the rapper may have some underlying psychology in common, they have very different backgrounds. I would be very surprised if the rapper exerted the same level of control over his ‘family’ as Mr. Jeffs. Jeffs used religion as his justification; we shall see what sort of arguments and energies the rapper has working for/against him. We also have no information whether some or most the rapper’s ‘baby mamas’ work. I know no more of the New York City woman in the group except that she appears to be an addict. That is a very expensive disease so long as it is active, both for the addict and for society. Tying these people together is basically “comparing apples to oranges.”
“Leaving aside our own positions about gun control, I certainly agree that the man who appeared on the Piers Morgan show damaged his own cause. If he is a radio personality, perhaps the exposure was more valuable to him than supporting the ostensible cause.
“If we address the underlying causes of homicide in the United States, we must deal with far more than occasional shooters with ‘mental disturbances.’ While such people as the Aurora, Colorado, shooter and the young man at Newtown, Connecticut, get a great deal of attention, they commit a small percentage of the killings. The greater number of murders in the US involves drugs, either committed by users or by people in the illicit drug trade killing over money. You almost reached a potential answer when you discussed the damage of prohibition. A regulated and legal drug trade could cut back on the homicide rate by changing the entire ethos of using and users. Funding for the study and treatment of addiction (including, of course, alcoholism) could further reduce the killing by treating at least those who volunteer for treatment and are currently being turned away or delayed in receiving help.
“I note that the laws you discuss in your discussion of the 2nd Amendment refer to ‘organized’ militias and to their members being “enrolled.” That does not support the idea being put forth by the NRA that almost anyone should have access to any weapon. The notion that armed citizens would prevent ‘domestic usurpations of power by rulers’ has been disproven, as we have discussed.
“Good luck to all in Mali. The war on ‘terrorism’ cannot be won or lost and will continue until the parties find better things to do or run out of money. Usually they run out of money and popular support about the same time.”
My response to the Blog:
Calvin,
            Re: Shawty-Lo, Jeffs & NYC prostitute.  Perhaps I was not sufficiently definitive or descriptive in my words.  With the possible exception of Carlos Walker (AKA Shawty-Lo), the three have in common the procreation of multiple children with multiple partners and sought State-assistance for support of their children. I am personally offended by such indiscriminate procreation, but as they say, not my dawg.  My vigorous objection rests upon the State supporting their rampant, irresponsible procreation.
            Re: Alex Jones.  Indeed, he has already gotten far more mileage than he deserves.  End.
            Re: homicide.  You are of course quite right.  Yes, we do agree precisely that legalization / regulation of the drug trade would substantially reduce the homicide rate.  I still believe my proposed social vigilance group in between social workers and the police would provide substantial assistance to reducing homicides.  Law enforcement is constrained by the law, e.g., there must be a crime.  I have used the term social police, but now I think even that name would have the wrong connotation – perhaps social constabulary (SC) or social patrol (SP).  We need an official name, but short of law enforcement.  We are searching for a means to intervene short of violating the law.  The SC could assist with threatening substance abuse short of injuring another human being or damaging property.  They would also provide public alerts without the implications of crime & punishment.  They would also function as a community intelligence apparatus, to hopefully illuminate the Dylan Klebold’s of this world before they have a chance to act.
            Re: militia.  MA1792 said every military age, white male was part of the militia, and every militiaman had to own or procure his own musket.  However, we may have discussed tyranny, but I do not agree that it has been disproven.
            Re: Mali.  Good summary.  We just need to aid the process, to speed it along the way.

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