Update from the Heartland
No.295
30.7.07 – 5.8.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.295
30.7.07 – 5.8.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Thank you all for the words of kindness and condolence regarding Rocky's passing; they are truly appreciated.
The follow-up news items:
-- The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) announced the results of their investigation of the Comair Flight 5191 crash on 27.August.2006, in Lexington, Kentucky [247-248] -- pilot error. Numerous entities persist in their efforts to spread the blame for the accident. We seem to have a penchant for larger, broader, more nefarious culprits, often with a flavor of government conspiracy, and yet, in this case, as the NTSB accurately reported, this was pilot error due to complacency, plain and simple. The accident and the innocent fatalities are sad commentary to what can happen when pilots are distracted (self-induced in this instance) during the critical flight phases of takeoff and landing.
-- The Senate and the House passed the Protect America Act of 2007 (S.1927) "to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 [PL 95-511] (FISA) [156, 211, 218, et al] to provide additional procedures for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence information and for other purposes." (vote: Senate: 60-28-12; House: 227-183-0-23) We can all appreciate the seriousness, complexity and sensitivity of the issues presented to the very essence and substance of our freedoms by our enemies and the nature of the modern battlefield. However, creating a bureaucracy to constrain the Intelligence Community will not help them win the War on Islamic Fascism. Then again, I suppose we should be thankful Congress at least tried to bring FISA to the current environment. There is a better way to protect our freedoms from an abusive government and provide our Intelligence Community the tools they need to wage war successfully; this law will not do the trick.
-- The unusual, unruly rancor in the House chamber this week offers perhaps the best punctuation on the obscene party politics that has characterized the performance of Congress in the last 40 years. These men and women, although I hesitate to use such respectful terminology, have no interest, concern or willingness to do what the Constitution set them up to do – find the compromise balance point. No sirree Bob thunder; these yayhoos are consumed by party loyalty, rigid ideology, and total disregard for the general welfare of this Grand Republic. The House performance this week makes John McCain look all the better, but the extremists in the Republican Party will fall on their swords to prevent his nomination . . . hey, wait, maybe that’s not such a bad idea. Nonetheless, as I have stated numerous times [151A, 208, 213, 255, et al], we should throw the whole bloody lot of them out and start over.
The whole World bore witness to the tragedy of the I-35W Bridge collapse in Minneapolis. We have five confirmed fatalities so far, and I suspect there shall be more as they work their way through the debris and the vehicles in the river. I have driven over that bridge numerous times, although none is recent years . . . and, as many of us could say, there but for the Grace of God go I. Congress quickly allocated US$250M for the recovery and clean-up process, with more to come for reconstruction. The Wichita Eagle published a table listing and extensive article on the condition of bridges in Kansas; I suspect other newspapers across the country are doing similar exposés. Perhaps some good can grow from this tragedy . . . Congress just might abandon all the crap and get serious in regeneration of our deteriorating infrastructure. We can only hope. May God bless all those touched by the bridge collapse and especially the families who have lost loved ones.
In a surprising and odd twist of journalistic revelation given the years of discouraging and corrosive news, a ray of light shines through the clouds of gloom offered up by the New York Times.
"A War We Just Might Win"
by Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack
New York Times
Published: July 30, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?th&emc=th
The article produced quite a disturbance in the Force. Regardless of your opinions and attitudes toward the Battle for Iraq or even the War on Islamic Fascism, the O'Hanlon & Pollack article adds a little color in the long slog to stabilize Iraq and eliminate the terrorists plaguing the country. Please read the O'Hanlon & Pollack article. Then, as if to dampen that little hope, Associated Press Writer Kimberly Hefling, in her report the next day titled: "Mullen cites limited progress in Iraq," chose rather dark words to describe the confirmation testimony of Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Glenn Mullen, USN, to be the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Oh well, the moment was good while it lasted.
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama of Illinois publicly stated that he would take the fight in the War on Islamic Fascism into Pakistan, if necessary. The statement has a ring to it, as I have espoused; however, the qualifiers are significant, and it is one thing to talk tough in a campaign and something all together different to find the correct balance between lethargic diplomatic progress with minimal cooperation, and alienation of a marginal ally. At least he is talking like he should. Whether Barack would actually order such operations remains questionable; the exigencies of Office have a way of dampening such ardor. Yet, I shall give Barack credit for the appropriate bravado. To no one's surprise, the Pakistani government registered their displeasure with Barack's appropriate but ill-advised public remarks.
It seems ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson, AKA Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana, indicted on 16 charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money-laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act [233, 240, 252, 258, 287], may have finally won one. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on an objection by the House offices in the case of United States v. Rayburn House Office Building [USDC DC no. 06-3105 (no. 06mj00231)], giving ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson some constitutional relief. The precipitating event came when District Court Judge Thomas Hogan issued the search warrant for the subsequent FBI raid on his residence and congressional office; Judge Hogan believed sufficient probable cause for a felony prosecution outweighed the ‘Speech and Debate’ Clause protections enjoyed by Member of Congress. The Appeals Court took a different view and focused exclusively on the separation of powers question and the ‘Speech and Debate’ portion of Clause 1. It seems quite odd to me that the court cited the ‘Speech and Debate’ element, but ignored the ‘. . . except for Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace’ qualifier. The Appeals Court ordered “the return of all legislative materials (originals and copies) that are protected by the Speech or Debate Clause seized from Rayburn House Office Building Room 2113 on May 20-21, 2006,” and barred the associated FBI agents from disclosing any of the seized material or participating in the criminal prosecution of ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson. An immediate question erupts from the decision . . . who decides what is privileged, non-privileged, and more precisely what is subject to discovery in the felony prosecution? Former Speakers of the House Foley, Gingrich and Michel filed amicus curiae briefings in this case, suggesting alternative means of conducting a warranted search of the official domain of a Member of Congress. I did not have access to the amicus briefings by the former Speakers, however from the reflection in the public court documents, it appears Congress is far more interested in protecting themselves than in abiding by the same laws they pass for all the rest of us, or even at a bare minimum, the laws applicable to them. By this constitutional debate within the Judiciary prior to ‘Dollar Bill’s criminal trial before a jury of his peers, the basis of the case will be considered. I think we can safely surmise ol’ ‘Dollar Bill’ will milk the debate and the process as long and to the greatest extent possible, and he will have the quiet support of the Democratic Party (in their quest to taint George W. Bush as often as possible, i.e., partisan politics at work). While great care must be taken to protect and preserve the separation and balance of powers between the three branches of government, Congress, as created by the Constitution, was never considered to be and should never be a haven to criminal conduct. In this case, the Executive carefully and deliberately sought the independent sanction of the Judiciary out of respect for the special conditions of the object of their criminal investigation. Nonetheless, I think Judge Hogan got it right and the DC Circuit misfired; as such, this case appears destined for the Supreme Court, which will undoubtedly add another 6-12 months to ‘Dollar Bill’s prosecution process and I suspect eventual conviction on most if not all charges.
As an interested and related side note, the FBI raided the in-state home of Senator Theodore Fulton 'Ted' Stevens of Alaska as part of a corruption investigation. In fact, all three state congressional representatives received similar visits, but Ted is the most prominent of the three. And, we all thought Republicans were above corruption, more morally grounded . . . no wait . . . that was Democrats . . . oh gosh, I am so confused.
A number of public and private sources question my use of the term ‘moral projection’ within the various debates we have regarding the conduct of government. To me, moral projection entails using the law to impose a set of moral values and standards upon every citizen, as if to validate our moral values, our lifestyle choices, our attitudes toward other people and relationships . . . because we believe this way, everyone must believe this way, because our morals are correct and best. That said, moral values are critical to the conduct and intercourse of any stable society. Indeed, moral values are essential and vital to proper, peaceful, and orderly public activity. The difference in this context is the establishment and maintenance of moral values within the public domain, and the ‘projection’ of moral values into the private lives of free citizens. Moral projection suggests and implies the extension of those values beyond the proper domain for their existence. Freedom is freedom, nothing less!
Last week, the Patriot Post ("Welcome to Washington, Dr. Broun;" vol.07 no.30; 27.July.2007) announced the special election of Dr. Paul Broun to fill the vacated House seat for the Georgia 10th District. A particular element of the announcement caught my attention. According the Patriot article, Broun pledged to carry a copy of the Constitution with him at all times, and to apply four tests to his House votes:
1. Is it constitutional and a proper function of government?
2. Is it morally correct?
3. Is it something we really need?
4. Is it something we can afford?
Sounds great, doesn't it? The first criterion leads us directly to the tortured interpretation of the Constitution. We shall eventually know whether Broun is a big government federalist or an individualist moderate. I suspect the former, but I could be wrong. Then, we arrive at the real lynchpin in legislative action -- morality. The term "morally correct" is fine regarding public conduct; I am quite comfortable with general morality in defining public law, after all that is the basis of our body of laws and has been since Hamarabi and Roman law. Where such judgments go crosswise comes in the projection of legislative morality into the private domain -- imposing law upon private conduct. Thus, as we have discussed many times, my worry hangs upon the propensity of any legislature to define private, non-injurious, activity of individual citizens, i.e., classic moral projection and the ultimate federalist. The ‘need’ and ‘afford’ elements of Broun's legislative criteria will be driven by his particular penchant for pork barrel largesse. Thus, while Broun's legislative criteria have an appealing resonance, the devil is in the details. If his definition of a "proper function of government" remains essentially the refinement of our public professional and social interaction, then he may well become a genuine progressive; if not, he will most likely be just another corrupt politician bent upon self-aggrandizement.
A little intriguing entertainment . . . an incredible morph'ed video clip of 80 years of women in films. My, my, the power of human imagination. Enjoy!
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2007/women-in-film-p1.php
Comments and contributions from Update no.294:
"[Y]ou need to hand out a crash course on American politics. I do not understand however if you do, then all's well!"
My comment:
I know American politics can be quite dreary, and other times as disgusting as . . . well, imagine the most nauseating scene. Sorry to bore everyone with this crap, but it is the crap we have to live with. I would never claim to understand why these bozos do the things they do, but as they say . . . better the devil you know.
Another contribution:
“I thought I'd pass on the latest communiqué from the NASA administrator, Michael Griffin, regarding the ‘Alcohol’ situation here at NASA. My brother happens to be a Psychiatrist contracted by NASA to do these evaluations so he is very close to the situation here. He's pretty tight lipped due to privacy issues but he has shared with me that it is a very serious matter behind closed doors. The thing I can't understand is they (Astronauts) have access to booze while they are sequestered prior to a Shuttle flight. Who came up with that great idea? To think about it thou I think I'd need to have a drink before someone straps my butt to a million lbs of thrust and shot me into space.”
My reply:
Personal opinion . . . some of this is just added scrutiny of modern communications. As Griffin notes, when they started turning over the Lisa Nowak stone, they found some ugly bugs. I doubt NASA would sanction alcohol in the sequester facility, but I imagine alcohol has been smuggled in for decades. There are still pilots who believe they can fly under the influence. Not me. I've always been very careful with alcohol and flying.
A different contribution:
“The Mars Rovers amaze me. Though I'm not sure why we go there when I thought we already knew there was not a lot there. Maybe there WAS a lot there a long time ago?
“As long as terrorists exist they will try to figure out NEW ways to get by our security measures. Whether those security measures are located at some international airport, a dock at a major seaport, a high level national political or military building, OR at the Safeway Food Store in Podunk, North Dakota!!!! I bet that LAST place HAS no real security measures in place. So I think it would be a perfect target.
“Why Podunk? Easy answer -- To show that they CAN get to ANY part of America.
“The very important stuff/places they Need to hit truly, though that is not so easy anymore since more watched.
“But also, and much easier, are almost innumerable very important targets (from a psychological standpoint). Small-town, USA. Who would ever guess they'd do that? And why? Why? To REALLY put the fear of Allah and Jihad in those poor people who feel so secure and not a part of this whole war.
“IT is EASY to do !!!! At least the first few attacks would be. A bank, a grocery, church or hardware store. Maybe the local Les Schwab Tire center. That would likely be More than enough to throw a REAL scare into those of us all around the country who live in these out of the way places ( which is a LOT of Americans), not liking what is going on in the big cities, but feeling secure in our small, out of the way, towns.
“Good plan on the part of the terrorists? I happen to think so, though I hope it does not happen.
“Rural America feels safe, mostly. We believe All attacks will come to major/important places. And that WE are not important. If the terrorists are smart? ----- WRONG!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!
“SO, if I were the enemy -- I'd attack the non-important places and thus REALLY scare the citizenry! It lets EVERYONE know that there is NO way to protect every last square inch of America.
“My opinion. I hope to Hell that the bad guys never think of it.”
My response:
As many of us know, there is no such thing as perfect security; and, any security system can be penetrated given the will to do so. The Regimental Colonel of the Royal Welch Fusiliers told me in 1971, that the regiment’s mission was not to ‘defend’ Hong Kong, but simply to make the People's Liberation Army work for it, if they chose to take back the territory by force; fairly well says it, I think. Like you say, al-Qaeda might be well-served to strike at the soft underbelly rather than the hard points. Sadly, I suspect the uber-Left would yawn and say “So what” if such a strike occurred. Given the mounting strength of the uber-Left, I doubt anything short of a direct attack on them and their children will sway them from the defeatist, withdrawal mentality.
Another contribution:
"I agree with your legalization of drugs idea. Just wonder how it could ever be set up. Could there actually be a person or business LICENSED to sell say marijuana or cocaine? Would it be a walk in store? I mean they did it with alcohol and perhaps it was strange at first when they first started opening liquor stores. It just makes me giggle to think of driving by a real DRUG Store ... that sells drugs. I imagine the drugs would have to be FDA approved. And there would have to be laws, as with alcohol, for driving while stoned (DWS) ... or I guess it would still be called DUI, with limits of how much a person could legally consume and drive. Then they would have to come up with measurement tools that could assess those limits. It does sound like an administrative nightmare really."
My response:
Re: legalization of drugs. My answers:
"How could it ever be set up?"
>>>>> My proposal: exactly as alcohol and tobacco . . . licensed production, distribution and sale.
"Could there actually be a person or business LICENSED to sell say marijuana or cocaine?"
>>>>> Yes, companies would be licensed to produce and sell any substance that does not cause harm, e.g., arsenic would still be prohibited for human ingestion. I could argue that the most destructive forms of certain substances would not be available, i.e, black tar heroin, crack cocaine, etc. But, defined dosages of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, methamphetamine, etc., would be packaged for modest price sale.
"Would it be a walk in store?"
>>>>> Yes, just like a liquor store, perhaps even use liquor stores.
"It just makes me giggle to think of driving by a real DRUG Store ... that sells drugs."
>>>>> Drug stores could sell them too. The point is to regulate the quality and the dosage, and sell them at relatively low cost. Like other substances, you would have to prove you are 18 or 21 years of age.
"I imagine the drugs would have to be FDA approved."
>>>>> Yes, since they are ingestible substances.
"There would have to be laws, as with alcohol, for driving while stoned (DWS) ... or I guess it would still be called DUI, with limits of how much a person could legally consume and drive."
>>>>> Intoxication is intoxication. Driving or doing anything in public while under the influence of any intoxicant including psychotropic substances. Like all intoxicants, they are intended for private use, and yet, like alcohol can be used in public, so too could drugs. I don't see smoking marijuana would be any different than smoking tobacco.
"They would have to come up with measurement tools that could assess those limits. It does sound like an administrative nightmare really."
>>>>> Yes, but most police are already trained to recognize the distinctive signs of substance abuse and intoxication. Like I said, public intoxication is public intoxication. There is much more to this process, but I thought I'd start by answering your questions.
. . . with this follow-up:
"sounds like you have well thought out the potential of drug legalization and how it can be accomplished, but I bet it will never happen .... in our lifetime anyway. Could be wrong !!"
. . . and my reply:
Yes, I have given things like legalization of drugs, gambling, prostitution, abortion, all the sensitive sinful issues, a lot of thought. But, alas, being the true Don Quixote-esque character I am, I persist despite the fact that I think you are right. Apparently, I am one of the few voices speaking up for a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and as such each citizen’s right to partake of the sins of their choice as long as no one is injured or harmed. Yet, as you say . . . not likely in our lifetime.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
Thank you all for the words of kindness and condolence regarding Rocky's passing; they are truly appreciated.
The follow-up news items:
-- The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) announced the results of their investigation of the Comair Flight 5191 crash on 27.August.2006, in Lexington, Kentucky [247-248] -- pilot error. Numerous entities persist in their efforts to spread the blame for the accident. We seem to have a penchant for larger, broader, more nefarious culprits, often with a flavor of government conspiracy, and yet, in this case, as the NTSB accurately reported, this was pilot error due to complacency, plain and simple. The accident and the innocent fatalities are sad commentary to what can happen when pilots are distracted (self-induced in this instance) during the critical flight phases of takeoff and landing.
-- The Senate and the House passed the Protect America Act of 2007 (S.1927) "to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 [PL 95-511] (FISA) [156, 211, 218, et al] to provide additional procedures for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence information and for other purposes." (vote: Senate: 60-28-12; House: 227-183-0-23) We can all appreciate the seriousness, complexity and sensitivity of the issues presented to the very essence and substance of our freedoms by our enemies and the nature of the modern battlefield. However, creating a bureaucracy to constrain the Intelligence Community will not help them win the War on Islamic Fascism. Then again, I suppose we should be thankful Congress at least tried to bring FISA to the current environment. There is a better way to protect our freedoms from an abusive government and provide our Intelligence Community the tools they need to wage war successfully; this law will not do the trick.
-- The unusual, unruly rancor in the House chamber this week offers perhaps the best punctuation on the obscene party politics that has characterized the performance of Congress in the last 40 years. These men and women, although I hesitate to use such respectful terminology, have no interest, concern or willingness to do what the Constitution set them up to do – find the compromise balance point. No sirree Bob thunder; these yayhoos are consumed by party loyalty, rigid ideology, and total disregard for the general welfare of this Grand Republic. The House performance this week makes John McCain look all the better, but the extremists in the Republican Party will fall on their swords to prevent his nomination . . . hey, wait, maybe that’s not such a bad idea. Nonetheless, as I have stated numerous times [151A, 208, 213, 255, et al], we should throw the whole bloody lot of them out and start over.
The whole World bore witness to the tragedy of the I-35W Bridge collapse in Minneapolis. We have five confirmed fatalities so far, and I suspect there shall be more as they work their way through the debris and the vehicles in the river. I have driven over that bridge numerous times, although none is recent years . . . and, as many of us could say, there but for the Grace of God go I. Congress quickly allocated US$250M for the recovery and clean-up process, with more to come for reconstruction. The Wichita Eagle published a table listing and extensive article on the condition of bridges in Kansas; I suspect other newspapers across the country are doing similar exposés. Perhaps some good can grow from this tragedy . . . Congress just might abandon all the crap and get serious in regeneration of our deteriorating infrastructure. We can only hope. May God bless all those touched by the bridge collapse and especially the families who have lost loved ones.
In a surprising and odd twist of journalistic revelation given the years of discouraging and corrosive news, a ray of light shines through the clouds of gloom offered up by the New York Times.
"A War We Just Might Win"
by Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack
New York Times
Published: July 30, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?th&emc=th
The article produced quite a disturbance in the Force. Regardless of your opinions and attitudes toward the Battle for Iraq or even the War on Islamic Fascism, the O'Hanlon & Pollack article adds a little color in the long slog to stabilize Iraq and eliminate the terrorists plaguing the country. Please read the O'Hanlon & Pollack article. Then, as if to dampen that little hope, Associated Press Writer Kimberly Hefling, in her report the next day titled: "Mullen cites limited progress in Iraq," chose rather dark words to describe the confirmation testimony of Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Glenn Mullen, USN, to be the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Oh well, the moment was good while it lasted.
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama of Illinois publicly stated that he would take the fight in the War on Islamic Fascism into Pakistan, if necessary. The statement has a ring to it, as I have espoused; however, the qualifiers are significant, and it is one thing to talk tough in a campaign and something all together different to find the correct balance between lethargic diplomatic progress with minimal cooperation, and alienation of a marginal ally. At least he is talking like he should. Whether Barack would actually order such operations remains questionable; the exigencies of Office have a way of dampening such ardor. Yet, I shall give Barack credit for the appropriate bravado. To no one's surprise, the Pakistani government registered their displeasure with Barack's appropriate but ill-advised public remarks.
It seems ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson, AKA Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana, indicted on 16 charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money-laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act [233, 240, 252, 258, 287], may have finally won one. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on an objection by the House offices in the case of United States v. Rayburn House Office Building [USDC DC no. 06-3105 (no. 06mj00231)], giving ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson some constitutional relief. The precipitating event came when District Court Judge Thomas Hogan issued the search warrant for the subsequent FBI raid on his residence and congressional office; Judge Hogan believed sufficient probable cause for a felony prosecution outweighed the ‘Speech and Debate’ Clause protections enjoyed by Member of Congress. The Appeals Court took a different view and focused exclusively on the separation of powers question and the ‘Speech and Debate’ portion of Clause 1. It seems quite odd to me that the court cited the ‘Speech and Debate’ element, but ignored the ‘. . . except for Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace’ qualifier. The Appeals Court ordered “the return of all legislative materials (originals and copies) that are protected by the Speech or Debate Clause seized from Rayburn House Office Building Room 2113 on May 20-21, 2006,” and barred the associated FBI agents from disclosing any of the seized material or participating in the criminal prosecution of ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson. An immediate question erupts from the decision . . . who decides what is privileged, non-privileged, and more precisely what is subject to discovery in the felony prosecution? Former Speakers of the House Foley, Gingrich and Michel filed amicus curiae briefings in this case, suggesting alternative means of conducting a warranted search of the official domain of a Member of Congress. I did not have access to the amicus briefings by the former Speakers, however from the reflection in the public court documents, it appears Congress is far more interested in protecting themselves than in abiding by the same laws they pass for all the rest of us, or even at a bare minimum, the laws applicable to them. By this constitutional debate within the Judiciary prior to ‘Dollar Bill’s criminal trial before a jury of his peers, the basis of the case will be considered. I think we can safely surmise ol’ ‘Dollar Bill’ will milk the debate and the process as long and to the greatest extent possible, and he will have the quiet support of the Democratic Party (in their quest to taint George W. Bush as often as possible, i.e., partisan politics at work). While great care must be taken to protect and preserve the separation and balance of powers between the three branches of government, Congress, as created by the Constitution, was never considered to be and should never be a haven to criminal conduct. In this case, the Executive carefully and deliberately sought the independent sanction of the Judiciary out of respect for the special conditions of the object of their criminal investigation. Nonetheless, I think Judge Hogan got it right and the DC Circuit misfired; as such, this case appears destined for the Supreme Court, which will undoubtedly add another 6-12 months to ‘Dollar Bill’s prosecution process and I suspect eventual conviction on most if not all charges.
As an interested and related side note, the FBI raided the in-state home of Senator Theodore Fulton 'Ted' Stevens of Alaska as part of a corruption investigation. In fact, all three state congressional representatives received similar visits, but Ted is the most prominent of the three. And, we all thought Republicans were above corruption, more morally grounded . . . no wait . . . that was Democrats . . . oh gosh, I am so confused.
A number of public and private sources question my use of the term ‘moral projection’ within the various debates we have regarding the conduct of government. To me, moral projection entails using the law to impose a set of moral values and standards upon every citizen, as if to validate our moral values, our lifestyle choices, our attitudes toward other people and relationships . . . because we believe this way, everyone must believe this way, because our morals are correct and best. That said, moral values are critical to the conduct and intercourse of any stable society. Indeed, moral values are essential and vital to proper, peaceful, and orderly public activity. The difference in this context is the establishment and maintenance of moral values within the public domain, and the ‘projection’ of moral values into the private lives of free citizens. Moral projection suggests and implies the extension of those values beyond the proper domain for their existence. Freedom is freedom, nothing less!
Last week, the Patriot Post ("Welcome to Washington, Dr. Broun;" vol.07 no.30; 27.July.2007) announced the special election of Dr. Paul Broun to fill the vacated House seat for the Georgia 10th District. A particular element of the announcement caught my attention. According the Patriot article, Broun pledged to carry a copy of the Constitution with him at all times, and to apply four tests to his House votes:
1. Is it constitutional and a proper function of government?
2. Is it morally correct?
3. Is it something we really need?
4. Is it something we can afford?
Sounds great, doesn't it? The first criterion leads us directly to the tortured interpretation of the Constitution. We shall eventually know whether Broun is a big government federalist or an individualist moderate. I suspect the former, but I could be wrong. Then, we arrive at the real lynchpin in legislative action -- morality. The term "morally correct" is fine regarding public conduct; I am quite comfortable with general morality in defining public law, after all that is the basis of our body of laws and has been since Hamarabi and Roman law. Where such judgments go crosswise comes in the projection of legislative morality into the private domain -- imposing law upon private conduct. Thus, as we have discussed many times, my worry hangs upon the propensity of any legislature to define private, non-injurious, activity of individual citizens, i.e., classic moral projection and the ultimate federalist. The ‘need’ and ‘afford’ elements of Broun's legislative criteria will be driven by his particular penchant for pork barrel largesse. Thus, while Broun's legislative criteria have an appealing resonance, the devil is in the details. If his definition of a "proper function of government" remains essentially the refinement of our public professional and social interaction, then he may well become a genuine progressive; if not, he will most likely be just another corrupt politician bent upon self-aggrandizement.
A little intriguing entertainment . . . an incredible morph'ed video clip of 80 years of women in films. My, my, the power of human imagination. Enjoy!
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2007/women-in-film-p1.php
Comments and contributions from Update no.294:
"[Y]ou need to hand out a crash course on American politics. I do not understand however if you do, then all's well!"
My comment:
I know American politics can be quite dreary, and other times as disgusting as . . . well, imagine the most nauseating scene. Sorry to bore everyone with this crap, but it is the crap we have to live with. I would never claim to understand why these bozos do the things they do, but as they say . . . better the devil you know.
Another contribution:
“I thought I'd pass on the latest communiqué from the NASA administrator, Michael Griffin, regarding the ‘Alcohol’ situation here at NASA. My brother happens to be a Psychiatrist contracted by NASA to do these evaluations so he is very close to the situation here. He's pretty tight lipped due to privacy issues but he has shared with me that it is a very serious matter behind closed doors. The thing I can't understand is they (Astronauts) have access to booze while they are sequestered prior to a Shuttle flight. Who came up with that great idea? To think about it thou I think I'd need to have a drink before someone straps my butt to a million lbs of thrust and shot me into space.”
My reply:
Personal opinion . . . some of this is just added scrutiny of modern communications. As Griffin notes, when they started turning over the Lisa Nowak stone, they found some ugly bugs. I doubt NASA would sanction alcohol in the sequester facility, but I imagine alcohol has been smuggled in for decades. There are still pilots who believe they can fly under the influence. Not me. I've always been very careful with alcohol and flying.
A different contribution:
“The Mars Rovers amaze me. Though I'm not sure why we go there when I thought we already knew there was not a lot there. Maybe there WAS a lot there a long time ago?
“As long as terrorists exist they will try to figure out NEW ways to get by our security measures. Whether those security measures are located at some international airport, a dock at a major seaport, a high level national political or military building, OR at the Safeway Food Store in Podunk, North Dakota!!!! I bet that LAST place HAS no real security measures in place. So I think it would be a perfect target.
“Why Podunk? Easy answer -- To show that they CAN get to ANY part of America.
“The very important stuff/places they Need to hit truly, though that is not so easy anymore since more watched.
“But also, and much easier, are almost innumerable very important targets (from a psychological standpoint). Small-town, USA. Who would ever guess they'd do that? And why? Why? To REALLY put the fear of Allah and Jihad in those poor people who feel so secure and not a part of this whole war.
“IT is EASY to do !!!! At least the first few attacks would be. A bank, a grocery, church or hardware store. Maybe the local Les Schwab Tire center. That would likely be More than enough to throw a REAL scare into those of us all around the country who live in these out of the way places ( which is a LOT of Americans), not liking what is going on in the big cities, but feeling secure in our small, out of the way, towns.
“Good plan on the part of the terrorists? I happen to think so, though I hope it does not happen.
“Rural America feels safe, mostly. We believe All attacks will come to major/important places. And that WE are not important. If the terrorists are smart? ----- WRONG!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!
“SO, if I were the enemy -- I'd attack the non-important places and thus REALLY scare the citizenry! It lets EVERYONE know that there is NO way to protect every last square inch of America.
“My opinion. I hope to Hell that the bad guys never think of it.”
My response:
As many of us know, there is no such thing as perfect security; and, any security system can be penetrated given the will to do so. The Regimental Colonel of the Royal Welch Fusiliers told me in 1971, that the regiment’s mission was not to ‘defend’ Hong Kong, but simply to make the People's Liberation Army work for it, if they chose to take back the territory by force; fairly well says it, I think. Like you say, al-Qaeda might be well-served to strike at the soft underbelly rather than the hard points. Sadly, I suspect the uber-Left would yawn and say “So what” if such a strike occurred. Given the mounting strength of the uber-Left, I doubt anything short of a direct attack on them and their children will sway them from the defeatist, withdrawal mentality.
Another contribution:
"I agree with your legalization of drugs idea. Just wonder how it could ever be set up. Could there actually be a person or business LICENSED to sell say marijuana or cocaine? Would it be a walk in store? I mean they did it with alcohol and perhaps it was strange at first when they first started opening liquor stores. It just makes me giggle to think of driving by a real DRUG Store ... that sells drugs. I imagine the drugs would have to be FDA approved. And there would have to be laws, as with alcohol, for driving while stoned (DWS) ... or I guess it would still be called DUI, with limits of how much a person could legally consume and drive. Then they would have to come up with measurement tools that could assess those limits. It does sound like an administrative nightmare really."
My response:
Re: legalization of drugs. My answers:
"How could it ever be set up?"
>>>>> My proposal: exactly as alcohol and tobacco . . . licensed production, distribution and sale.
"Could there actually be a person or business LICENSED to sell say marijuana or cocaine?"
>>>>> Yes, companies would be licensed to produce and sell any substance that does not cause harm, e.g., arsenic would still be prohibited for human ingestion. I could argue that the most destructive forms of certain substances would not be available, i.e, black tar heroin, crack cocaine, etc. But, defined dosages of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, methamphetamine, etc., would be packaged for modest price sale.
"Would it be a walk in store?"
>>>>> Yes, just like a liquor store, perhaps even use liquor stores.
"It just makes me giggle to think of driving by a real DRUG Store ... that sells drugs."
>>>>> Drug stores could sell them too. The point is to regulate the quality and the dosage, and sell them at relatively low cost. Like other substances, you would have to prove you are 18 or 21 years of age.
"I imagine the drugs would have to be FDA approved."
>>>>> Yes, since they are ingestible substances.
"There would have to be laws, as with alcohol, for driving while stoned (DWS) ... or I guess it would still be called DUI, with limits of how much a person could legally consume and drive."
>>>>> Intoxication is intoxication. Driving or doing anything in public while under the influence of any intoxicant including psychotropic substances. Like all intoxicants, they are intended for private use, and yet, like alcohol can be used in public, so too could drugs. I don't see smoking marijuana would be any different than smoking tobacco.
"They would have to come up with measurement tools that could assess those limits. It does sound like an administrative nightmare really."
>>>>> Yes, but most police are already trained to recognize the distinctive signs of substance abuse and intoxication. Like I said, public intoxication is public intoxication. There is much more to this process, but I thought I'd start by answering your questions.
. . . with this follow-up:
"sounds like you have well thought out the potential of drug legalization and how it can be accomplished, but I bet it will never happen .... in our lifetime anyway. Could be wrong !!"
. . . and my reply:
Yes, I have given things like legalization of drugs, gambling, prostitution, abortion, all the sensitive sinful issues, a lot of thought. But, alas, being the true Don Quixote-esque character I am, I persist despite the fact that I think you are right. Apparently, I am one of the few voices speaking up for a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and as such each citizen’s right to partake of the sins of their choice as long as no one is injured or harmed. Yet, as you say . . . not likely in our lifetime.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment