To all,
Every citizen in a democracy has specific duties or obligations to ensure a free and open society. Among those duties are paying taxes, voting, jury duty, and in my opinion national or community service. The only one I was missing was jury duty . . . until now. This week, I finally began serving my last remaining obligation -- jury duty -- to think I reached my age without receiving a notice to serve before this week. After checking in and waiting for the lawyers and judge, two-thirds of the pool were called to the box. All of us listened to the interview questions and answers. Several potential jurors were disqualified. Of those remaining, half were selected to serve in judgment of an elderly woman charged with felony residential burglary and theft. I was dismissed at midday and enjoined to return next week for the same routine.
The follow-up news items:
-- Former Wisconsin governor and secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson became the first casualty of the extended primary season after his poor showing in the Ames, Iowa, Republican straw poll. More to follow, I am certain.
-- Space Shuttle Endeavour (STS-118) launched to orbit in support of the International Space Station with the former, back-up, teacher-in-space Barbara Morgan, who has been a full-time, NASA, mission specialist astronaut for nine years. Barbara was the back-up astronaut for Christa McAuliffe who died in the Challenger disaster (28.1.1986). Endeavour experienced an external tank, foam impact on ascent. The application of technology to evaluate the impact damage is nothing short of awesome – a precise, three-dimensional, LASER survey of the roughly three inch square gouge. NASA decided not to repair the wound, and Endeavour is now scheduled to return a day earlier than planned due to Hurricane Dean.
-- Big News . . . the Bush administration signaled their intention to declare the Islamic Republic of Iran’s, elite, Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. Better late than never . . . should have been done at least 25 years ago.
-- On Tuesday, 14.August.2007, circa 20:00 local time, four massive, suicide, truck/car bombs – 1.) a water truck dispensing fresh water, 2.) a fuel truck dispensing diesel fuel, 3.) a car in a crowded marketplace, and 4.) a car at the crowded bus station -- exploded near simultaneously in Qahtaniya, Nineveh Province, Iraq, just to the west of Mosul. The first two devices along with the time of day guaranteed a maximum of civilians attracted to and near the vehicles. Over 250+ innocent, peaceful, Yazidi-Iraqi citizens were killed; more than that number were injured. This brazen, barbaric and obscene attack has all the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda operation intended to garner maximum news coverage and incite sectarian, internecine violence. The objective from my perspective . . . amplify the voices in the United States calling for withdrawal from a simmering civil war. The inhumanity of these senseless terrorist attacks is nauseating to all peace-loving people.
-- A high speed train enroute from Moscow to St. Petersberg was derailed by a terrorist bomb. Fortunately, no one was killed, but 60 innocent civilians were injured. The Russians have not yet identified the perpetrators, but my guess . . . Chechen brand, jihadistanis.
-- Oh happy day! Jihadistani Jose Padilla and his two co-defendants, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi, were convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas and two counts of providing material support to terrorists. Jose Padilla, AKA Abdullah al- Muhajir – the captured al-Qaeda operative and cause célèbre of the uber-Left [107, 134, 184, 226, et al] – produced quite a disturbance in the American judicial system, and I suspect we have not heard the last of the protestations in his name.
-- Then, as a separate item (I refused to include it in Padilla’s conviction above), the New York Times editorial staff proudly admonishes us, “It would be a mistake to see the guilty verdict against Jose Padilla as a vindication for the Bush administration’s serial abuse of the American legal system.” Oh, but of course! Is there any doubt the Times editors believe, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that we have never been at war with Islamo-fascist terrorists?
-- The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments this week in the latest legal challenge to the government’s not-so-secret-anymore, electronic, surveillance program. The Appeals Court should issue its ruling in a few months and will most likely join another case – ACLU v. NSA [291] – undoubtedly headed to the Supreme Court. Since the Protect America Act of 2007 [296] does not remove the option of litigation in these cases, we will most likely see an array of these cases challenging various aspects of the controversial but vital program. I have tried before to put this program in perspective; please allow me to try again. Debating the virtues of this intelligence collection program in courts or the Press is quite like holding a public debate on the morality of the atomic bomb in July 1945 – foolish in the extreme. To allow critical, intelligence, means & methods into the public domain via the Judiciary, the Press [210], or any other conduit verges on suicidal, in my humble opinion.
If you have not seen the video clip of the Cape Buffalo herd confronting a pride lions to save a calf, here is another opportunity. The link below is the extended version. For those who do not want to watch nature’s incredible processes at work, this is probably not for you. Yet, I must say, this is an exceptionally awesome and unusual scene, and the poster for “never give up.”
Every citizen in a democracy has specific duties or obligations to ensure a free and open society. Among those duties are paying taxes, voting, jury duty, and in my opinion national or community service. The only one I was missing was jury duty . . . until now. This week, I finally began serving my last remaining obligation -- jury duty -- to think I reached my age without receiving a notice to serve before this week. After checking in and waiting for the lawyers and judge, two-thirds of the pool were called to the box. All of us listened to the interview questions and answers. Several potential jurors were disqualified. Of those remaining, half were selected to serve in judgment of an elderly woman charged with felony residential burglary and theft. I was dismissed at midday and enjoined to return next week for the same routine.
The follow-up news items:
-- Former Wisconsin governor and secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson became the first casualty of the extended primary season after his poor showing in the Ames, Iowa, Republican straw poll. More to follow, I am certain.
-- Space Shuttle Endeavour (STS-118) launched to orbit in support of the International Space Station with the former, back-up, teacher-in-space Barbara Morgan, who has been a full-time, NASA, mission specialist astronaut for nine years. Barbara was the back-up astronaut for Christa McAuliffe who died in the Challenger disaster (28.1.1986). Endeavour experienced an external tank, foam impact on ascent. The application of technology to evaluate the impact damage is nothing short of awesome – a precise, three-dimensional, LASER survey of the roughly three inch square gouge. NASA decided not to repair the wound, and Endeavour is now scheduled to return a day earlier than planned due to Hurricane Dean.
-- Big News . . . the Bush administration signaled their intention to declare the Islamic Republic of Iran’s, elite, Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. Better late than never . . . should have been done at least 25 years ago.
-- On Tuesday, 14.August.2007, circa 20:00 local time, four massive, suicide, truck/car bombs – 1.) a water truck dispensing fresh water, 2.) a fuel truck dispensing diesel fuel, 3.) a car in a crowded marketplace, and 4.) a car at the crowded bus station -- exploded near simultaneously in Qahtaniya, Nineveh Province, Iraq, just to the west of Mosul. The first two devices along with the time of day guaranteed a maximum of civilians attracted to and near the vehicles. Over 250+ innocent, peaceful, Yazidi-Iraqi citizens were killed; more than that number were injured. This brazen, barbaric and obscene attack has all the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda operation intended to garner maximum news coverage and incite sectarian, internecine violence. The objective from my perspective . . . amplify the voices in the United States calling for withdrawal from a simmering civil war. The inhumanity of these senseless terrorist attacks is nauseating to all peace-loving people.
-- A high speed train enroute from Moscow to St. Petersberg was derailed by a terrorist bomb. Fortunately, no one was killed, but 60 innocent civilians were injured. The Russians have not yet identified the perpetrators, but my guess . . . Chechen brand, jihadistanis.
-- Oh happy day! Jihadistani Jose Padilla and his two co-defendants, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi, were convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas and two counts of providing material support to terrorists. Jose Padilla, AKA Abdullah al- Muhajir – the captured al-Qaeda operative and cause célèbre of the uber-Left [107, 134, 184, 226, et al] – produced quite a disturbance in the American judicial system, and I suspect we have not heard the last of the protestations in his name.
-- Then, as a separate item (I refused to include it in Padilla’s conviction above), the New York Times editorial staff proudly admonishes us, “It would be a mistake to see the guilty verdict against Jose Padilla as a vindication for the Bush administration’s serial abuse of the American legal system.” Oh, but of course! Is there any doubt the Times editors believe, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that we have never been at war with Islamo-fascist terrorists?
-- The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments this week in the latest legal challenge to the government’s not-so-secret-anymore, electronic, surveillance program. The Appeals Court should issue its ruling in a few months and will most likely join another case – ACLU v. NSA [291] – undoubtedly headed to the Supreme Court. Since the Protect America Act of 2007 [296] does not remove the option of litigation in these cases, we will most likely see an array of these cases challenging various aspects of the controversial but vital program. I have tried before to put this program in perspective; please allow me to try again. Debating the virtues of this intelligence collection program in courts or the Press is quite like holding a public debate on the morality of the atomic bomb in July 1945 – foolish in the extreme. To allow critical, intelligence, means & methods into the public domain via the Judiciary, the Press [210], or any other conduit verges on suicidal, in my humble opinion.
If you have not seen the video clip of the Cape Buffalo herd confronting a pride lions to save a calf, here is another opportunity. The link below is the extended version. For those who do not want to watch nature’s incredible processes at work, this is probably not for you. Yet, I must say, this is an exceptionally awesome and unusual scene, and the poster for “never give up.”
I have leveled considerable criticism at the New York Times on a variety of topics, but most notably, their opinions regarding intelligence means & methods, the Battle for Iraq; the War on Islamic Fascism in the main left me diametrically opposed. Then, we had the O’Hanlon and Pollack article [295] that left us a thin sunbeam on a cloudy day. This week, we have two more Times articles on the war.
“Wrong Way Out of Iraq”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: August 13, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/13/opinion/13mon1.html?th&emc=th
Making deals with indigenous Sunni tribes against al-Qaeda in Iraq has helped to suppress al-Qaeda operations, but may well be setting up heightened violence in a civil war with Iranian-sponsored Shiite militias. I cannot say whether the current strategy will work in the long-run, but at least it is a different approach. The next article is a lengthy view of the Battle for Afghanistan:
“How a ‘Good War’ in Afghanistan Went Bad”
by David Rohde and David E. Sanger
New York Times
Published: August 12, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/world/asia/12afghan.html?th&emc=th
Both articles paint a dreary picture of both Iraq and Afghanistan that is quite reflective of Tom Ricks’ “Fiasco” – the consequences of war on the cheap, in my humble opinoin. Both articles are balanced and accurate (to the best of my knowledge). I also agree with their conclusions. And then, we add a relevant article from Germany's Der Spiegel.
“Baghdad Babylon - Hope and Despair in Divided Iraq”
by Ullrich Fichtner (in Iraq)
Der Spiegel
August 10, 2007
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,499154,00.html
An independent view is often helpful. So, it is here as well. There are positive and negative signs all around. This is war.
In the category of interesting court cases I occasionally run across, I present to a discerning audience the case of U.S. v. Aukai [9CCA no. 04-10226]. On 1.February.2003, Daniel Kuualoha Aukai arrived at the Honolulu International Airport intending to take a Hawaiian Airlines flight from Honolulu to Kona, Hawaii. In the process of ordinary airport screening, a meth pipe was discovered in Aukai’s possessions, triggering a subsequence of detailed searches that yielded 50 grams of methamphetamine crystals. As virtually all of today’s commercial flying public would recognize, Aukai experienced a normal pre-boarding security screen. Nonetheless, Aukai claimed his Fourth Amendment rights were violated – against unreasonable search and seizure. Interesting argument, Danny-boy; sorry, no float. The 9th Circuit rejected Aukai’s appeal argument; and, I most assuredly agree. I do not often find humor in these court cases, but this one was the exceptions; I had a hard time containing my laughter. Now, that said, here is where I must ask, where is the public injury or harm in Aukai’s possession of methamphetamine and paraphernalia? Beyond the foolish challenge to the airport screening process, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 made Aukai a criminal. His possession of a controlled substance caused him to act suspiciously, and the legal and proper screening search as a result of his behavior produced the felony possession charge he was ultimately convicted of and sent to prison. If meth possession had been legal as it should be, Daniel would have gone on his way that day, and no one would have been harmed – this is the travesty of our foolish and enormously destructive war on drugs.
For all the criticism I heap upon Donald Wildmon’s American Family Association (AFA), along comes one of those tidbits I agree with him. It seems the High Point Church of Dallas, Texas, refused to allow their building to be used to conduct a memorial service for homosexuals, and a homosexual rights activist group has raised public protest against the church’s blatant discrimination. As much as I advocate for equal treatment under the law for all law-abiding citizens regardless of their age, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion or disability, a church is not public property or a public organization. It is a sanctuary for parishioners who embrace the principles and edicts of the church. Clearly, some churches and some religions do not take kindly to homosexuals, and in this instance, their right to discriminate for whatever reason they wish is protected by the Constitution. My advice to homosexuals, or rather all those who are not married, monogamous, heterosexuals . . . seek those who embrace diversity and tolerance of others not like them, and let the bigots enjoy the peace of their bigotry.
Then, after just defending the AFA, I must return to my wicked ways. Seems ol’ Don found a video clip from the so-called Christian Institute in the United Kingdom regarding the attention of the government applied to a retired couple who complained about the local council’s embrace of diversity. AFA now holds up this Lancashire, England, episode to disparage the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592; S.1105) [281-3, 289] still in the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration, and of course, he advocates for resistance to the proposed law. As long as groups like the AFA persist in their efforts to make homosexuals (or any other minority group) untermenschen, we will need special federal protection for those groups. I reject Wildmon’s ascertains and urge support for S.1105.
During my research relative to the obscenity/censorship item in last week’s Update [296], I reviewed a number of Court decisions including a crucial and perhaps pivotal Supreme Court case – Jacobellis v. Ohio [378 U.S. 184 (1964)]. Placing the findings into the context of last week’s discourse, a different but related perspective came to me and might prove useful to place these issues into our larger societal context. So much of any obscenity debate can be boiled down to a few key elements: 1.) public versus private conduct; 2.) personal preference; and 3.) the proper performance of government. The personal preference factor tends to color all other aspects of the debate, but in a free society – if freedom is to have any real or tangible value – we must separate our personal beliefs, choices, wants, needs, desires and wishes from the public domain of the law and society. In this case, the movie theater proprietor – Nico Jacobellis, manager of the Heights Art Theatre in Coventry Village, Cleveland Heights, Ohio – was accused, tried and convicted of disseminating obscene material, to wit, the French film called "Les Amants" ("The Lovers") that portrayed an objectionable (some might say natural) love scene toward the end of the movie. I raise this case as particularly illustrative of the key elements noted above. A conventional movie theater, as in the Jacobellis case, is a quasi-public place in that it is not a subscription, membership, or closed club; however, a fee is paid to enter. A patron of such establishments makes a free and conscious choice to pay the fee, walk in and sit down; he also chooses to stay. No one has forced him to watch the movie. No children have innocently found themselves in the theater. The law at the time sought to restrict access to such forms of expression for all citizens. If a citizen disapproved of such expression, the proper response should be avoidance, not prohibition by law. If a community objects, it should have been some neutral, unbiased, informative descriptor to allow patrons to judge for themselves whether they wished to enter or allow their children to join them. But, no, the law sought that decision for every citizen regardless of a citizen’s right to free and private choice. In the first of the Supreme Court’s string of obscenity rulings – Butler v. Michigan [352 U.S. 380 (1957)] – Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter, writing the Court’s opinion, said, “The incidence of this enactment [the law at issue] is to reduce the adult population of Michigan to reading only what is fit for children. It thereby arbitrarily curtails one of those liberties of the individual, now enshrined in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, that history has attested as the indispensable conditions for the maintenance and progress of a free society.” Disapproval of content where there is no public harm, or personal objection or offense where a citizen is given the opportunity of free choice cannot and must not be the basis for public law. Reading, watching or listening to what any citizen deems as obscene . . . quite like gambling, or prostitution, or ingestion of psychotropic substances . . . are free choices by informed and responsible citizens, in which there is no public harm. Thus, each of us should make our choices and leave other citizens to exercise their freedom of choice as they wish. As a closing note, Jacobellis was the case where Associate Justice Potter Stewart, writing a concurring opinion, said regarding the movie in question and obscenity in general, “But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that” – ah, the eye of the beholder, what an intriguing concept.
Comments and contributions from Update no.296:
"Thanks for not going on about Barry Bonds. Every time I turned on ESPN or the Baseball Channel on my XM that's all I freakin' heard about . . . that and how we should all bow down and kiss the NY Yankees' asses.
"To an extent, I don't find myself on the side that Barry Bonds cheated. It takes more than just pure strength to hit a HR (though it does help). While I'm no expert, I look at it from the point he's putting something into his body that will help in the short term, but lead to all sorts of problems in the long run, as seems to be the case with so many pro wrestlers dying before they reach the age of 50. Plus, how many high school and college athletes will look at Barry's accomplishments and decide the only way to succeed in sports is to pump this crap into their bodies? Another unfortunate side effect is the belief by many in this country that if one does it, they all do it. I think it's safe to say that with nearly 800 players in MLB, each with different personalities and beliefs, not everyone does it. Baseball should have done a better job handling this when all this started to surface. But Bud Selig, like the UN, dragged his feet, made a quick statement about it every now and then, and hoped the problem would go away. Plus he probably figured anything he came up with would be shot down by the MLB Borg, I mean, Players Union. He had to be dragged before Congress before the dipstick came up with even a half-assed policy regarding steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. On top of that, Barry Bonds is, plain and simple, an a-hole. Give me someone like Cal Ripken, Jr. any day, a Hall of Famer who, by all accounts, is a very modest, soft spoken man who has done great things for youth sports. Listen to his show Weekend mornings on XM. Very enjoyable.
"To the wackos who have a problem with Redbook offering sex advice . . . no one is forcing you to buy the stupid magazine. Just like no one is forcing you to watch internet porn or buy Grand Theft Auto games or listen to Motorhead or eat meat. If there is an activity you don't like, don't do it! Go ahead and speak out about how you think it's bad. That's fine. It's when you want to enact laws about it that I really start to have a problem."
My response:
As I said, Barry Bonds is beneath any expenditure of my time. In my book, he is entitled to do whatever he wishes to his body, and I am entitled to ignore him. I would probably feel differently if Barry had stood up like a man and said, yes, I did x-y-z to improve my performance, to make the game more exciting and entertaining, and to bring fans back to the ballparks after the 1994 players' strike. Playing games with words to skirt his accountability is no different from Slick Willy Clinton’s “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is,’ is.”
I have mixed feelings regarding substance abuse in Major League Baseball or any other sport or entertainment field where the profit motive will lead players/actors to self-destruction. Our entertainment is not a valid rationale. How is this any different from gladiators in a fight to the death? These guys are shortening their lives for our entertainment.
Freedom of choice is a powerful right we tend to take for granted. The really sad part of all this rampant "moral projection" we face . . . so many people seem perfectly willing to take away everyone else's freedom of choice to validate their moral values. And, what is worse, the rest of us are quite content allowing a powerful and/or vocal minority take away other folks freedom of choice as long as they don’t come after ours. Then, what is even more disgusting than that, so many of those who seek to live everyone else's lives are not as morally pure as they profess in public. I am reminded of that famous Shakespearean line, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Another contribution:
"Good on you for reading Le Monde Diplomatique. Has a lot of interesting stuff -- as does Le Monde. Régis Debray is a French intellectual . . . originally a supporter of Che, but has wisened up a bit. Good stuff and concur on your take."
My response:
You run in interesting circles, my friend. A lot of folks were supporters of Che's, like our dear ol' friend, Father Fidel. Glad to see Debray has seen the light.
A relevant contribution from a different threat that began with recounting some of Slick Willy Clinton's history:
"Being a career Military guy I have seen this MANY times. It IS sickening. But It's History, and apparently the American people did not care about that aspect of his background enough to defeat him for the Presidency-----TWICE.
"Maybe because we were, as a Country, just trying to put the Vietnam War and all it's many varied 'things' behind us. THINGS meaning almost totally BAD things. But by this time Vietnam had been over for 'X' years.
"Let's just go on since we cannot change what has already happened.
"So they got 'BILL CLINTON' as their next President, and Hillary as 1st Lady. President Bush #1 did not believe his advisors who told him what things he should emphasize in his bid for a 2nd term. He kept harping on 'Stay the Course -- We are doing fine.' He was out of touch with what the American people were REALLY concerned about. Bill Clinton was NOT out of touch. He trashed Bush #1 in the election. And Bush went back to his ranch in Texas flabbergasted that he could have lost. But he'd been told EARLY ON. Apparently did not believe it.
"IN MY OPINION THESE TWO CLINTONS ARE A COUPLE OF THE BEST POLITICIANS THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN. Notice I did NOT say best suited for their new jobs.
"They did their thing for an amazing 8 years. The most allowed by law. Thank God!!!
“Wrong Way Out of Iraq”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: August 13, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/13/opinion/13mon1.html?th&emc=th
Making deals with indigenous Sunni tribes against al-Qaeda in Iraq has helped to suppress al-Qaeda operations, but may well be setting up heightened violence in a civil war with Iranian-sponsored Shiite militias. I cannot say whether the current strategy will work in the long-run, but at least it is a different approach. The next article is a lengthy view of the Battle for Afghanistan:
“How a ‘Good War’ in Afghanistan Went Bad”
by David Rohde and David E. Sanger
New York Times
Published: August 12, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/world/asia/12afghan.html?th&emc=th
Both articles paint a dreary picture of both Iraq and Afghanistan that is quite reflective of Tom Ricks’ “Fiasco” – the consequences of war on the cheap, in my humble opinoin. Both articles are balanced and accurate (to the best of my knowledge). I also agree with their conclusions. And then, we add a relevant article from Germany's Der Spiegel.
“Baghdad Babylon - Hope and Despair in Divided Iraq”
by Ullrich Fichtner (in Iraq)
Der Spiegel
August 10, 2007
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,499154,00.html
An independent view is often helpful. So, it is here as well. There are positive and negative signs all around. This is war.
In the category of interesting court cases I occasionally run across, I present to a discerning audience the case of U.S. v. Aukai [9CCA no. 04-10226]. On 1.February.2003, Daniel Kuualoha Aukai arrived at the Honolulu International Airport intending to take a Hawaiian Airlines flight from Honolulu to Kona, Hawaii. In the process of ordinary airport screening, a meth pipe was discovered in Aukai’s possessions, triggering a subsequence of detailed searches that yielded 50 grams of methamphetamine crystals. As virtually all of today’s commercial flying public would recognize, Aukai experienced a normal pre-boarding security screen. Nonetheless, Aukai claimed his Fourth Amendment rights were violated – against unreasonable search and seizure. Interesting argument, Danny-boy; sorry, no float. The 9th Circuit rejected Aukai’s appeal argument; and, I most assuredly agree. I do not often find humor in these court cases, but this one was the exceptions; I had a hard time containing my laughter. Now, that said, here is where I must ask, where is the public injury or harm in Aukai’s possession of methamphetamine and paraphernalia? Beyond the foolish challenge to the airport screening process, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 made Aukai a criminal. His possession of a controlled substance caused him to act suspiciously, and the legal and proper screening search as a result of his behavior produced the felony possession charge he was ultimately convicted of and sent to prison. If meth possession had been legal as it should be, Daniel would have gone on his way that day, and no one would have been harmed – this is the travesty of our foolish and enormously destructive war on drugs.
For all the criticism I heap upon Donald Wildmon’s American Family Association (AFA), along comes one of those tidbits I agree with him. It seems the High Point Church of Dallas, Texas, refused to allow their building to be used to conduct a memorial service for homosexuals, and a homosexual rights activist group has raised public protest against the church’s blatant discrimination. As much as I advocate for equal treatment under the law for all law-abiding citizens regardless of their age, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion or disability, a church is not public property or a public organization. It is a sanctuary for parishioners who embrace the principles and edicts of the church. Clearly, some churches and some religions do not take kindly to homosexuals, and in this instance, their right to discriminate for whatever reason they wish is protected by the Constitution. My advice to homosexuals, or rather all those who are not married, monogamous, heterosexuals . . . seek those who embrace diversity and tolerance of others not like them, and let the bigots enjoy the peace of their bigotry.
Then, after just defending the AFA, I must return to my wicked ways. Seems ol’ Don found a video clip from the so-called Christian Institute in the United Kingdom regarding the attention of the government applied to a retired couple who complained about the local council’s embrace of diversity. AFA now holds up this Lancashire, England, episode to disparage the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592; S.1105) [281-3, 289] still in the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration, and of course, he advocates for resistance to the proposed law. As long as groups like the AFA persist in their efforts to make homosexuals (or any other minority group) untermenschen, we will need special federal protection for those groups. I reject Wildmon’s ascertains and urge support for S.1105.
During my research relative to the obscenity/censorship item in last week’s Update [296], I reviewed a number of Court decisions including a crucial and perhaps pivotal Supreme Court case – Jacobellis v. Ohio [378 U.S. 184 (1964)]. Placing the findings into the context of last week’s discourse, a different but related perspective came to me and might prove useful to place these issues into our larger societal context. So much of any obscenity debate can be boiled down to a few key elements: 1.) public versus private conduct; 2.) personal preference; and 3.) the proper performance of government. The personal preference factor tends to color all other aspects of the debate, but in a free society – if freedom is to have any real or tangible value – we must separate our personal beliefs, choices, wants, needs, desires and wishes from the public domain of the law and society. In this case, the movie theater proprietor – Nico Jacobellis, manager of the Heights Art Theatre in Coventry Village, Cleveland Heights, Ohio – was accused, tried and convicted of disseminating obscene material, to wit, the French film called "Les Amants" ("The Lovers") that portrayed an objectionable (some might say natural) love scene toward the end of the movie. I raise this case as particularly illustrative of the key elements noted above. A conventional movie theater, as in the Jacobellis case, is a quasi-public place in that it is not a subscription, membership, or closed club; however, a fee is paid to enter. A patron of such establishments makes a free and conscious choice to pay the fee, walk in and sit down; he also chooses to stay. No one has forced him to watch the movie. No children have innocently found themselves in the theater. The law at the time sought to restrict access to such forms of expression for all citizens. If a citizen disapproved of such expression, the proper response should be avoidance, not prohibition by law. If a community objects, it should have been some neutral, unbiased, informative descriptor to allow patrons to judge for themselves whether they wished to enter or allow their children to join them. But, no, the law sought that decision for every citizen regardless of a citizen’s right to free and private choice. In the first of the Supreme Court’s string of obscenity rulings – Butler v. Michigan [352 U.S. 380 (1957)] – Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter, writing the Court’s opinion, said, “The incidence of this enactment [the law at issue] is to reduce the adult population of Michigan to reading only what is fit for children. It thereby arbitrarily curtails one of those liberties of the individual, now enshrined in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, that history has attested as the indispensable conditions for the maintenance and progress of a free society.” Disapproval of content where there is no public harm, or personal objection or offense where a citizen is given the opportunity of free choice cannot and must not be the basis for public law. Reading, watching or listening to what any citizen deems as obscene . . . quite like gambling, or prostitution, or ingestion of psychotropic substances . . . are free choices by informed and responsible citizens, in which there is no public harm. Thus, each of us should make our choices and leave other citizens to exercise their freedom of choice as they wish. As a closing note, Jacobellis was the case where Associate Justice Potter Stewart, writing a concurring opinion, said regarding the movie in question and obscenity in general, “But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that” – ah, the eye of the beholder, what an intriguing concept.
Comments and contributions from Update no.296:
"Thanks for not going on about Barry Bonds. Every time I turned on ESPN or the Baseball Channel on my XM that's all I freakin' heard about . . . that and how we should all bow down and kiss the NY Yankees' asses.
"To an extent, I don't find myself on the side that Barry Bonds cheated. It takes more than just pure strength to hit a HR (though it does help). While I'm no expert, I look at it from the point he's putting something into his body that will help in the short term, but lead to all sorts of problems in the long run, as seems to be the case with so many pro wrestlers dying before they reach the age of 50. Plus, how many high school and college athletes will look at Barry's accomplishments and decide the only way to succeed in sports is to pump this crap into their bodies? Another unfortunate side effect is the belief by many in this country that if one does it, they all do it. I think it's safe to say that with nearly 800 players in MLB, each with different personalities and beliefs, not everyone does it. Baseball should have done a better job handling this when all this started to surface. But Bud Selig, like the UN, dragged his feet, made a quick statement about it every now and then, and hoped the problem would go away. Plus he probably figured anything he came up with would be shot down by the MLB Borg, I mean, Players Union. He had to be dragged before Congress before the dipstick came up with even a half-assed policy regarding steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. On top of that, Barry Bonds is, plain and simple, an a-hole. Give me someone like Cal Ripken, Jr. any day, a Hall of Famer who, by all accounts, is a very modest, soft spoken man who has done great things for youth sports. Listen to his show Weekend mornings on XM. Very enjoyable.
"To the wackos who have a problem with Redbook offering sex advice . . . no one is forcing you to buy the stupid magazine. Just like no one is forcing you to watch internet porn or buy Grand Theft Auto games or listen to Motorhead or eat meat. If there is an activity you don't like, don't do it! Go ahead and speak out about how you think it's bad. That's fine. It's when you want to enact laws about it that I really start to have a problem."
My response:
As I said, Barry Bonds is beneath any expenditure of my time. In my book, he is entitled to do whatever he wishes to his body, and I am entitled to ignore him. I would probably feel differently if Barry had stood up like a man and said, yes, I did x-y-z to improve my performance, to make the game more exciting and entertaining, and to bring fans back to the ballparks after the 1994 players' strike. Playing games with words to skirt his accountability is no different from Slick Willy Clinton’s “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is,’ is.”
I have mixed feelings regarding substance abuse in Major League Baseball or any other sport or entertainment field where the profit motive will lead players/actors to self-destruction. Our entertainment is not a valid rationale. How is this any different from gladiators in a fight to the death? These guys are shortening their lives for our entertainment.
Freedom of choice is a powerful right we tend to take for granted. The really sad part of all this rampant "moral projection" we face . . . so many people seem perfectly willing to take away everyone else's freedom of choice to validate their moral values. And, what is worse, the rest of us are quite content allowing a powerful and/or vocal minority take away other folks freedom of choice as long as they don’t come after ours. Then, what is even more disgusting than that, so many of those who seek to live everyone else's lives are not as morally pure as they profess in public. I am reminded of that famous Shakespearean line, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Another contribution:
"Good on you for reading Le Monde Diplomatique. Has a lot of interesting stuff -- as does Le Monde. Régis Debray is a French intellectual . . . originally a supporter of Che, but has wisened up a bit. Good stuff and concur on your take."
My response:
You run in interesting circles, my friend. A lot of folks were supporters of Che's, like our dear ol' friend, Father Fidel. Glad to see Debray has seen the light.
A relevant contribution from a different threat that began with recounting some of Slick Willy Clinton's history:
"Being a career Military guy I have seen this MANY times. It IS sickening. But It's History, and apparently the American people did not care about that aspect of his background enough to defeat him for the Presidency-----TWICE.
"Maybe because we were, as a Country, just trying to put the Vietnam War and all it's many varied 'things' behind us. THINGS meaning almost totally BAD things. But by this time Vietnam had been over for 'X' years.
"Let's just go on since we cannot change what has already happened.
"So they got 'BILL CLINTON' as their next President, and Hillary as 1st Lady. President Bush #1 did not believe his advisors who told him what things he should emphasize in his bid for a 2nd term. He kept harping on 'Stay the Course -- We are doing fine.' He was out of touch with what the American people were REALLY concerned about. Bill Clinton was NOT out of touch. He trashed Bush #1 in the election. And Bush went back to his ranch in Texas flabbergasted that he could have lost. But he'd been told EARLY ON. Apparently did not believe it.
"IN MY OPINION THESE TWO CLINTONS ARE A COUPLE OF THE BEST POLITICIANS THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN. Notice I did NOT say best suited for their new jobs.
"They did their thing for an amazing 8 years. The most allowed by law. Thank God!!!
"But----
"NOW, his wife, the former First Lady, and now a U.S. Senator, (having figured out the best way to MAYBE gaining the White House back in her OWN RIGHT), is running for the Presidency Herself. AND has a very good chance of winning the White House. Thus, if it happens, putting herself and Bill back in very familiar grounds for at least 4 years. Possibly 8 years.
"But putting the American people, and to a great extent the World -- where???
"Don't Poo-Poo this message please. It can happen. Maybe easier than you think.
"Why? Mainly, I think, because our now Pres[ident] Bush has so screwed up his own Presidency. He started out great. After 9/11 he took the offensive and set after the enemy as the enemy was defined to him. He took our country to a war which may have been ideologically good, needed, BUT which his best advisors, except a very few who would follow him to almost to Hell, and then try to wiggle out from under their commitment, advised him against.
"A good Leader always listens very carefully to his Troops, and is ready to truly follow their advice. They are on the front lines -- not him. They are experienced in war -- usually not him. They have been chosen, over time, due to expertise and experience to lead the Military. Not him. That does not mean he WILL follow their advice, but he SURELY will give it his best consideration and maybe ONLY when he knows something very significant in a much bigger 'picture,' IF he is the normal President. Or at least the one we would like to have as our Commander-in-Chief.
"Another 4-8 years of Clintons in the White House? Think about that. Think about that very seriously."
My reply:
As much as I have hammered Slick Willy Clinton, he pales in comparison to Jimmy Carter in terms of damage to this Grand Republic. And, if the Republicans present another far-right, moral-projectionist like W., Hillary will get my vote. I have no desire to endure a polarizing entity like W., period. However, since I have no influence over the party primary and selection process, I shall keep my powder dry until the parties make their selections.
Another timely opinion:
"Sometime in the next month, there will be the September 'come to Jesus' meeting and report from the Bush White House and General Petraeus regarding the results of the ‘surge.’ Considering the lack of candor from this administration, and their recently disclosed efforts to 'manage'" the analysis of General Petraeus, I am not terribly sanguine that the American public will hear the truth any more than they have since the initial invasion.
"As you know, I have opposed the neoconservative inspired invasion of Iraq from the beginning. Disregard all of the rationales offered to the American public--weapons of mass destruction, ties to al-Qaeda and September 11, 2001, Sadaam Hussein's destabilizing influence on the Middle East, establishing an example of democracy -- and understand that Bush's advisors suggested that we needed to have a permanent presence in the Middle East, with whatever pretext was necessary, to influence Islamic nations in the pursuit of American interests. Wise men, intelligent men, well-educated men (and they are mostly men) ignored the lessons of history when this invasion was planned, because, for the NeoCons, history had come to an end (see Fukuyama). The U.S.A. needed to establish its dominance while the rest of the world could not challenge us. Our time to alter the world for the good was limited. In this perspective, 9/11 was a good thing. It created an enormously strong coalition comprised of the American people (rarely united), and a host of nations (rarely supportive) that backed the United States in our response to the attack by al-Qaeda.
"Admirable goals in many respects. It is in the interest of the United States and every country in the world, even those who support Islamic fascism, to stop the blood-letting. In myth and history, the pyrrhic victory satisfies only the most rabid followers of ideologies/theologies. One can claim only a hollow victory when all the participants are dead or rendered irrelevant. To spread the ideals of pluralism and tolerance and popular participation in government are admirable, but to use the instruments of war to do so are tantamount to a rapist's notion of love. It also mistakes the instrumental implementation of democracy as an end when it is simply a means to an end. Democracy brought Hitler to power. Democracy has given Hugo Chavez a voice. Democracy in the Middle East gives power to Hamas and Hezbollah.
"America has not shown great skill in the twists and turns of diplomacy, nor in the ability to empathize with the 'other guy.' We are both complacent and arrogant in our approach to other nations and to those that disagree with us. Concomitant with our complacency and arrogance is our refusal to recognize that our policies are WRONG! Continuing to support the present Iraq government will only exacerbate the resentment of people in Iraq and in the region. It is time for a redeployment of our troops while the people of Iraq determine the direction of their nation. It is time for the United States to 'put up or shut up' -- to allow the instrument of democracy to take its course without our direction, and to show faith in our pronouncements. It is time to allow Iraqis to find their own path to government, which may be anathema to the United States. But it will be the Iraqi choice, not one imposed from the outside, unless, of course, the United States has set in place the influence of outsiders through our occupation.
"The 'Battle of Iraq' as you have eloquently stated, is only one part of the struggle against Islamic extremism or any extremism. We have been so distracted by this 'battle' that we have lost sight of the War. Every intelligence assessment suggests that the Battle of Iraq has diminished our capacity to fight the larger War, or has amplified the capacity of our opponent to counter our efforts. It is time to call it 'quits.' We need to retain a presence in Iraq, but we also need to turn the majority of combat/police operations over to the Iraqis, who are far more affected by the suicide attacks and the incompetence of their government than we are. Give the Iraqis a chance to police their own neighborhoods and stop treating them like dimwitted cousins. It is their country. We took out Sadaam Hussein and gave them a new beginning, and demonstrated with our lives, and our dollars, and our efforts that we will support them."
My response:
Thank you for expressing your opinion on the Battle for Iraq. I share your views to a certain extent. I have also expressed my opinions from the get-go. We are approaching that point of enough-is-enough, if we’ve not already passed it long ago. I shall make no attempt to rationalize or support the choices and decisions of the present administration. I still believe Iraq was a near perfect choice of battlefield. However, in short, Bush, Rummie, Wolfie, and the others caused far greater loss and injury in the Battle for Iraq, by their decisions, principally trying to fight the War on Islamic Fascism (including the Battles for Iraq and Afghanistan) on the cheap. As a lesson, and there are many lessons from this fiasco, if any administration is not prepared to wage war successfully and completely, then we should not pull the trigger, and we should quietly suffer the abuse of those who intend to do us harm or do harm to others. If we only allowed leaders who are good people, we would never need a powerful military. But, as long as there are bad men who seek power over others, then we must maintain the most powerful military in our time and not shy away from using it. That said, we have done the best we can with the conditions Rummie set. There is no doubt in my little pea-brain that al-Qaeda has inflicted enormous pain and suffering on the Iraqi people to achieve their objectives in their fight with the United States. Iran and Syria sought their own hegemonic objectives in the cesspool that the Battle for Iraq has become. Thus, just as the South Vietnamese people suffered terribly in the aftermath of our withdrawal from RVN, so now, the Iraqis will suffer more as we withdraw. Such are the miseries of life. W. shall bear this cross for the rest of his days. Yet, there is good in this battle, despite the mismanagement of the administration, but only time shall tell the story of history on whether Iraq survives as a nation and the roots of democracy have grown sufficiently to sustain the country.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
"NOW, his wife, the former First Lady, and now a U.S. Senator, (having figured out the best way to MAYBE gaining the White House back in her OWN RIGHT), is running for the Presidency Herself. AND has a very good chance of winning the White House. Thus, if it happens, putting herself and Bill back in very familiar grounds for at least 4 years. Possibly 8 years.
"But putting the American people, and to a great extent the World -- where???
"Don't Poo-Poo this message please. It can happen. Maybe easier than you think.
"Why? Mainly, I think, because our now Pres[ident] Bush has so screwed up his own Presidency. He started out great. After 9/11 he took the offensive and set after the enemy as the enemy was defined to him. He took our country to a war which may have been ideologically good, needed, BUT which his best advisors, except a very few who would follow him to almost to Hell, and then try to wiggle out from under their commitment, advised him against.
"A good Leader always listens very carefully to his Troops, and is ready to truly follow their advice. They are on the front lines -- not him. They are experienced in war -- usually not him. They have been chosen, over time, due to expertise and experience to lead the Military. Not him. That does not mean he WILL follow their advice, but he SURELY will give it his best consideration and maybe ONLY when he knows something very significant in a much bigger 'picture,' IF he is the normal President. Or at least the one we would like to have as our Commander-in-Chief.
"Another 4-8 years of Clintons in the White House? Think about that. Think about that very seriously."
My reply:
As much as I have hammered Slick Willy Clinton, he pales in comparison to Jimmy Carter in terms of damage to this Grand Republic. And, if the Republicans present another far-right, moral-projectionist like W., Hillary will get my vote. I have no desire to endure a polarizing entity like W., period. However, since I have no influence over the party primary and selection process, I shall keep my powder dry until the parties make their selections.
Another timely opinion:
"Sometime in the next month, there will be the September 'come to Jesus' meeting and report from the Bush White House and General Petraeus regarding the results of the ‘surge.’ Considering the lack of candor from this administration, and their recently disclosed efforts to 'manage'" the analysis of General Petraeus, I am not terribly sanguine that the American public will hear the truth any more than they have since the initial invasion.
"As you know, I have opposed the neoconservative inspired invasion of Iraq from the beginning. Disregard all of the rationales offered to the American public--weapons of mass destruction, ties to al-Qaeda and September 11, 2001, Sadaam Hussein's destabilizing influence on the Middle East, establishing an example of democracy -- and understand that Bush's advisors suggested that we needed to have a permanent presence in the Middle East, with whatever pretext was necessary, to influence Islamic nations in the pursuit of American interests. Wise men, intelligent men, well-educated men (and they are mostly men) ignored the lessons of history when this invasion was planned, because, for the NeoCons, history had come to an end (see Fukuyama). The U.S.A. needed to establish its dominance while the rest of the world could not challenge us. Our time to alter the world for the good was limited. In this perspective, 9/11 was a good thing. It created an enormously strong coalition comprised of the American people (rarely united), and a host of nations (rarely supportive) that backed the United States in our response to the attack by al-Qaeda.
"Admirable goals in many respects. It is in the interest of the United States and every country in the world, even those who support Islamic fascism, to stop the blood-letting. In myth and history, the pyrrhic victory satisfies only the most rabid followers of ideologies/theologies. One can claim only a hollow victory when all the participants are dead or rendered irrelevant. To spread the ideals of pluralism and tolerance and popular participation in government are admirable, but to use the instruments of war to do so are tantamount to a rapist's notion of love. It also mistakes the instrumental implementation of democracy as an end when it is simply a means to an end. Democracy brought Hitler to power. Democracy has given Hugo Chavez a voice. Democracy in the Middle East gives power to Hamas and Hezbollah.
"America has not shown great skill in the twists and turns of diplomacy, nor in the ability to empathize with the 'other guy.' We are both complacent and arrogant in our approach to other nations and to those that disagree with us. Concomitant with our complacency and arrogance is our refusal to recognize that our policies are WRONG! Continuing to support the present Iraq government will only exacerbate the resentment of people in Iraq and in the region. It is time for a redeployment of our troops while the people of Iraq determine the direction of their nation. It is time for the United States to 'put up or shut up' -- to allow the instrument of democracy to take its course without our direction, and to show faith in our pronouncements. It is time to allow Iraqis to find their own path to government, which may be anathema to the United States. But it will be the Iraqi choice, not one imposed from the outside, unless, of course, the United States has set in place the influence of outsiders through our occupation.
"The 'Battle of Iraq' as you have eloquently stated, is only one part of the struggle against Islamic extremism or any extremism. We have been so distracted by this 'battle' that we have lost sight of the War. Every intelligence assessment suggests that the Battle of Iraq has diminished our capacity to fight the larger War, or has amplified the capacity of our opponent to counter our efforts. It is time to call it 'quits.' We need to retain a presence in Iraq, but we also need to turn the majority of combat/police operations over to the Iraqis, who are far more affected by the suicide attacks and the incompetence of their government than we are. Give the Iraqis a chance to police their own neighborhoods and stop treating them like dimwitted cousins. It is their country. We took out Sadaam Hussein and gave them a new beginning, and demonstrated with our lives, and our dollars, and our efforts that we will support them."
My response:
Thank you for expressing your opinion on the Battle for Iraq. I share your views to a certain extent. I have also expressed my opinions from the get-go. We are approaching that point of enough-is-enough, if we’ve not already passed it long ago. I shall make no attempt to rationalize or support the choices and decisions of the present administration. I still believe Iraq was a near perfect choice of battlefield. However, in short, Bush, Rummie, Wolfie, and the others caused far greater loss and injury in the Battle for Iraq, by their decisions, principally trying to fight the War on Islamic Fascism (including the Battles for Iraq and Afghanistan) on the cheap. As a lesson, and there are many lessons from this fiasco, if any administration is not prepared to wage war successfully and completely, then we should not pull the trigger, and we should quietly suffer the abuse of those who intend to do us harm or do harm to others. If we only allowed leaders who are good people, we would never need a powerful military. But, as long as there are bad men who seek power over others, then we must maintain the most powerful military in our time and not shy away from using it. That said, we have done the best we can with the conditions Rummie set. There is no doubt in my little pea-brain that al-Qaeda has inflicted enormous pain and suffering on the Iraqi people to achieve their objectives in their fight with the United States. Iran and Syria sought their own hegemonic objectives in the cesspool that the Battle for Iraq has become. Thus, just as the South Vietnamese people suffered terribly in the aftermath of our withdrawal from RVN, so now, the Iraqis will suffer more as we withdraw. Such are the miseries of life. W. shall bear this cross for the rest of his days. Yet, there is good in this battle, despite the mismanagement of the administration, but only time shall tell the story of history on whether Iraq survives as a nation and the roots of democracy have grown sufficiently to sustain the country.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment