Update from the Heartland
No.318
7.1.08 – 13.1.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.318
7.1.08 – 13.1.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- In his victory speech after the New Hampshire primary, Senator John McCain said, “We are the makers of history, not its victims.” Ding!
-- Sir Edmund Percival Hillary, KG, ONZ, KBE, passed away on the 11th. Sir Edmund and Nepalese Sherpa mountaineer Tenzing Norgay, became history when they reached the pinnacle of Terra Firma on 29.May.1953. May God rest their souls.
On Sunday, 6.January, five Iranian speed boats approached three U.S. Navy warships transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Repeated radio warnings were issued by the U.S. ships. There were also threatened radio calls from unknown sources to blow up the American warships. Whether the Iranians or anyone on those boats actually made those radio transmissions is irrelevant. Given the environment and the nature of the times, I imagine all those warships were at General Quarters and their guns and weapons loaded. As with any potential fight, the threat vector versus the response time determines when we strike, i.e., if the captain knew those boats possessed weapons or explosive that could have an effect on the safety of his ship and crew, then he must keep those boats from entering an effects zone. I suspect those boats came very close to being disintegrated. I am amazed the captains showed the restraint they did. Let us not forget the attacks on the USS The Sullivans (DDG-68) and the USS Cole (DDG-67), both in 2000. If those Iranians had been kids out on a joyride and the Navy captains had opened fire, I would say, to bad so sad . . . next time don’t play games with folks who have big guns that are loaded and cocked. Lastly, I believe this latest confrontation was a planned, intentional act to test the U.S. Navy. As such, I think the Iranians got an answer and were damn lucky they did not die obtaining it.
Every once in a while, we hear talk about apologies for slavery or paying some incalculable reparations for the injustice of slavery. Please pardon my gauche crassness, but I feel no such compulsion simply because my skin lacks pigmentation. Likewise, brow-beating today’s Germans into apologizing for the Holocaust is equally ludicrous. These examples of political correctness gone stark-raving mad are silly notions of faux collective remorse that remind me of the debilitating and humiliating reparations heaped upon the German populace in toto at predominately French insistence, as a punitive consequence of the death and destruction on their soil from 1914 to 1918; we fought a much greater war as a consequence. Do I regret that my ancestors had to fight in the Civil War to end slavery and preserve the Union? Yes! But, I am thankful we had a President and a generation with the courage to do what had to be done; their blood and sacrifice may not seem sufficient to the descendents of enslaved Americans, but I respectfully submit . . . the price was more than ample. While I cannot claim to have stood side-by-side with Martin Luther King and our fellow citizens seeking equality a 100 years after emancipation, I did my part in little ways to further equality regardless of any of the social factors; and I continue to speak out against injustice. However, offering apologies for events 60 or 150 years ago is simply nonsense, no matter how well-intentioned.
Since I am on an ‘indication’ roll this week, I illuminate another case to be heard before the Supreme Court – Crawford v. Marion County Election Board [7CCA nos. 06-2218, 06-2317 (2007)] – the voter identification case. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling was actually a petition by the plaintiffs for a rehearing that was rejected. Of note is the dissenting opinion of Circuit Judge Diane Pamela Wood; the crude over-statement offered by Judge Wood emotionalizes an already sensitive and charged political issue. Since the Appeals Court rejected the plaintiffs’ petition and thus affirmed the lower court’s decision, the key judicial argument rests, for the time-being, in the ruling of U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker (Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division) in the case of Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita [USDC SDIN no. 1:05-cv-00634-SEB-VSS (2006)]. In finding for the defendants (the State), Judge Barker wrote a scathing condemnation of the poor legal argument by the plaintiffs’ group. One sentence from the 113 page decision seems to sum up Judge Barker’s opinion; she wrote, “This litigation is the result of a partisan legislative disagreement that has spilled out of the state house into the courts.” We should have the ruling of the Supremes this spring, and I imagine it will be interesting and enlightening. I suspect the Court will affirm in their juris prudence, Judge Barker’s decision. In my humble, lay opinion, Judge Barker hit the nail squarely and soundly. The plaintiffs’ arguments were weak, transparent, shallow and otherwise colored in an obvious political bias that stank of the old days of Tammany Hall and Mayor Daly’s (the father) Chicago political machine – vote early & vote often. In my humble opinion, we need positive (usually photographic) identification for many tasks in modern life; voting is an important task that demands positive, fair, unencumbered exercise by each individual citizen. What is even more tragic in this voter ID kerfuffle is the reporting of the New York Times, which used two examples of voters who were alienated by the identification requirement, implying they were part of the legal action cited above and thus examples of why voter identification is bad. After reading both rulings, I did a text search for any version of the two cases cited by the Times – any guesses – nothing, nada, niente. My only conclusion, the Times seeks to enflame the political emotions rather than properly inform their readership. A goodly portion of my voting has been by absentee-ballot since I was often out of the country, on a road-trip, or otherwise unable to vote at my precinct polling station. Further, my mother is a good contrarian example to those cited in the Rokita case or by the New York Times; she has failing eyesight and reduced mobility, and yet she obtained a state photographic identification card (since she can no longer drive). She used to vote at a polling station, although never had to produce a photographic ID. For her, voting at the polling station has become an arduous task, so now, I help her complete the ballot before she signs it and mails it. Her condition is certainly worse than those cited, which leads me to believe this situation is political parochialism at its very worst. I do not want to make this discussion anymore parochial and politically biased than it already is, however, it sure does seem that the Democrats and their supporters inherently distrust government poll workers and unequivocally trust individual citizens – of course no citizen would attempt to fraudulently vote. We can only hope the Supremes affirm Crawford and thus affirm Rokita, so we can move on to proper, fair, accurate elections.
Comments and contributions from Update no.317:
"I must give my wife credit for this observation, but I need to share as I find it quite disconcerting myself. Has anyone else even recognized Bill's commentary during the campaign or press stops which always start out with "I..."? Who really is running for office?"
My reply:
I was not as observant as your wife. I’d say she was spot on the money. Good on her.
Another contribution:
"You need not worry about having to promote heroin for kids in vending machines to be a libertarian. James Taranto needs a lesson in defining a libertarian or perhaps he was just taking journalistic license. Describing a true libertarian as one type in favor of heroin in vending machines for kids is ridiculous and ignorant. I know of no libertarians who would advocate children buying heroin from a vending machine. His analogy is like saying to be a true democrat one must be a far left Marxist or to be a true republican one must be a far right radical evangelical Christian. Libertarians come in different sizes too. While I do not belong to the libertarian party given I'm a committed independent, I do agree with many of their positions including legalizing and regulating drugs, just as we do in alcohol. To do otherwise is to be a hypocrite keeping the courts full of users, instead of going after real criminals. Libertarians, as noted on their party website (http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml), are socially tolerant, want smaller government, and more freedom. But nowhere can I find any of them promoting radical views such as the heroin in vending machines depicts, even though there may be a few nuts out there that do. More likely most of them are in the John Stossel mold with a healthy dose of common sense. To say otherwise makes for an interesting WSJ article, but also promotes 'never let the truth stand in the say of a good story.'"
My response:
I used that Taranto quote for several reasons: 1.) to show how ludicrous and extreme some pundits can be, and 2.) to raise the issue of legalizing drugs again.
I can’t imagine any rational, caring, human being supporting such a radical notion as heroin vending machines accessible by children. As you note, it is like suggesting all Democrats are radical, theoretical Communists. I remain convinced, perhaps naively so, that the vast majority of American citizens populate the political middle, and yet, we have allowed parochial party politics to dominate the electoral and governance processes. Until the vast body of American moderates have demonstrated their dissatisfaction and rejection of parochial party politics, this kind of nonsense will not likely change. We need a transcendent leader to unify the Nation; I do not see that leader on detectable horizon.
I share many libertarian views: smaller, less intrusive government, greater freedom and commensurate personal accountability, and recognition of a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice.
Given the performance of ALL the candidates to date, we are not likely to realize libertarian objectives anytime soon. Ron Paul is the closest, but frankly, he reminds me more of a quirky, eccentric scientist than a legitimate national leader; I like some of the things he espouses, but he is no more trustworthy than any of the rest of them.
I truly, sincerely and genuinely believe legalization of drugs would improve our crime situation, reduce the prison population, and improve our general culture and society. Sure, there will be abusers, but history and experience with other intoxicants indicate they will be a miniscule minority that can be properly dealt with. Our current state has not worked, will not work, and can never be successful as long as the State places itself above the individual. We seem to have forgotten that We, the People, created this Grand Republic. Drug use like alcohol is a broadly self-limiting phenomenon.
. . . and this follow-up comment:
"Well said and agreed. Our cupboard of leaders is bare this time and has been going downhill for some years due to partisan backbiting. I'm interested in the meeting in Norman, OK, where supposed nonpartisan talks are going on. We'll see if any meaningful results can be promoted beyond posturing and sniping.
"And, the legalization of drugs is a must for us to get past being hypocrites and set about managing it. Only then will we have a chance to combat it effectively."
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The follow-up news items:
-- In his victory speech after the New Hampshire primary, Senator John McCain said, “We are the makers of history, not its victims.” Ding!
-- Sir Edmund Percival Hillary, KG, ONZ, KBE, passed away on the 11th. Sir Edmund and Nepalese Sherpa mountaineer Tenzing Norgay, became history when they reached the pinnacle of Terra Firma on 29.May.1953. May God rest their souls.
On Sunday, 6.January, five Iranian speed boats approached three U.S. Navy warships transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Repeated radio warnings were issued by the U.S. ships. There were also threatened radio calls from unknown sources to blow up the American warships. Whether the Iranians or anyone on those boats actually made those radio transmissions is irrelevant. Given the environment and the nature of the times, I imagine all those warships were at General Quarters and their guns and weapons loaded. As with any potential fight, the threat vector versus the response time determines when we strike, i.e., if the captain knew those boats possessed weapons or explosive that could have an effect on the safety of his ship and crew, then he must keep those boats from entering an effects zone. I suspect those boats came very close to being disintegrated. I am amazed the captains showed the restraint they did. Let us not forget the attacks on the USS The Sullivans (DDG-68) and the USS Cole (DDG-67), both in 2000. If those Iranians had been kids out on a joyride and the Navy captains had opened fire, I would say, to bad so sad . . . next time don’t play games with folks who have big guns that are loaded and cocked. Lastly, I believe this latest confrontation was a planned, intentional act to test the U.S. Navy. As such, I think the Iranians got an answer and were damn lucky they did not die obtaining it.
Every once in a while, we hear talk about apologies for slavery or paying some incalculable reparations for the injustice of slavery. Please pardon my gauche crassness, but I feel no such compulsion simply because my skin lacks pigmentation. Likewise, brow-beating today’s Germans into apologizing for the Holocaust is equally ludicrous. These examples of political correctness gone stark-raving mad are silly notions of faux collective remorse that remind me of the debilitating and humiliating reparations heaped upon the German populace in toto at predominately French insistence, as a punitive consequence of the death and destruction on their soil from 1914 to 1918; we fought a much greater war as a consequence. Do I regret that my ancestors had to fight in the Civil War to end slavery and preserve the Union? Yes! But, I am thankful we had a President and a generation with the courage to do what had to be done; their blood and sacrifice may not seem sufficient to the descendents of enslaved Americans, but I respectfully submit . . . the price was more than ample. While I cannot claim to have stood side-by-side with Martin Luther King and our fellow citizens seeking equality a 100 years after emancipation, I did my part in little ways to further equality regardless of any of the social factors; and I continue to speak out against injustice. However, offering apologies for events 60 or 150 years ago is simply nonsense, no matter how well-intentioned.
Since I am on an ‘indication’ roll this week, I illuminate another case to be heard before the Supreme Court – Crawford v. Marion County Election Board [7CCA nos. 06-2218, 06-2317 (2007)] – the voter identification case. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling was actually a petition by the plaintiffs for a rehearing that was rejected. Of note is the dissenting opinion of Circuit Judge Diane Pamela Wood; the crude over-statement offered by Judge Wood emotionalizes an already sensitive and charged political issue. Since the Appeals Court rejected the plaintiffs’ petition and thus affirmed the lower court’s decision, the key judicial argument rests, for the time-being, in the ruling of U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker (Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division) in the case of Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita [USDC SDIN no. 1:05-cv-00634-SEB-VSS (2006)]. In finding for the defendants (the State), Judge Barker wrote a scathing condemnation of the poor legal argument by the plaintiffs’ group. One sentence from the 113 page decision seems to sum up Judge Barker’s opinion; she wrote, “This litigation is the result of a partisan legislative disagreement that has spilled out of the state house into the courts.” We should have the ruling of the Supremes this spring, and I imagine it will be interesting and enlightening. I suspect the Court will affirm in their juris prudence, Judge Barker’s decision. In my humble, lay opinion, Judge Barker hit the nail squarely and soundly. The plaintiffs’ arguments were weak, transparent, shallow and otherwise colored in an obvious political bias that stank of the old days of Tammany Hall and Mayor Daly’s (the father) Chicago political machine – vote early & vote often. In my humble opinion, we need positive (usually photographic) identification for many tasks in modern life; voting is an important task that demands positive, fair, unencumbered exercise by each individual citizen. What is even more tragic in this voter ID kerfuffle is the reporting of the New York Times, which used two examples of voters who were alienated by the identification requirement, implying they were part of the legal action cited above and thus examples of why voter identification is bad. After reading both rulings, I did a text search for any version of the two cases cited by the Times – any guesses – nothing, nada, niente. My only conclusion, the Times seeks to enflame the political emotions rather than properly inform their readership. A goodly portion of my voting has been by absentee-ballot since I was often out of the country, on a road-trip, or otherwise unable to vote at my precinct polling station. Further, my mother is a good contrarian example to those cited in the Rokita case or by the New York Times; she has failing eyesight and reduced mobility, and yet she obtained a state photographic identification card (since she can no longer drive). She used to vote at a polling station, although never had to produce a photographic ID. For her, voting at the polling station has become an arduous task, so now, I help her complete the ballot before she signs it and mails it. Her condition is certainly worse than those cited, which leads me to believe this situation is political parochialism at its very worst. I do not want to make this discussion anymore parochial and politically biased than it already is, however, it sure does seem that the Democrats and their supporters inherently distrust government poll workers and unequivocally trust individual citizens – of course no citizen would attempt to fraudulently vote. We can only hope the Supremes affirm Crawford and thus affirm Rokita, so we can move on to proper, fair, accurate elections.
Comments and contributions from Update no.317:
"I must give my wife credit for this observation, but I need to share as I find it quite disconcerting myself. Has anyone else even recognized Bill's commentary during the campaign or press stops which always start out with "I..."? Who really is running for office?"
My reply:
I was not as observant as your wife. I’d say she was spot on the money. Good on her.
Another contribution:
"You need not worry about having to promote heroin for kids in vending machines to be a libertarian. James Taranto needs a lesson in defining a libertarian or perhaps he was just taking journalistic license. Describing a true libertarian as one type in favor of heroin in vending machines for kids is ridiculous and ignorant. I know of no libertarians who would advocate children buying heroin from a vending machine. His analogy is like saying to be a true democrat one must be a far left Marxist or to be a true republican one must be a far right radical evangelical Christian. Libertarians come in different sizes too. While I do not belong to the libertarian party given I'm a committed independent, I do agree with many of their positions including legalizing and regulating drugs, just as we do in alcohol. To do otherwise is to be a hypocrite keeping the courts full of users, instead of going after real criminals. Libertarians, as noted on their party website (http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml), are socially tolerant, want smaller government, and more freedom. But nowhere can I find any of them promoting radical views such as the heroin in vending machines depicts, even though there may be a few nuts out there that do. More likely most of them are in the John Stossel mold with a healthy dose of common sense. To say otherwise makes for an interesting WSJ article, but also promotes 'never let the truth stand in the say of a good story.'"
My response:
I used that Taranto quote for several reasons: 1.) to show how ludicrous and extreme some pundits can be, and 2.) to raise the issue of legalizing drugs again.
I can’t imagine any rational, caring, human being supporting such a radical notion as heroin vending machines accessible by children. As you note, it is like suggesting all Democrats are radical, theoretical Communists. I remain convinced, perhaps naively so, that the vast majority of American citizens populate the political middle, and yet, we have allowed parochial party politics to dominate the electoral and governance processes. Until the vast body of American moderates have demonstrated their dissatisfaction and rejection of parochial party politics, this kind of nonsense will not likely change. We need a transcendent leader to unify the Nation; I do not see that leader on detectable horizon.
I share many libertarian views: smaller, less intrusive government, greater freedom and commensurate personal accountability, and recognition of a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice.
Given the performance of ALL the candidates to date, we are not likely to realize libertarian objectives anytime soon. Ron Paul is the closest, but frankly, he reminds me more of a quirky, eccentric scientist than a legitimate national leader; I like some of the things he espouses, but he is no more trustworthy than any of the rest of them.
I truly, sincerely and genuinely believe legalization of drugs would improve our crime situation, reduce the prison population, and improve our general culture and society. Sure, there will be abusers, but history and experience with other intoxicants indicate they will be a miniscule minority that can be properly dealt with. Our current state has not worked, will not work, and can never be successful as long as the State places itself above the individual. We seem to have forgotten that We, the People, created this Grand Republic. Drug use like alcohol is a broadly self-limiting phenomenon.
. . . and this follow-up comment:
"Well said and agreed. Our cupboard of leaders is bare this time and has been going downhill for some years due to partisan backbiting. I'm interested in the meeting in Norman, OK, where supposed nonpartisan talks are going on. We'll see if any meaningful results can be promoted beyond posturing and sniping.
"And, the legalization of drugs is a must for us to get past being hypocrites and set about managing it. Only then will we have a chance to combat it effectively."
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment