Update from the Heartland
No.319
14.1.08 – 20.1.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.319
14.1.08 – 20.1.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
At this time of the year, we remember the life of an American citizen. A friend, colleague and contributor reminds us of the often overlooked immortal words written by Martin Luther King while he was incarcerated in the city jail of Birmingham, Alabama, on 16.April.1963. Among the multitude of words in his letter to fellow clergy, he said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," and later added, "We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed." I urge everyone to read or re-read Dr. King’s “Letter from the Birmingham Jail:”
http://www.thekingcenter.org/prog/non/Letter.pdf .
We are enriched by his life and words. May God rest his immortal soul.
The follow-up news items:
-- News Flash! The Islamic Republic of Iran has been the consistent and singular greatest state sponsor of terrorism since the Reagan administration. President Bush did not create the term or capriciously use the term; he only reiterated two plus decades of reality. Please see:
Ready, Kevin E., and Cap Parlier. TWA 800 – Accident or Incident? Ventura, CA: Saint Gaudens Press, 1998;
Appendices: A (pp.274-9), E (pp.348-75), F (pp.376-99), and G (pp.400-11).
-- The Navy issued its final accident report on the Blue Angels fatal crash in 2007 [281]. The pilot entered a high-speed, tight, rendezvous turn resulting in high G-forces than he could not physiologically overcome without a G-suit. According to the report, the Blues have had a medical waiver to fly without G-suits, which I view as akin to cutting the fingers off of Nomex flight gloves “for better feel” – more macho than necessary. Regardless, a good pilot is not longer with us.
-- The U.S. Air Force reported the November accident involving a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C Eagle [316] occurred as a result of the structural failure of a longeron just aft of the cockpit. From the public description of the failure, this appears to be a typical structural issue that can be remedied to full performance. Some reports suggest the Air Force may retire a significant fraction of the F-15 fleet. We shall see.
-- In the continuing debate regarding voter ID and as a follow-up to my opinion [318], I note a statement by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts; he said, "For too many years, American politics has been divided between two types of people: those who want more people to vote, and those who want fewer people to vote." Emotionalized political drivel such as this serves no purpose other than extending the division and insulation. I disagree with John and think this kerfuffle is about those who seek honest, accurate and fair elections and those who want to create votes for their partisan political goals in any conceivable manner. This issue is no different from all the other polarizing topics like anti-war, anti-abortion, anti-tax, anti-anything. Given our porous borders, abysmal illegal alien situation, a wartime enemy quite comfortable with infiltration, and a nefarious political element, positive prior eligibility has become the prudent course to protect our most sacred civic duty – voting. Post-election signature comparison is hardly a positive method and by definition, after the fact. In today’s world, we expect near-instant election results; waiting months for signature comparison to validate an election is obviously quite ludicrous. Like most Americans, I want every eligible citizen in good standing to vote, and we need a positive, prior, voter identification process. Let’s get on with it.
-- A California commercial company reported creating what would be history's first mature cloned human embryo from a single adult skin cell -- another potentially significant advancement in human molecular biology [146, et al]. While we should be celebrating such advances, my apprehension continues to rise. I would feel better if announcements like this one were coming from research or university facilities funded by Federal contracts, so that the techniques and details existed in the public domain.
As the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] approaches, the Right-side media lamented their familiar chant. I do not intend to bore anyone with further analysis of the important Supreme Court case. However, in my own little form of protest, I would like to add just two thoughts. Independent from the juris prudence content of Roe, the ruling exposes the true nature of the uber-Right. And, in reality, the uber-Right are not basically different from the uber-Left – they both want Big Government and Federalism – the only nuance is what they want it for. The uber-Left seeks distribution of wealth so that everyone is equal regardless of performance or contribution. The uber-Right seeks control over every aspect of every citizen’s life. Roe v. Wade is one of the landmark rulings regarding a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, a case that just happened to use abortion as the medium for the ruling. Second, the uber-Right has fomented civil disobedience in the name of religion using abortion as the cause célèbre to further their political objectives. The contradictions in the argument abound, and yet, they use the emotional issue of abortion and the broad ignorance of the People to enhance their political ambitions. There are appropriate political and legal compromise positions within reach, but the uber-Right smacks down any hand that even twitches toward seeking solution(s) because compromise does not support their goals. I can only hope that one day we will see through the façade of their argument. Our fundamental right to privacy is NOT a constitutional right, but it is part of our unalienable rights and thus protected by the 9th Amendment. To me, the attacks on Roe are attacks on our fundamental right to privacy and our freedom of choice . . . there you have it. As a male, objection to Roe and to the consequences of Roe would be easy, after all pregnancy does not affect my body; however, the same argument can be made for racist discriminatory laws prevalent a 100 years ago or sexist ‘glass ceiling’ employment practices, since they do not affect me either. I still advocate compromise . . . to find a solution that achieves the desired result without imposing upon any citizen’s fundamental right to privacy. We can find that common point, if we only choose search for it.
As if H.Res 847 [316] was not bad enough, Representative James Randy Forbes of Virginia has introduced House Resolution 888 (H.Res 888) – another foolish religious dictum from the House of Representatives. To begin with the ending, H.Res 888 states:
“Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives----
“(1) affirms the rich spiritual and diverse religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history, including up to the current day;
“(2) recognizes that the religious foundations of faith on which America was built are critical underpinnings of our Nation's most valuable institutions and form the inseparable foundation for America's representative processes, legal systems, and societal structures;
“(3) rejects, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure, or purposely omit such history from our Nation's public buildings and educational resources; and
“(4) expresses support for designation of a `American Religious History Week' every year for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith.”
Sounds innocuous and reasonable enough doesn’t it? The preceding “whereas” section reads like a litany of American Christian history. What H.Res 888 conspicuously fails to do is recognize other relevant facts of our history . . . that the ancestors of our Founders fled their historic homelands to escape religious persecution at the hands of parochial, religious zealots and Sovereigns; that the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment was created in the spirit of compromise to allow for tolerance of all religions and remove the weight of the State from religious affairs AND vice versa; and, that President Thomas Jefferson coined the term a “wall of separation between church and state” to acknowledge the basis of a secular State, able to embrace all religions. This is NOT a Christian Nation! This Grand Republic stands as a true beacon of freedom that must allow all religions to flourish as the free choice of assembled citizens so commonly inclined. I urge everyone to read H.Res 888 as if you were a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Jew or even an atheist or agnostic and imagine how you would feel regarding the practice of your chosen religion. Like H.Res 847, H.Res 888 is ill-advised and foolish in the extreme, regardless of lacking the weight of law – the tone is clear and WRONG! I do not need the State to affirm my religion, and I object in the strongest possible terms to the House’s admixture of religion and governance. We can recognize God’s hand in our unalienable Rights without imposing Christianity upon all free citizens. Religion is a matter of individual AND private choice, NOT a function or interest of the State.
Then, after the folly of H.Res 888 and H.Res 847, we have Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, now a presidential candidate, proclaiming that if elected president he would seek to amend the Constitution to be in accordance with "God's standards." Such language may play well with evangelical Christians, but it is a lightning rod for me. He went on to explain his remarks. Translated, Huckabee said he wants a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion (and presumably for the same reason, to prohibit any end-of-life, death-with-dignity state laws), and another amendment to supersede all the states in defining marriage as between one man and one woman only. Huckabee has demonstrated that he is quite comfortable using the full weight and power of the State to impose his beliefs upon the private affairs of all citizens, which raises the salient question of how far would he go? If abortion and marriage are acceptable areas for the State to intrude upon our private lives, then what about sex, or a state religion, or the food we can eat in our homes? One more thing about Huckabee that irritates me like fingernails on a blackboard is Huckabee’s repeated public statements to keep voters not for him away from the polls . . . a contemptible notion even as a joke. Like Sam Brownback before him, I hope I am not asked to vote for Mike Huckabee; he may be a passable Baptist preacher, but he is not worthy of the Office of President of the United States of America.
The evangelical Christian movement is, perhaps inadvertently if we give them the benefit of the doubt, making religion the racism of contemporary politics. I suppose being of the Christian faith must provide some comfort in today’s social debates like having Caucasian features during the days of slavery and segregation. I do not find comfort in the lack of pigmentation in my skin, or in my religion, or in my gender because the oppression of others is in reality the oppression of us all.
A recent Patriot Post (Vol.08 No.02 dated 7.January.2008) attributed the following statement to Tony Perkins -- President of the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council -- “You may remember that in October, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) signed SB 777, a sweeping pro-homosexual education bill, into law. Arguably the most devastating anti-family bill ever passed in California, SB 777 requires all curricula—even that of private schools—to treat homosexuality and heterosexuality ‘equally.’ Under this misguided mandate, teaching students about the benefits of traditional families will be considered discrimination. Schools will no longer be asked to tolerate but to advocate a lifestyle with devastating consequences to the public health and conscience. Among other things, history books will be required to include stories of ‘famous gays,’ literature assignments will feature homosexual influences, and sex education will include so-called ‘safe sex’ for ‘alternative’ lifestyles. A large coalition of parents and activists is doing all it can to stop the law from going into effect.” After reading such an apocalyptic and dire statement, my curiosity was peeked. Let it suffice to say, like the Crawford case [318] last week, both extremes are prone to exaggeration for political gain. I read the entire, boring text of California SB 777. Most of the law addresses the multitude of variations in the complex state education system. The salient and relevant sentence in SB 777 is, "No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation . . . ." Will anyone be surprised that SB 777 makes not a single mention ‘famous gays,’ ‘safe sex,’ ‘alternative lifestyles,’ or any other popular homophobic labels? Not one! They are products of Perkins' homophobic imagination apparently intended to enflame those who do not understand or choose not to understand those who are different from them. SB 777 seeks to ensure all students and employees are treated equally, regardless of the social factors; the law does nothing more than that, period.
The Telegraph [of London] reported on a move by the British government to allow hospitals to extract organs from deceased patients without explicit consent. We can argue such action by the State enhances the public good -- other lives can be saved -- a noble purpose. However, we do not have many clearer illustrations of the power of the State over the individual. I object!
In closing, I shall note a potentially significant Vermont court case against Sebastien Boucher, a Canadian citizen with a valid American work visa, who was arrested and charged with transporting child pornography. The case of U.S. v. Boucher may become a landmark ruling, not for the subject matter, but for the modern test of the 5th Amendment. The United States Government is seeking a judge's order forcing Boucher to relinquish his laptop's password. The 5th Amendment protects us against self-incrimination. I trust the court will defend the Constitution. We shall see.
Comments and contributions from Update no.318:
"'...political correctness gone stark-raving mad...'"
"I think you have described the notion quite superbly."
Another contribution:
"I wondered with the recent naval ship incident, why didn't they use that ear deafening sonar the cruise ships have to ward off potential terrorists/pirates??"
My reply:
The Iranian gunboats were surface craft. Sonar is subsurface, like radar underwater, and is acoustic rather than electromagnetic. I didn’t know cruise ships had sonar, but it sure would be effective against divers or underwater attackers. The warships involved in the incident have several weapons to deal with boats like those used by the Iranians. As I wrote, I am amazed they allowed those boats to get as close as they did. The restraint of the Navy captains suggests they were principally worried about conventional contact explosives rather projection weapons. Anyway, I agree with the President; the Iranian actions that day were provocative and dangerous.
An extension contribution regarding quasi-military contractors:
"Regarding private contractors, I thought you would appreciate this article. It articulates pretty well one of the major issues with private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan- lack of accountability. The author places much of the blame on DOJ, which really hasn’t been doing its job in prosecuting – even after laws were put on the books to let them do so. Had DOJ done it job, we likely wouldn’t be facing some of the problems we have. As you can see, he his focus is not on the private contractors, but on the USG and why it hasn’t done its job in a critical area.
"The author is a lawyer who is also an advisor to the New York Bar."
The article:
“Ending a Culture of Impunity for Contract Soldiers”
by Scott Horton
Harper’s Magazine
Published: January 16, 2008
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/01/hbc-90002153
citing:
“Private Security Contractors at War – Ending the Culture of Impunity”
Human Rights First
Copyright: 2008
http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/08115-usls-psc-final.pdf
My response:
The difficulty I have with the contractor issue is the induced dichotomy . . . peacetime, civil, juris prudence versus wartime military, paramilitary & quasi-military combat zone operations; and the tasks of reality versus a grossly undersized combat military. I am not advocating that anyone be above the law, but I am struggling with this silly notion of civilizing war – Abu Graib, Guantánamo, interrogation, intelligence collection, et al ad infinitum ad nauseum. These contractors, at least in some areas, are not law enforcement or even security guards; they are military surrogates. We put them there, in that situation, and now we seek to hold them to peacetime civil standards. I may be the only one, but I am still struggling.
. . . a follow-up comment:
"Actually, we aren't even holding them to wartime legal standards. There appear to no standards...and that isn't good for anybody, especially the contractors. The USG is ultimately responsible and it hasn't stepped up."
. . . and my follow-up reply:
Perhaps so. I am neither investigator nor judge. Yet, I do have an opinion. I choose not to condemn the combat decision of a young Marine in active combat who sees a wounded enemy as a threat and caps him. I choose not to judge a young Marine who senses a woman or child approaching him as a threat and eliminates them, whether they had a concealed bomb or weapon is irrelevant. Short of a Le Paradis or Malmédy class incident, I choose to trust the humanity of individual soldiers and small unit leaders. Will there be abused, mistakes, bad decisions . . . yes, absolutely. But, war is hell, and war is killing. Trying to civilize war is foolish. Case in point, using the criterion espoused by some today, Harry would be condemned as a war criminal for issuing the order to use Fat Man and Little Boy. I react to those who condemn Harry for silly, foolish reasons that have nothing to do with humanity but rather faux logic that seeks to end war. So, what happened in that intersection in Baghdad that day was a product of war, not murder! We should investigate contractor incidents, but prosecution?
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
At this time of the year, we remember the life of an American citizen. A friend, colleague and contributor reminds us of the often overlooked immortal words written by Martin Luther King while he was incarcerated in the city jail of Birmingham, Alabama, on 16.April.1963. Among the multitude of words in his letter to fellow clergy, he said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," and later added, "We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed." I urge everyone to read or re-read Dr. King’s “Letter from the Birmingham Jail:”
http://www.thekingcenter.org/prog/non/Letter.pdf .
We are enriched by his life and words. May God rest his immortal soul.
The follow-up news items:
-- News Flash! The Islamic Republic of Iran has been the consistent and singular greatest state sponsor of terrorism since the Reagan administration. President Bush did not create the term or capriciously use the term; he only reiterated two plus decades of reality. Please see:
Ready, Kevin E., and Cap Parlier. TWA 800 – Accident or Incident? Ventura, CA: Saint Gaudens Press, 1998;
Appendices: A (pp.274-9), E (pp.348-75), F (pp.376-99), and G (pp.400-11).
-- The Navy issued its final accident report on the Blue Angels fatal crash in 2007 [281]. The pilot entered a high-speed, tight, rendezvous turn resulting in high G-forces than he could not physiologically overcome without a G-suit. According to the report, the Blues have had a medical waiver to fly without G-suits, which I view as akin to cutting the fingers off of Nomex flight gloves “for better feel” – more macho than necessary. Regardless, a good pilot is not longer with us.
-- The U.S. Air Force reported the November accident involving a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C Eagle [316] occurred as a result of the structural failure of a longeron just aft of the cockpit. From the public description of the failure, this appears to be a typical structural issue that can be remedied to full performance. Some reports suggest the Air Force may retire a significant fraction of the F-15 fleet. We shall see.
-- In the continuing debate regarding voter ID and as a follow-up to my opinion [318], I note a statement by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts; he said, "For too many years, American politics has been divided between two types of people: those who want more people to vote, and those who want fewer people to vote." Emotionalized political drivel such as this serves no purpose other than extending the division and insulation. I disagree with John and think this kerfuffle is about those who seek honest, accurate and fair elections and those who want to create votes for their partisan political goals in any conceivable manner. This issue is no different from all the other polarizing topics like anti-war, anti-abortion, anti-tax, anti-anything. Given our porous borders, abysmal illegal alien situation, a wartime enemy quite comfortable with infiltration, and a nefarious political element, positive prior eligibility has become the prudent course to protect our most sacred civic duty – voting. Post-election signature comparison is hardly a positive method and by definition, after the fact. In today’s world, we expect near-instant election results; waiting months for signature comparison to validate an election is obviously quite ludicrous. Like most Americans, I want every eligible citizen in good standing to vote, and we need a positive, prior, voter identification process. Let’s get on with it.
-- A California commercial company reported creating what would be history's first mature cloned human embryo from a single adult skin cell -- another potentially significant advancement in human molecular biology [146, et al]. While we should be celebrating such advances, my apprehension continues to rise. I would feel better if announcements like this one were coming from research or university facilities funded by Federal contracts, so that the techniques and details existed in the public domain.
As the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] approaches, the Right-side media lamented their familiar chant. I do not intend to bore anyone with further analysis of the important Supreme Court case. However, in my own little form of protest, I would like to add just two thoughts. Independent from the juris prudence content of Roe, the ruling exposes the true nature of the uber-Right. And, in reality, the uber-Right are not basically different from the uber-Left – they both want Big Government and Federalism – the only nuance is what they want it for. The uber-Left seeks distribution of wealth so that everyone is equal regardless of performance or contribution. The uber-Right seeks control over every aspect of every citizen’s life. Roe v. Wade is one of the landmark rulings regarding a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, a case that just happened to use abortion as the medium for the ruling. Second, the uber-Right has fomented civil disobedience in the name of religion using abortion as the cause célèbre to further their political objectives. The contradictions in the argument abound, and yet, they use the emotional issue of abortion and the broad ignorance of the People to enhance their political ambitions. There are appropriate political and legal compromise positions within reach, but the uber-Right smacks down any hand that even twitches toward seeking solution(s) because compromise does not support their goals. I can only hope that one day we will see through the façade of their argument. Our fundamental right to privacy is NOT a constitutional right, but it is part of our unalienable rights and thus protected by the 9th Amendment. To me, the attacks on Roe are attacks on our fundamental right to privacy and our freedom of choice . . . there you have it. As a male, objection to Roe and to the consequences of Roe would be easy, after all pregnancy does not affect my body; however, the same argument can be made for racist discriminatory laws prevalent a 100 years ago or sexist ‘glass ceiling’ employment practices, since they do not affect me either. I still advocate compromise . . . to find a solution that achieves the desired result without imposing upon any citizen’s fundamental right to privacy. We can find that common point, if we only choose search for it.
As if H.Res 847 [316] was not bad enough, Representative James Randy Forbes of Virginia has introduced House Resolution 888 (H.Res 888) – another foolish religious dictum from the House of Representatives. To begin with the ending, H.Res 888 states:
“Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives----
“(1) affirms the rich spiritual and diverse religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history, including up to the current day;
“(2) recognizes that the religious foundations of faith on which America was built are critical underpinnings of our Nation's most valuable institutions and form the inseparable foundation for America's representative processes, legal systems, and societal structures;
“(3) rejects, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure, or purposely omit such history from our Nation's public buildings and educational resources; and
“(4) expresses support for designation of a `American Religious History Week' every year for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith.”
Sounds innocuous and reasonable enough doesn’t it? The preceding “whereas” section reads like a litany of American Christian history. What H.Res 888 conspicuously fails to do is recognize other relevant facts of our history . . . that the ancestors of our Founders fled their historic homelands to escape religious persecution at the hands of parochial, religious zealots and Sovereigns; that the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment was created in the spirit of compromise to allow for tolerance of all religions and remove the weight of the State from religious affairs AND vice versa; and, that President Thomas Jefferson coined the term a “wall of separation between church and state” to acknowledge the basis of a secular State, able to embrace all religions. This is NOT a Christian Nation! This Grand Republic stands as a true beacon of freedom that must allow all religions to flourish as the free choice of assembled citizens so commonly inclined. I urge everyone to read H.Res 888 as if you were a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Jew or even an atheist or agnostic and imagine how you would feel regarding the practice of your chosen religion. Like H.Res 847, H.Res 888 is ill-advised and foolish in the extreme, regardless of lacking the weight of law – the tone is clear and WRONG! I do not need the State to affirm my religion, and I object in the strongest possible terms to the House’s admixture of religion and governance. We can recognize God’s hand in our unalienable Rights without imposing Christianity upon all free citizens. Religion is a matter of individual AND private choice, NOT a function or interest of the State.
Then, after the folly of H.Res 888 and H.Res 847, we have Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, now a presidential candidate, proclaiming that if elected president he would seek to amend the Constitution to be in accordance with "God's standards." Such language may play well with evangelical Christians, but it is a lightning rod for me. He went on to explain his remarks. Translated, Huckabee said he wants a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion (and presumably for the same reason, to prohibit any end-of-life, death-with-dignity state laws), and another amendment to supersede all the states in defining marriage as between one man and one woman only. Huckabee has demonstrated that he is quite comfortable using the full weight and power of the State to impose his beliefs upon the private affairs of all citizens, which raises the salient question of how far would he go? If abortion and marriage are acceptable areas for the State to intrude upon our private lives, then what about sex, or a state religion, or the food we can eat in our homes? One more thing about Huckabee that irritates me like fingernails on a blackboard is Huckabee’s repeated public statements to keep voters not for him away from the polls . . . a contemptible notion even as a joke. Like Sam Brownback before him, I hope I am not asked to vote for Mike Huckabee; he may be a passable Baptist preacher, but he is not worthy of the Office of President of the United States of America.
The evangelical Christian movement is, perhaps inadvertently if we give them the benefit of the doubt, making religion the racism of contemporary politics. I suppose being of the Christian faith must provide some comfort in today’s social debates like having Caucasian features during the days of slavery and segregation. I do not find comfort in the lack of pigmentation in my skin, or in my religion, or in my gender because the oppression of others is in reality the oppression of us all.
A recent Patriot Post (Vol.08 No.02 dated 7.January.2008) attributed the following statement to Tony Perkins -- President of the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council -- “You may remember that in October, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) signed SB 777, a sweeping pro-homosexual education bill, into law. Arguably the most devastating anti-family bill ever passed in California, SB 777 requires all curricula—even that of private schools—to treat homosexuality and heterosexuality ‘equally.’ Under this misguided mandate, teaching students about the benefits of traditional families will be considered discrimination. Schools will no longer be asked to tolerate but to advocate a lifestyle with devastating consequences to the public health and conscience. Among other things, history books will be required to include stories of ‘famous gays,’ literature assignments will feature homosexual influences, and sex education will include so-called ‘safe sex’ for ‘alternative’ lifestyles. A large coalition of parents and activists is doing all it can to stop the law from going into effect.” After reading such an apocalyptic and dire statement, my curiosity was peeked. Let it suffice to say, like the Crawford case [318] last week, both extremes are prone to exaggeration for political gain. I read the entire, boring text of California SB 777. Most of the law addresses the multitude of variations in the complex state education system. The salient and relevant sentence in SB 777 is, "No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation . . . ." Will anyone be surprised that SB 777 makes not a single mention ‘famous gays,’ ‘safe sex,’ ‘alternative lifestyles,’ or any other popular homophobic labels? Not one! They are products of Perkins' homophobic imagination apparently intended to enflame those who do not understand or choose not to understand those who are different from them. SB 777 seeks to ensure all students and employees are treated equally, regardless of the social factors; the law does nothing more than that, period.
The Telegraph [of London] reported on a move by the British government to allow hospitals to extract organs from deceased patients without explicit consent. We can argue such action by the State enhances the public good -- other lives can be saved -- a noble purpose. However, we do not have many clearer illustrations of the power of the State over the individual. I object!
In closing, I shall note a potentially significant Vermont court case against Sebastien Boucher, a Canadian citizen with a valid American work visa, who was arrested and charged with transporting child pornography. The case of U.S. v. Boucher may become a landmark ruling, not for the subject matter, but for the modern test of the 5th Amendment. The United States Government is seeking a judge's order forcing Boucher to relinquish his laptop's password. The 5th Amendment protects us against self-incrimination. I trust the court will defend the Constitution. We shall see.
Comments and contributions from Update no.318:
"'...political correctness gone stark-raving mad...'"
"I think you have described the notion quite superbly."
Another contribution:
"I wondered with the recent naval ship incident, why didn't they use that ear deafening sonar the cruise ships have to ward off potential terrorists/pirates??"
My reply:
The Iranian gunboats were surface craft. Sonar is subsurface, like radar underwater, and is acoustic rather than electromagnetic. I didn’t know cruise ships had sonar, but it sure would be effective against divers or underwater attackers. The warships involved in the incident have several weapons to deal with boats like those used by the Iranians. As I wrote, I am amazed they allowed those boats to get as close as they did. The restraint of the Navy captains suggests they were principally worried about conventional contact explosives rather projection weapons. Anyway, I agree with the President; the Iranian actions that day were provocative and dangerous.
An extension contribution regarding quasi-military contractors:
"Regarding private contractors, I thought you would appreciate this article. It articulates pretty well one of the major issues with private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan- lack of accountability. The author places much of the blame on DOJ, which really hasn’t been doing its job in prosecuting – even after laws were put on the books to let them do so. Had DOJ done it job, we likely wouldn’t be facing some of the problems we have. As you can see, he his focus is not on the private contractors, but on the USG and why it hasn’t done its job in a critical area.
"The author is a lawyer who is also an advisor to the New York Bar."
The article:
“Ending a Culture of Impunity for Contract Soldiers”
by Scott Horton
Harper’s Magazine
Published: January 16, 2008
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/01/hbc-90002153
citing:
“Private Security Contractors at War – Ending the Culture of Impunity”
Human Rights First
Copyright: 2008
http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/08115-usls-psc-final.pdf
My response:
The difficulty I have with the contractor issue is the induced dichotomy . . . peacetime, civil, juris prudence versus wartime military, paramilitary & quasi-military combat zone operations; and the tasks of reality versus a grossly undersized combat military. I am not advocating that anyone be above the law, but I am struggling with this silly notion of civilizing war – Abu Graib, Guantánamo, interrogation, intelligence collection, et al ad infinitum ad nauseum. These contractors, at least in some areas, are not law enforcement or even security guards; they are military surrogates. We put them there, in that situation, and now we seek to hold them to peacetime civil standards. I may be the only one, but I am still struggling.
. . . a follow-up comment:
"Actually, we aren't even holding them to wartime legal standards. There appear to no standards...and that isn't good for anybody, especially the contractors. The USG is ultimately responsible and it hasn't stepped up."
. . . and my follow-up reply:
Perhaps so. I am neither investigator nor judge. Yet, I do have an opinion. I choose not to condemn the combat decision of a young Marine in active combat who sees a wounded enemy as a threat and caps him. I choose not to judge a young Marine who senses a woman or child approaching him as a threat and eliminates them, whether they had a concealed bomb or weapon is irrelevant. Short of a Le Paradis or Malmédy class incident, I choose to trust the humanity of individual soldiers and small unit leaders. Will there be abused, mistakes, bad decisions . . . yes, absolutely. But, war is hell, and war is killing. Trying to civilize war is foolish. Case in point, using the criterion espoused by some today, Harry would be condemned as a war criminal for issuing the order to use Fat Man and Little Boy. I react to those who condemn Harry for silly, foolish reasons that have nothing to do with humanity but rather faux logic that seeks to end war. So, what happened in that intersection in Baghdad that day was a product of war, not murder! We should investigate contractor incidents, but prosecution?
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment