25 February 2008

Update no.324

Update from the Heartland
No.324
18.2.08 – 24.2.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Our youngest son, Taylor, uses this George Orwell quote as his signature line:
“We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those that would harm us.”
Lest we forget to whom we owe so much.

The follow-up news items:
-- The USS Lake Erie (CG-70) fired a single shot, Standard SM-3 missile at a non-functional spy satellite near the end of its decaying orbit. The available public evidence indicates the interception of the satellite was perfect and successful.
-- I suppose Ralph Nader [149, 151A] realized he was not getting any attention. On Sunday, Ralph announced his intention to run for president . . . again . . . this time as an independent.
-- An odd, partial mitigation for the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Sharia pronouncement [323]:
“Islamic finance and the Square Mile – How does Sharia fit into the heated debate about the relationship between the British legal system and religious codes?”
Edward Fennell
The Times [of London]
February 19, 2008
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3372571.ece?&EMC-Bltn=BDJEN8
The key here is appropriate or reasonable adaptation of the law. The British, before us colonial Americans, have a long history of absorbing a wide variety of cultures and elements of many languages. However, the Archbishop’s “unavoidable” comment was not restricted to financial law; and, Sharia Law dictates that a thief should have his hand cut off, a homosexual should be executed, unmarried fornicators whipped, adulterers stoned to death, critics of the Prophet Muhammed should be executed, and women and children are subservient to men. I doubt Sharia Law will find much acceptance in the western democracies.
-- Fidel Castro has not been a prominent feature within the forum of this humble journal. However, his resignation on Tuesday, after nearly 50 years in power, as dictator of Cuba, deserves a modest mention. I suspect he is not longed for this world. We can hope the Cuban people take this opportunity to find the liberty they deserve, although I do not hold my breath. Fidel's brother, Raúl Castro, was anointed as his successor.
-- On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined a review of ACLU v. NSA [6CCA 06-2095/2140 (2007); USDC EDMI 06-CV-10204] [245, 307] – another of the challenges to the government’s post-9/11 electronic surveillance program. Two down, a bunch more to go!

The case noted above – ACLU v. NSA – does raise a larger, societal question, somewhat beyond the law. The 6th Circuit’s judgment properly focused on the law and the essential fact that the plaintiff’s – journalists, academics, and lawyers who regularly communicate with individuals located overseas – did not show or demonstrate actual injury as required by Article III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed the 6th Circuit’s judgment by rejecting the case. Of interest here is Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman’s dissenting opinion, which goes beyond demonstrated injury to the perception of threat, and in turn opens a vast arena to challenge the government. While I broadly support the 6th Circuit decision and reasoning, the extension of modern technology and the possibility of a nefarious Federal element with access to such collected or derived intelligence does present a bona fide worry. I pose an appropriate hypothetical. What if the bad Feds use the intelligence to indirectly ‘injury’ a citizen or group? Before anyone jumps to accusations, the phenomenon has occurred before, notably rogue FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover – notorious for collecting information and ‘guiding’ the actions of politicians. Hoover collected his information via illegal wiretaps, foot surveillance, and such. The electronic media today vastly amplify the information potentially detectable via common data mining techniques. What if the Federal government or rogue elements with access decided to ‘ruin the life’ of a person with whom they disagreed? With today’s technology and fears, such action would be relatively easy to execute – to affect his job, his credit rating, his access to public services, ad infinitum. For the most part, the law protects us from overt, illegal action, but what about second or third level covert action using intelligence as the element of fact to substantiate the government’s injurious conduct? As much as I support the government’s electronic surveillance program, I worry about boundaries and constraints. Yet, conversely, hobbling the agility of the government to response to a fleeting threat hardly seems like a wise course.

The Press likes to refer to Senator Barack Obama’s campaign rhetoric with words like ‘soaring,’ ‘lofty,’ ‘inspiring,’ ‘uplifting,’ ‘hopeful,’ and such; and, I suppose such descriptors are at least marginally appropriate. I can remember the very first time I heard Obama speak nationally – the 2004 Democratic National Convention. I was impressed then as I am impressed now. Regardless of the politics & policy behind the rhetoric, we can admire an accomplished public speaker. Powerful political oratory has common features – meter, intonation, construction, melody and imagery. For much of history, we are relegated to the printed words yet they are no less dramatic – Shakespeare’s fictitious rendition of King Henry V’s speech to his troops prior to the Battle of Agincourt, or President Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Fortunately, we can hear the delivered words of Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan. Often, what is needed most in times of trial are those inspirational words of encouragement to help us believe, to focus our energy, and to instigate the journey beyond our comfort zone. Obama is not yet the Democratic nominee, but he sure is fun to watch and hear. It is easy to understand and appreciate why people are drawn to Obama’s rhetoric after the oratory abuse we have been subjected to for last eight years.

Comments and contributions from Update no.323:
“You raise the arguments that Mark Steyn and McCain would champion. They are important and worth discussing. I have been to Spain but nowhere else in Europe lately. I have seen the social unrest in France and the problems there on TV, but not in person. I have seen the news coverage from independent TV sources like freespeechtv and others. There are as many crazy clerics, although I don’t put al-Sadr in that bunch, as there are crazy preachers like John Hagee over here. Al-Sadr is as much a political leader as a religious leader. He is not looking for any European territory as far as I can determine, nor for that matter are the Iranians. Our buddies the Saudis are the bigger threat to a philosophical discussion that might threaten what Americans used to believe was important- freedom of speech and expression, and person because they are in bed with our power structure- Bush, Cheney and influence so much of our policies related to oil. It is a xenophobic problem and needs more discussion, because the misconceptions are keeping serious thinkers like you from recognizing the danger of such thinking. I don't mean that patronizingly. I see it all the time in many friends and business acquaintances. When you read the actual words that Ahmadinejad says compared to the spin that is put on it, and in context of the political situation he is in (he is more conservative and hard-line than the mullahs above him, and a lot of his constituents, too) you realize he is not so scary. I could go on- sorry to ramble.
My response:
Like you, I read as much as I can absorb and digest. I subscribe to publications from the hard Left to the hard Right, as well as the middle, and a half-dozen reputable European news sources. I try to find balance. I am not always successful, which is one of many reasons I continue this humble journal and forum; I need the contrasts of perspective and opinion from real citizens rather than processed news.
You raise a very interesting point. We could argue the culpability of al-Sadr, Nasrallah, et al, but I doubt that line would be productive. To me, the larger salient with these radial clerics as well as state-sponsors of terrorism like Saddam’s Iraq, Syria, Iran, et al, would be methods. To my knowledge, I have not seen a cleric (Islamic, Christian, or otherwise) take up the sword in combat. As with most clerics, they are quite adept at using religion, and inflammatory and indignant words from the pulpit to stir the passions of the believers to carry out their bidding. The popes and cardinals did it during the Crusades and the Inquisition. The mad mullahs are doing it now and have been for the last 40-50 years. In this sense, you are precisely correct Iran, Syria, Iraq, et al, do not seek territory in the classic sense of a nation-state; they don’t need the land. What they seek are minds – followers, believers, a body of agents. This is an ideological war, more so than any in recent history. I doubt Iran would invade Iraq, as Saddam did to Iran in 1980; they don’t need to. If they get radical fundamentalist Shia clerics like al-Sadr into dominant positions within Iraq, they will have accomplished their objective without firing a shot directly. I believe we are seeing a similar invasion across our southern border, probably not for such strident ideological reasons as the Europeans face with Islamic immigrants, but no less real. We have seen more than a few passing slogans about reclaiming what they lost in 1848. So, yes, al-Sadr may be just a simple cleric-politician, but he seeks power and domination for himself, and his sponsors in Tehran. This ideological combat is one principal reason intelligence, and specifically human and electronic intelligence, is so bloody important. Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or even al-Qaeda will never invade the United States in the classic warfare sense; that is not their objective. They seek our death by a thousand cuts, to bleed us into our own destruction, so that they can dominate the world.

Another contribution:
Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus: "I hope US$170B achieves the desired result." --- “Desired result! I'll tell you what the desired result is going to be. Millions of Americans are going to go out and buy a new flat panel TV, and a good percentage of that revenue is going to go to the overseas companies who produce a majority of the components that go into making those TVs. Which leads me to ask: What do those in power think the economic stimulus is going to be? Did they completely miss the boat on this one, or what? In my mind, an economic stimulus would be taxing income appropriately, reducing or eliminating the penalties for saving, and requiring those who are able to work to do so for their welfare checks.”
My reply:
Yeah, there is that. I was skeptical from the get-go . . . kinda like Slick Willy lobbing cruise missiles around the countryside every time he got caught with his fly open or his pants around his ankles – a placebo diversionary action. We’ll see if it works. In our economy, perception is far more powerful than reality.

A continuing thread:
“I could not disagree more with your introductory statement: I believe this is a totally irresponsible anarchistic statement. Fortunately the founders of this nation understood and feared a pure democracy, which they had just observed destroy France. That is why they established our nation as a government by elected representatives. My observation is that an 'unregulated free enterprise system', which you appear to advocate, is a totally ruthless and destructive form of government. Any good we have in our society is the result of 'the rule of law' which is 'of the people, by the people and for the people'. I believe our nation is being severely damaged by Libertarianism, which is just another name for Anarchy: It, I believe, has created the multi-headed monster of a selfish, self-center people including and dominated by Feminists and Homosexuals with their morally decadent and diseased values into every aspect of our society.
“I would also like to make two points that you ended our earlier exchange with:
“First, you present a statement to the effect that: ‘We all worship the same God;’ this I believe is absolutely not true. My God is the God of Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit, who commands that we place no other god before HIM. This God also instructs us that our only way to Salvation is thru prayer repenting our sins and asking for forgiveness in the name of Jesus etc. It appears certain to me that any one not professing a faith in this Trinity does not worship the same GOD that I do. Obviously there are many gods that we may worship, including no god at all, which privilege our USA Constitution grants to each of us. This GOD of mine does not command us to acknowledge or worship him; in fact he only accepts us as his own when we act of our own FREE WILL in coming to him, and in-fact tells us that at our final day of judgment he will not hear the pleas of any who have rejected him at the conclusion of our mortal life. On the Contrary, he tells us he will hear all who repentantly come to HIM in the name of Jesus.”
My response:
There are a few elements of my character that some know and perhaps most do not know. My faith is between me and God; I see no benefit to publicly professing my faith – some may be repulsed; some may find a faux-affinity. I enjoy the middle ground of moderation and I like to say I am all religions and all political parties; I see goodness in each.
It is unfortunate you found offense in my introductory statement – the fault is entirely mine. Sometimes I try to be succinct when a few more words would have been illuminating. Yes, I agree; freedom without constraints can be and often does degenerate to anarchy. I hope you can see in my words that I am not an anarchist. Where I should have added a few more words was ‘within the private domain.’ We have a long history of trying to use the law to dictate private behavior going back to the Comstock Act of 1873, the 18th Amendment, Roosevelt’s New Deal, and the worst of the worst, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. And yes, there are Libertarian aspects to my argument. I have long espoused smaller, less intrusive government; if that is a sin, then I am a sinner. We have allowed government to subsumed far too many of the responsibilities vested in parents and individuals, and we have far too many citizens who are perfectly content having the government make their decisions for them. I resent the government’s intrusion upon my private life, and I would hope other citizens feel as I do.
I shall take umbrage with the equating of Libertarianism with anarchy, with our society being selfish and self-centered, and especially with the disparagement of feminists and homosexuals. For the record, I emphatically do NOT agree that femnists and homosexuals are morally decadent or have diseased values; in fact, I respectfully submit they possess some of the most noble of human qualities. Herein lies a focused argument for debate. A goodly portion of all those elements are private aspects of an individual that have absolutely nothing to do with their public conduct, performance or contribution. It is in this arena I said what I did at the opening of last week’s Update. I have no fear, no remorse, no hesitancy toward any citizen’s condemnation of my private character; that is their choice; I freely choose to let my public conduct be my testament. If people choose to judge me by some shallow, malevolent label born of their perception of what they do not know, then I doubt they will have any meaningful place in my life. I am not so easily summarized by such labels. As I have stated many times, everyone is entitled to their bigotry. Where such condemnation crosses my line of tolerance comes when someone or group of someone’s seek to produce a law dictating my private conduct and using the full weight of the State to enforce it. That is where my embrace of Libertarian principles begins. The point in my opening remark remains that the majority who may find contentment in projecting their moral values into the private lives of other citizens should find no comfort in such abuse, for one day the shoe may be on the other foot.
Re: God. You present the Christian dictum admirably. It is this parochialism of organized religion that has caused such incalculable destruction in human history. This factional parochialism rejects all other religions by creating a singular possessiveness toward God and concomitant jealousy toward all infidels, and provides the combustibles and ignition for great wars. I see God in a far larger context in that all religions worship the same God, as there is only one true God; the differences rest in the names by which we refer to God and the trivial trappings, incantations and rituals by which we mere mortal humans find meaning in our worship of God’s greatness. I am not a theologian and certainly no expert, but I am a sufficient lay student of religion to recognize the commonality among all religions. If anyone chooses to think less of me for my unwillingness for publicly profess my faith, then that is their choice entirely. I am what I am, and that’s all that I am. God knows my faith, and that is all that counts. I respect and do not think less of any person regardless of their faith. Likewise, their faith is between them and God; I care not.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“It appears to me that we (I, and perhaps also you, and for that matter, virtually everyone) have a tendency to isolate statements of others out of the total context from which they are drawn or spoken, to put down or diminish those opposing our point of view and to emphasis our own point of view. What you refer to as my generalizations ignores my own life experiences I cited in the text below your conclusion, which I do believe legitimately support my own conclusions; and my taking offense to your presumption of being sorry for me is that you dismiss that validity of my own experiences.
“Similarly, in our most recent exchange, you presume that my reference to conversions relates to Theological conversion (Saving Souls). On the contrary, like you I am not trained in Theology or Ministry, and, likewise, make no claims in that regard; I do not ‘Minister’ or ‘Save Souls’ either. But I have no hesitancy to reveal my faith, and in fact take great comfort when others tell me they observe my faith in my walk.
“Rather my reference is to conversions was not referring to Theological, but to career achievement or advancements based on our parentage-upbringing, schooling, training, job and Life experiences. (In the spirit of: To Whom Much Is Given, Much Is Expected.) I was tremendously proud of my two brothers already serving in the Marine Corps in Korean service at that time (my youngest brother also enlisted and served his tour with The Marine Corps); and in fact my time in the service has proven to be the most valued years of my life. I take comfort in observing the character and achievements of our Marine Corps General Pace, who was forced into retirement from his position of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I consider that to have been a most disgraceful event brought on by our national immorality, and a warning of horrible times to come. I conclude that this travesty against human decency which, again, I believe has been brought on by the Morally Decadent and Diseased Multi-headed Monster of Libertarianisms, Feminism and Homosexuality. ”
. . . and my follow-up response:
I do not share your view of General Pace's retirement. First, I am a Marine, and I was and still am quite proud that General Pace was the first Marine to be Chairman. However, Peter’s demise was not brought about by "Libertarianisms, Feminism and Homosexuality." His fate came at his hand. The American military has a long and noble history of being apolitical . . . at least in principle. Peter crossed the line. He made the choice. He bore the consequences. Like all American citizens, Peter is entitled to his opinions; unfortunately, in uniform, he is not entitled to express them.
The beauty of a free Republic . . . you have every right to profess your faith and religion; likewise, I have every right to leave my faith and religion between me and God.

In a slight departure, I offer my comments from a separate exchange with a following contribution:
In many respects, Islam, at least as practiced by some, seems to be a death-culture similar in many respects to the Bushido code of samurai / Imperial Japan – to die for Allah (as some clerics convinced them), or for the Emperor, was an honor to be sought.
There are too many reports, coming from too many sources, to categorize the clash in Europe between Islam and Christianity, and between Sharia law and western democratic principles, to label these issues propaganda. Yet, as with most things human, we choose to believe what we choose to believe, or what makes us feel good.
What I find troubling in the notion of ‘making peace’ with fundamentalist radical Islam is the implication that the United States or the West started this conflict, and that they [al-Qaeda, Wahabi Islam, Shia Islam, et al] care about some silly notion as peace. There are indications that peace to them is a martyr’s death to 72 virgins. Several generations of Muslims have been brainwashed by fundamentalist clerics to do their bidding. This war began in the 1960’s, if not earlier, and became open, armed conflict with the West at any number of dates – 5.September.1972, 4.November.1979, 18.April.1983, and definitely by 23.October.1983. The fact that we denied reality for decades or deluded ourselves does not alter the war. This has been, is, and will remain an ideological war that demands strength, resolve, persistence and ruthless prosecution. The United States has not been an occupier, an invader or a colonialist power since 1898. We have no desire whatsoever to make Iraq a state of the Union. Isolationism has been tried many times and to my knowledge has never worked. We either confront the oppressors or we submit; appeasement, accommodation and tolerance of oppressors cannot be sustained.
Even if Ron Paul became president or any of the other isolationists, it would only be a matter of time before Baghdad came to New York City. The Islamic fascists have not stopped in 30+ years. In fact, their violence has ratcheted up steadily over those decades. They took the bold step of attacking our Homeland several times, and it was not until 11.September.2001, that we drew the line in the dirt and took the fight to them. The government took aggressive steps to fight this new, non-linear, imbedded, modern warfare the Islamic fascists chose to employ, and they have been loudly condemned. Since then, several attempts (that we know of) have been foiled, but they have not stopped. And, IMHO, this war will not end with wishful thinking, or appeasing the oppressors/aggressors; this will only end when they are dead or they decide to live in peace with their neighbors. Again, IMHO, we have been and will continue to be in a multi-generational war we did everything humanly possible to avoid and pretend it was not happening.
The following contributing response:
“We have killed anywhere from a conservative estimate of 600,000 to a possible 1,500,000 bunches of humans in Iraq. I respectfully disagree with your take on the Munich attack, Iranian hostage taking, and even the bombings of the marine barracks-They may be connected loosely in that they were apparently Muslims, since they apparently were from the middle east- but these things should not be so generalized. And you are well read enough and know enough about history to not take everything at face value- e.g., the Klinghoffer murder. On its face it was the stupidest thing anyone would do in order to make a political point. It just showed the attackers to be beasts- hence all Muslims, etc must be wild suicidal beasts. The association was natural and very detrimental to any "cause" of Palestinian liberation, etc. Turns out it was a black-op by probably Israeli intelligence, as we are told by Ari Ben Menasche, ex-Israeli intel officer in his book Profits of War. Of course when you realize that, then it all makes sense. I'm not saying the other events are black-ops, false flag events, etc- I don't know- but we should not be so quick to condemn groups for individual's acts. The "terrorists" are condemning me and you for our foreign policy executed by individuals who I don't particularly agree with. So they are just as guilty of generalization as we are. In other words, we have either taught them well, or we have lowered ourselves to their level. I am trying to use words as I understand them.”
. . . and my reply:
First, not generalized . . . connected. Some of my parent's and grandparent's generations chose not to see 30.January.1933, 29/30.June.1934, 10.March.1935, 15.September.1935, 6.March.1936, 18.July.1936, 14.March.1938, 29.September.1938 and 9.Novermber.1938, as connected either. As a free people, we all have choices to believe what we wish.
Second, no one said the bad guys were always smart, e.g., Hitler's decision to execute Operation BARBAROSSA before he subdued Great Britain. The Islamofascists have done stupid things as well, but they have also adapted and innovated. Time shall tell who made the correct choices.
Third, the United States has not always made the correct choices. We are free to criticize those choices. The United States is broadly motivated by its self-interests. However, we have also been the most selfless and giving Nation in history, e.g., the Marshall plan. I know few will join me but I will add Iraq & Afghanistan.
Fourth, I think most Americans are like or similar to me . . . I hold no ill-will toward anyone until I have a reason to doubt their intentions. Conversely, if someone threatens my family, I feel no urge for compassion or mercy. I recognize such thoughts are not politically correct; so be it.

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

18 February 2008

Update no.323

Update from the Heartland
No.323
11.2.08 – 17.2.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Individual conduct that is defined by or conforms to those activities approved by autocratic legislators, an activist minority or even a majority of our population is NOT freedom. Either we are free or we are not. Parsing freedom to validate our values, our opinions, our beliefs, diminishes the freedom of all of us. By the time we figure out this reality, it may be too late. Wake up, America!

The follow-up news items:
-- The President signed into law the Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008 [PL 110-185] [322]. The stimulus checks should be distributed in May. I hope US$170B achieves the desired result.
-- The Senate voted on their version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2007 (FISA Amendments Act of 2007) [S.2248; Senate vote: 68-29-3] [320], which contains the critical provision of limited immunity for the telecommunications companies that contributed to the war effort and its associated intelligence collection activities. The House version [H.R.3773] passed late last year [House vote: 227-189-0-16]. Now, they must reconcile the two versions before the final votes and passing the bill to the President.
-- Surprise, surpise! U.S. District Court Judge James Ware in the Northern District of California dismissed the ACLU v. Jeppesen DataPlan case [289, 307] and rightly so.

If the uber-Right continues to press their ideological agenda with no effort to seek compromise, they will most likely achieve a veto-proof Democratic Congress along with the Democratic President. I hope they find comfort in their ideology to gird them against the sting of rejection.

A contributor passed along two interesting, relevant and pointed articles.
"The Audacity of Compromise"
by Kathleen Parker
RealClearPolitics.com
February 08, 2008
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/standing_for_principle_cant_el.html
Kathleen coined the term ‘Kamikaze Republicans’ -- those who say they'll never vote for John McCain because he isn't conservative enough. Her opinion complements my thought offered above.
The second article takes a different perspective of the same issue.
"Decision Time for Conservatives"
by Oliver North
RealClearPolitics.com
February 12, 2008
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/time_to_unite_behind_mccain.html

The New York State Supreme Court issued a controversial ruling -- Martinez v. Monroe County, [NYSC 1562 CA 06-02591 (2008)] -- reversing a lower court ruling and directing the state to provide married benefits to a same-gender married couple. The decision stands in contrast to the court's earlier ruling in the case of Daniel Hernandez v. Victor L. Robles [NY CoA 1 No. 86 (2006)] affirming the state’s Defense of Marriage Act [240]. The key to the court's reconciliation of the two cases rested on the fact that Patricia Martinez and Lisa Ann Golden were lawfully married in the Province of Ontario, Canada (since same-gender marriage in New York State was prohibited by the DOMA law as affirmed by the Hernandez ruling). Progress comes in small steps.

A few additional related items:
"Study reports on same-sex relationships in Kansas -- Number of couples increase by almost 68 percent from 2000 to 2005; Douglas County has the fifth highest total with 239 same-sex couples reported."
by Andrew Wiebe
The University Daily Kansan
Monday, February 11th, 2008
http://www.kansan.com/stories/2008/feb/11/study_reports_samesex_relationships_kansas/
In case anyone might be curious about the contributions to humanity made by non-heterosexual citizens, here is a link to a wikipedia compilation from history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people
Then, we have another view of the non-traditional:
"Pairs With Spares -- For Polyamorists With a Whole Lotta Love, Three, or More, Is Never a Crowd"
by Monica Hesse
Washington Post
Wednesday, February 13, 2008; Page C01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/12/AR2008021203072.html

As an odd reflective sign of the times, the Archbishop of Canterbury Doctor Rowan Douglas Williams, DPhil, declared that implementation of some aspects of sharia Islamic law was unavoidable in Great Britain. The statement by the head of the Anglican Church sparked an astounding flurry of comment and opinion across Europe. If Williams' intention was to instigate public debate on the integration of Muslims in the predominately Christian western democracies, he accomplished his objective. Tolerance, diversity, integration -- hallmarks of modern democracies -- can also be our greatest vulnerability. We are faced with the question of limits to our tolerance. Williams suggests we have not adapted enough, to absorb Muslims as we have absorbed those of other religions and religious sects. The notion of adapting our laws to allow sharia law is about as offensive as a 20KT nuclear detonation in Kansas City. My condemnation of Williams' foolish pronouncement cannot be strong enough. We can only hope the British people rise to the threat from within that they face today, as they did to the threat from across the Channel in 1588, 1805, and 1940. The truly, even more, threatening element . . . there are non-Muslims so consumed by political correctness -- not wanting to offend anyone -- that they will find wisdom in Williams' opinion. This foolishness is coming to the United States as well. I can find nothing attractive or enhancing in sharia law. My prayers go with the British people to lead us through this self-induced minefield.

If you would like to read a sliver perspective of why the Archbishop of Canterbury is wrong, here is one sample:
"Free Speech and Radical Islam"
by Flemming Rose
Wall Street Journal
Published: February 15, 2008; Page A14
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120303586375870157.html
I have no problem with the choices anyone makes in how they wish to live their private lives as long as no one is injured. Where this whole topic of debate crosses my line comes when their private choices impact the public domain or the private choices of any other citizen. Sharia law crosses my line.

Comments and contributions from Update no.322:
“Concur on your comments about McCain voting against the tax cuts. Insanity or criminal stupidity to cut taxes in a time of war.”
My response:
Given conditions as McCain saw them . . . we are in agreement. However, I would have supported a tax cut if we had eliminated earmarks, cut domestic spending, and fought the war in a more rational manner. But, as I said, I think McCain did the responsible thing, although it is a lightning rod for Republicans – just what happens with blind party loyalty.

Another contribution:
“Our present Pres, GW, is likely to go down in history as one of if not the worst Pres we've ever had, even though he has shown courage and steadfastness about his ideas of what we should do and how. It has cost us dearly, in lives and $$$, and so far, as far as I can see anyway, for naught.
“McCain is too far towards the political center for the hard-core true Conservatives in the Republican Party. They consider him almost a Democrat and liberal. I say he has a better grasp on reality and what should be done for this country than most. Romney was not bad, but only a Governor and Businessman. McCain has walked the long walk, seen things we mostly cannot imagine, been in Politics a long time now, and has the "Steel" I believe we need to lead us for the next 4 years.”
My reply:
I do not know if W. will be remembered in history as the worst President. I can suggest other candidates for that dubious distinction. Yet, he is in that bottom 10%. He campaigned as a ‘uniter not a divider,’ and I cannot think of another President who has done more to divide this Grand Republic. I could go on; there is ample fodder for such illumination.
The candidates have not been decided, as yet. We must fine a person who can listen to, understand and absorb the political extremes and help us find a compromise solution with balance. We need a President who can articulate the issues and help us understand how we can help achieve the solution. Hopefully, we can find a President who is not seduced by the intoxication of power.

This lengthy thread illuminates a facet of the political difficulties we face:
“Whatever you think of the war, this is a sad reality:”
“Bush Turns U.S. Soldiers into Murderers”
by Robert Parry
February 13, 2008
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/021208.html
My response:
I’m afraid I respectfully do NOT agree. George W. Bush is certainly not the best President this Grand Republic has ever had, and he may well be one of the worst; but, the article is a politically jaundiced view of a critical international issue. I always enjoy reading / hearing a broad spectrum of opinion, so thank you for including me.
. . . round two:
“So, you are condoning the killing of innocent people simply because some ‘authority,’ such as bush labels them as suitable to be killed? You may take this article as a criticism of the soldiers who are being tried for murder, which it is not. It is a criticism of the policies of an administration which should be brought up on charges of war crimes. It is an attempt to make us aware of how far from the standards of American justice, jurisprudence, compassion, values, and righteousness we have sunk, not to mention what it has done to our young men who are put on the front lines. No wonder Ron Paul has received more military contributions than any other candidate.”
. . . my round two response:
A rhetorical rather than an inquisitive question, I presume.
I do not take the article as critical of soldiers, rather a manifestation of blindly opposing anything and everything George W. Bush has touched . . . thus, my ‘politically jaundiced’ remark. A couple of thoughts that may be useful:
1. The President made a fundamental mistake in not asking for a declaration of war on Islamic Fascism. There are positives & negatives to a full & proper congressional declaration of war, but the hard part remains . . . what does a declaration of war on a non-nation-state mean? We can argue whether the Authorizations for the Use of Military Force [PL’s 107-40 & 107-243] were equivalent actions; the President believed they were, and I believe the Court would validate the President’s Article II authority in this instance.
2. The military is a slice of American society. As such, there are good people and bad people in the military, just as there are in society. War is killing, plain & simple; trying to put lipstick & a dress on the pig will not alter the pig. Bad people have used the excuse of combat to do bad things; it has been that way in every war in history. To stretch a few incidents into a broad condemnation is as wrong for the military as it is for society.
3. The aggrandizement of the oddities and the political differences with President do NOT alter the reality of the War on Islamic Fascism. The anti-war crowd may feel good condemning the President for taking action or even for the manner by which he chose to execute the War, but again that does not alter the fact that we are at War. I am thankful the President chose to do the killing in Afghanistan and Iraq; they were rational and logical targets. He could have chosen Syria & Iran, or even Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, but given the exigencies of the moment, he made the correct choice, IMHO.
4. You know from my writing that I have been and remain quite critical of the President on how he chose to execute the war. Huge mistakes; cost precious lives & treasure. If he had listened to John McCain or Eric Shinseki instead of Don Rumsfeld, the course of the War probably would have been fundamentally different. How the Battle for Iraq has gone shall be his burden to bear.
I could go on, but those are the high points. So, when I read the words of Robert Parry, and especially with a broad brush inflammatory title like “Bush Turns US Soldiers into Murderers,” I chalk it up to mindless political ideology based on emotion rather than fact.
Lastly and for the record, I abhor violence and I have always done my best to avoid it, but I have been well trained and will not suffer the slightest hesitation to be a stone-cold killer when my family or innocent people are threatened. If that makes me a bad and evil person to be despised by the anti-war crowd, I’m good with that; I shall not lose a moment’s sleep.
. . . round three:
"Sorry to be so combative, rude, in my email back to you. We just disagree on these things and not so much because you are right or I am wrong or vice versa. Neither of us would condone killing an innocent person. I don't think the whole Muslim world deserves to be treated as the enemy yet that is what we have come down to in our political divisions. Friends who are Republicans inevitably and sadly reduce everything to kill em all and ask questions later. We need to get past all this rhetoric and them vs us reductionism to a place where we identify the criminals deal with them with the American way of due process and stop demonizing entire groups and nations. It is a good thing we are still the super power that we are, else there would be war crime trials on the horizon for those leaders who have disregarded Constitutional and international laws, don't you agree?"
. . . my round three response:
No worries. I understand these are passionate times.
I do not think we, as a society or Nation, are treating all Muslims as enemy. There are bigots, who cannot think beyond their taught ideology, in all societies including ours. We are helping those Muslims who appreciate our help.
I do not believe all Republicans can be put into such a shallow box. I could argue the appropriateness of W's 'with us or against us' position, but I don't see that it would serve any purpose.
First, I do not agree that the President violated national or international law. Second, international war crimes tribunals did not exist until we created them in 1945. The victors conduct war crimes trials. The key is winning.
. . . round four:
A couple points:
1. I dont think you can say what the President believed about the war powers act, in light of the evidence that the administration intended to invade Iraq well before 911, so the war powers authorizations were just getting permission from a very weak and negligent Congress. That Congress went on to authorize the Patriot Acts which I believe we will come to rue, both Dems and Repubs, in time. Fundamentally they are unconstitutional, but it will take much abuse and much heartache before a strong Congress is back in place to correct it, if ever. I could elaborate, but I would just sound partisan at this time. Essentially, due process has been tossed to the wind. As to positives and negatives, I don't agree. Congress declares war, not the President. We could argue that as well, but I think there is good reason to leave it up to a broad array of elected representatives rather than one ex-Yale cheerleader. (I couldn't resist)
2. The military is us, as you say, and that is more reason to recognize what this war has done to thousands of our young people- of course calling soldiers murderers is inflammatory, but the war is illegal, so what do you call it? War is killing and I hear what you say but can not understand how you can continue to condemn entire peoples nations, religions with the smear that they are Islamic-fascism. Islamic fascism, as I am now realizing is nothing more than a jingoistic term to describe a fabricated enemy, just as
we used to say the only good injun is a dead injun, or Better Dead than Red. As for a few instances of innocent deaths, I believe the number is well above that- and I have seen the number thousands. We do not have the right to kill foreigners or anybody because one man has claimed they are enemies. Yet that is what this boils down to. 19 Saudis and Egyptians flew planes into our buildings-we have yet to understand who they really were, what their real purpose was, what Able Danger was, why Sybil Edmunds is essentially muzzled from speaking out, etc. Most of us thought Afghanistan was worth attacking because we thought Osama was there, and the Taliban were obviously not allowing us to build the Chevron, or was it Unocal, pipeline. We don't know why the buildings in New York fell, and we don't dare discuss it openly because we will be branded a conspiracy nut and so on. The world is very complicated and to have the misfortune of being born in Iraq and being thought of as an enemy of the US simply for that reason is a true modern travesty.
. . . my round four response:
The debate process is far more interesting, intriguing and stimulating to me than being correct or ‘on the right side.’ I try to treat people with respect . . . even those with whom I may strongly disagree. From politics to business, I truly believe in what I call ‘constructive conflict’ – ideas, opinions and suggestions can be aggressively debated. The solution is often a compromise of the middle.
Item 1: Well, yes I can . . . say what I believe; I cannot say what he was thinking. Where we may differ is in our perception of George W. Bush. I have never met the man, but I believe George W. Bush is a good and descent human being with good intentions and compassion for his fellow man. So, yes, I do believe that W. thinks he has acted and continues to act within the authority vested in the President of the United States by Article II of the Constitution to include the Battles of Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the War on Islamic Fascism, and the array of intelligence collection activities including electronic surveillance, battlefield combatant interrogation, and such. The key factor in our assessment as well as the Court’s analysis of the constitutionality of the President’s action remains whether we are at war . . . thus my earlier comments on the significance of a congressional declaration of war. I believe the President made a fundamental mistake in not seeking a full and proper declaration of war; the Authorizations [PL’s 107-40 & 107-243] were properly executed, legal actions, however the ambiguity created by such half-measures opened up the question of constitutionality. Since I am not a Supreme Court justice, my opinion does not matter a hoot. That said, my opinion has been and remains that the President acted legally and properly within the Constitution; however, I also remain critical of his execution prior to the replacement of Rumsfeld. Under Gates & Petraeus, we have made progress, and I certainly would not advocate throwing away that achievement.
Item 2: As noted in item 1 above, I reject the notion that the war is illegal. Please help me understand why you think that I “condemn entire peoples, nations, (and) religions.” In a related point, I condemn Nazis; I do not condemn the German people. Islamic Fascism is a simple, discreet moniker for those who use force of arms in the guise of Islam to impose Islamic dicta on others. Not all Muslims are fascists, however I think you can or will agree that there are indeed Islamic fascists out there, intent upon doing us harm. “Jingoistic,” “fabricated enemy” . . . please help me understand why you believe these things? If it is the moniker I use that offends you, what name would you use? If you do not see the larger threat, then perhaps I can appreciate why you seem to think the threat is limited to a few criminals. Only the misinformed among us would think the Iraqis are our enemy; they are NOT the enemy. In fact, we have given the precious blood of our youth to help them realize the freedom they deserve, just as my generation tried to do in Vietnam, and my father’s generation did in Europe and the Pacific, and my grandfather’s generation did earlier in France. The impression I am left with is that you see Americans as the bad guys, and everyone else in the world as down-trodden, oppressed by Americans, and otherwise good guys; is this really the impression you seek to leave me with?
Hindsight conjecture can be worthwhile occasionally to illuminate nuances in a larger debate topic. So, here is one for you. What do you think President Al Gore would have done in the aftermath of 9/11?
As I said, I try to respect all points of view. I certainly respect the fact that we disagree on the President and the War . . . that’s part of the beauty of life . . . diversity. If whomever those guys are out there killing Americans get their way, we shall be living under a very strict, autocratic, authoritarian theocracy. I cherish my freedom too much to allow that to happen.

In a different but related thread:
"All wars are this way but endless wars are even worse if possible. That is why Paul says we should have created a Constitutional Marquis de Reprisal which would have allowed us to take out Osama and the Taliban with overwhelming force and come home. That is how we should respond to pirates and rogues. Not occupation - but you know that."
My reply:
I did not understand his logic. The Taliban & al-Qaeda are just symptoms. The root cause of all this death & destruction is the fundamental Islamic clerics who teach intolerance, martyrdom, suicide, and the taking of innocent lives to further their megalomaniacal objectives. Not so easy to flush them out. Plus, I heard a warning a long time ago . . . beware of the return of communism in the guise of Islam.
. . . a follow-up comment:
"I think you are talking about a very small minority of extremists who are actually talking this way- I don't think it is accurate to label all fundamental Islamic clerics as calling for the killing of innocents, etc, especially since it is against their religion. Osama Bin Laden, the one bush can't catch, is not well thought of or recognized as a national, Arab, middle eastern or even Islamic leader by most Iraqis or even middle eastern Muslims in general. It is a complex issue and we are training a generation to hate based on jingoistic, ethnic, religious and racial slurs. This is why I made the generality about Republicans. I haven't heard any yet who do not speak in this over-simplified way about Muslims. Except for Ron Paul who has made the point that it is a small group of extremists who promote violence and we have wasted blood and treasure building a beachhead in order to control oil. I think he said it like that, but if not, that's what I think it's all about."
. . . with my follow-up reply:
Here we get into semantics. I try to avoid absolutes, like ‘all,’ ‘never,’ ‘always,’ and such, just as I try to avoid labels. And yet, we need handles to succinctly describe what it is we are talking about. Saying ALL fundamentalist Islamic clerics are jihadi advocates would be akin to say that all fundamentalist Christian clerics are parochial, paternalistic, bigoted megalomaniacs – an error of generalities. On the obverse, there is a very real reason the jihadi movement is so widespread, violent, and aggressive. With inflammatory clerics like Nasrallah, al-Sadr, ad infinitum, I think it is easy to see the role the clerics play in the current war. The number of killers among the Islamic fascists would be difficult to estimate. However, I believe any substantive attempt would under-estimate the number of Muslims willing to kill innocent people to accomplish their objectives. I also believe several generations of clerics have convinced their followers that this is their time to extend Islam to every corner of the planet. They are not content within their dominion; they seek what Hitler called lebensraum – living room. Look what is happening in Europe; the sign are all around us.

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

11 February 2008

Update no.322

Update from the Heartland
No.322
4.2.08 – 10.2.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Well, now this an interesting twist . . . In the aftermath of Super-Dooper Tuesday, Governor Mitt Romney decided to suspend his presidential bid . . . then there were 1½ wannabes on one side and 2 on the other. It sure does appear that John McCain will be the Republican nominee. This turn of events cannot make the Democrats feel very comfortable with their two leading candidates slogging it out in an essential dead-heat that might not be resolved until August. I wonder how debilitating a protracted primary campaign will be. The actual campaign (from Labor Day to the election) may be quite entertaining.

Given all the whining and whinging from so-called conservatives about the approaching nomination of Senator John McCain, I wanted to attempt an understanding of their puzzling statements that they would vote for anyone but McCain, or even not vote at all, which I think verges on immature ridiculousness. Apparently, there are many reasons the uber-Right despise McCain – he is a moderate who has proven his ability to reach out to the opposition and find compromise solutions, and they know they cannot control him or make him toe-the-line. So, I picked one of their major examples and jumped in. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) [AKA McCain–Feingold or Shays-Meehan] {PL 107-155}. The BCRA amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) [PL 92-225], the Communications Act of 1934 [PL 73-416], and other portions of the United States Code, "to purge national politics of what [is] conceived to be the pernicious influence of 'big money' campaign contributions." The bill sought controls on the increased importance of 'soft money,' the proliferation of 'issue ads,' and the disturbing findings of a Senate investigation into campaign practices related to the 1996 federal elections. McCain–Feingold was immediately tested in court. The list of suits and counter-suits exceed the capacity of this humble forum; the 12 diverse cases became McConnell v. Federal Election Commission [540 U.S. 93 (2003)] before the Supreme Court. The Court offered up a complex, convoluted decision affirming part and striking down part of BCRA. The Court accepted controls on soft money, while they thought the restrictions upon broadcasting companies was too broad and thus unconstitutional. We can argue the wisdom or appropriateness of McCain-Feingold, yet one fact remains undeniable -- the legislation attempted to bring some order and discipline to the presidential election campaign financing process. We can also argue whether campaign finance reform is even warranted. The main objection hinges upon freedom of speech, which in this case is like trying to preserve the OK Corral at High Noon. Free speech can be injurious, and that is the challenge we face -- how do we resolve contests without bullets and blood in the street? Where do we draw the line to protect the greatest possible freedom while we prevent or reduce the likelihood of injury? Solutions to our most pressing societal problems demand compromise. This perpetual anti- / pro- nonsense does absolutely nothing to achieve workable solutions. The list is long – campaign finance, abortion, Social Security, gun control, health care, substance abuse, immigration reform, prostitution, child abuse, et cetera ad finitum. As long as we allow these political party hacks to continue their hard-line, intransigent stance – my side is right, your side is wrong – we will never find a solution because neither side will budge. With recalcitrant, starkly polarized opponents, often the best solution is one that has both sides equally angry. That said, this approach tends to work on most topics other than national security, law enforcement, or warfighting. I know there are some who receive this Update who can and hopefully will argue against McCain-Feingold for us; so let’s here it.

Another of the lightning rod issues with McCain and Republicans are his votes against the Bush tax cuts. I do not know why McCain voted against the cuts, but I do know that if I had been in the same position, I would have voted against them as well. The fiscal equation for personal, business and government is actually quite simple – revenue minus expenses = net. When net goes negative, the government borrows. McCain’s point was a tax cut in the face of a global war was insanity. I have always been a small government person, so for me, tax cuts should reduce revenue and reduce the size of government. That is what I expected with George W. Bush. Instead, we got a President who was unwilling, unable or uninterested in telling Congress (Republican controlled until 2006, I must add) no to the largess of pork-barrel, earmark spending that did not contribute to the war effort. Again, I invite anyone to explain how tax cuts without spending reductions are a financially responsible action.

An evolving thought . . . I have often wondered why so many American citizens do not vote. Perhaps, they are lazy, or do not care, or have other priorities on Election Day. I have and continue to maintain that voting is every citizen’s duty, obligation, and responsibility; and yet, as we have discussed [321, 322], more than a few of our comrades use the most superficial criteria, if they vote at all. Here is a radical notion, perhaps we should have a qualification test, kinda like a driver’s test, to ensure a minimum competency regarding the construction and operation of government as well as an understanding of contemporary issues. If not, my authority to vote would be rescinded until I can pass my competency test. Oh I know, the history buffs are rapidly typing out their condemnation and reminding my of the South’s ‘Jim Crow’ laws, designed to exclude American citizens with dark skin pigmentation.

We have a bevy of interesting news articles from our British cousins this week. I thought I would offer them up with links and a short comment for your cogitation and rumination. As always, I invite anyone to comment on any topic as they wish.
First up:
"Children of nine may get sex advice packs"
by Toby Helm and Sarah Womack
The Telegraph [of London]
Last Updated: 6:31am GMT; 28/01/2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/28/nsex128.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_28012008
Since parents refuse to teach their children, the State intends to press the issue, or at least encourage parents to do what parents should be doing.
Second:
"Day trip to Auschwitz for pupils from every school"
by Alexandra Frean
The Times [of London]
Published: February 4, 2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article3300819.ece?&EMC-Bltn=LOXCF1
The British Government requires two, 16-18 year old students from every school in England to visit the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau, Poland, to ensure the next generation remembers what happened 65 years ago. The article also provides a link for an extraordinary website to preserve our memory.
http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/new/index.php?language=EN&tryb=start&id=675&menu=g
Third:
"Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits"
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones
The Telegraph [of London]
Last Updated: 1:52am GMT; 04/02/2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/03/nbenefit103.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_03022008
This movement may seem fair, but it implicitly becomes State sanction and encouragement of polygamous marriages, and provides an enticement for others to follow suit and claim expanded benefits, like welfare benefits based on child headcount encouraging brood-mare, welfare mothers. What free, productive adults choose to do in private is not my concern or a matter of State interest. However, private choices should not, and I will say must not, enable unfair or unequal benefits.
Fourth and last:
"Does Islam fit with our law? -- Is a clash of civilisations looming? It’s now time to find the links rather than the conflicts between English and Islamic law"
by Ian Edge and Robin Griffiths-Jones
The Times [of London]
Published: February 5, 2008
http://timesonline-emails.co.uk/go.asp?/bTNL001/mWBP4L8/qNK7ML8/uNSC46/xC0HDL8
The challenge of societal heritage dilution has overrun all the Western democracies; this is the British version; the same phenomenon applies to the United States.

Nations are formed for the common good, for collective security, and for the preservation of fundamental principles the bind its citizen together. The relationship of The People to the government especially among democratic countries grows from the “consent of the governed” in some form. Further, certain protections are afforded individuals as a bulwark against zealous or capricious government agents and to give the individual the means to resist majority rule as might be imposed. As with all things, there are exceptions – eminent domain being a prime example. While I think of myself as a student of the Constitution, I can make no claim to scholarly expertise; yet, as with most topics, I do have an opinion I believe relevant. So many questions before our contemporary body politik seem to emanate from the constant and continuous struggle in defining the position and permeability of the boundary between public and private, between the citizen and the State. The political spectrum, it seems to me, ranges from pure Federal through state and local government to extra-governmental communities, and at the other end rests the private conduct of the citizen. There are (or at least should be) near-exclusivities at either end of the spectrum. The Federal government, as reflected in the Constitution and the Logan Act of 1799 [1 Stat. 613] [280], negotiates with foreign governments; private citizens are excluded. On the other end of the spectrum, the individual citizen’s private conduct should be beyond the government’s reach. The right to privacy was first articulated by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut [381 U.S. 479 (1965)] [166, 189]. We could argue, as the Court tip-toes around in Griswold, that a citizen’s right to privacy is a fundamental right, beyond the Constitution and thus protected by the 9th Amendment. The 9th Amendment is mentioned quite infrequently in Supreme Court rulings; perhaps, there are no substantive reasons for the paucity of citations, however, the fact remains. My opinion . . . unenumerated or undefined rights appear boundless and thus difficult to interpret, e.g., where do we draw the line between permissible, tolerable and unacceptable? Why is this question important? A presidential candidate’s Supreme Court appointment bias is, whether most citizens recognize it, a critical parameter for our evaluation. My struggle with finding the balance between the State and the citizen, between public and private, and how a Supreme Court justice sees that balance, led me back to a moment of history. The operative buzzword among Republicans and conservatives regarding judges and justices is ‘strict constructionist.’ What defines a ‘strict constructionist’ regarding judicial interpretation of the Constitution and our body of laws? I think they mean a judge who interprets the words of the Constitution and the law in the strict, literal, ‘as intended’ manner. In this question, my curiosity drove me back to the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford [60 U.S. 393 (1856)] ruling {241 pages, in a day when documents were handwritten or hand set type}. The words of the Scott decision reflect the gargantuan struggle in judicial interpretation of our laws, the Constitution, and our highest societal principles. Every sitting justice on the bench in 1856 wrote an opinion in the Scott decision; two justices dissented from the Court’s opinion. Among the arguments of jurisdiction, territorial governance, the related body of law, authority and intent, we can sense a powerful undercurrent of consequences. Just imagine if the Founders made slavery an overt issue in 1787? I think we can all agree that if the Scott decision had gone the other way, the Civil War would have begun in 1856 instead of 1861. The Founders may have and probably did think that “All Men are Created Equal” applied only to free, Caucasian, adult males and perhaps even further narrowed to property owners. Such an interpretation is understandable in the light of common societal attitudes, morals and values at the time. However, I think we can also see the inconsistency of such a narrow ‘strict’ interpretation with the ideals upon which this Grand Republic was founded. Then, the ‘strict constructionist’ argues, yes, but the Constitution was amended by the ratification process to broaden the definition of citizen (14th Amendment) and to realize women’s suffrage (19th Amendment). Some of the ‘strict constructionists’ suggest we should amend the Constitution properly, to define a citizen’s right to privacy, if we believe it is that important. In his dissenting opinion in the Scott case, Associate Justice Benjamin Robert Curtis wrote, “[U]nder the Constitution of the United States, every free person born on the soil of a State, who is a citizen of that State by force of its Constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States,” as he argued for Dred Scott’s status as a ‘native born’ citizen. In contrast, Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, writing the Court’s opinion, said, “No one, we presume, supposes that any change in public opinion or feeling, in relation to this unfortunate race (those with dark skin pigmentation), in the civilized nations of Europe or in this country, should induce the court to give to the words of the Constitution a more liberal construction in their favor than they were intended to bear when the instrument was framed and adopted.” The justices of who sat on the bench of the highest court in the land in 1856, rationalized and justified slavery in the light of the lofty ideals of the Declaration of Independence and a few snippets in the Constitution. They attempted to put themselves in the heads of the Founders. Taney's thinking was narrow, specific and quite literal. The judicial apprehension reflected in the Scott decision can also be seen in the paucity of rulings citing the 9th Amendment – the notion of The People possessing undefined rights beyond the Constitution must incite judge’s to convulsion. So much of our law depends upon the interpretation and the scholarly perspective of the justices. When you see the State as supreme, the Scott decision is easily achieved. When you see The People as preeminent, you see Dred Scott as a native-born citizen without the 14th Amendment to tell you so. So rests the challenges of our day.

Comments and contributions from Update no.321:
“‘I have always wondered how one rationalizes reaping the benefits while condemning the process by which the benefits are protected.’ Don't we all wonder that, Cap. I have been mystified by this for years. The only logical explanation is that there must be some shorted circuitry involved somewhere.”
My response:
And, I doubt any of those so inclined would care to attempt an answer. Like so many of the “anti’s”, a holier-than-thou position is easy to defend.

Another contribution:
“Wow ... I actually was able to take the time to really read the entirety of your update. Just the other day I commented to [my husband] that it's too bad money is such a factor in campaigning/running for President. It sure takes alot of great potential Presidents out of the loop. There are so many people like yourself that are knowledgeable of current and past world events, and have great ideas of what the country needs and how to manage war, terrorism, etc. Too bad people like you could not run for President. If only campaign money were not an issue. Not that you would WANT to be President, but you and people like you that have such great knowledge and ideas, should have the opportunity to get out there and debate and be an option for the peoples' choice. Has the Presidential race ALWAYS required huge campaign funds? I sure find it highly limiting to providing the people what they truly need. I guess right now I am leaning toward McCain but even McCain has his negative points. And Hillary just makes me SHIVER to think of her having the presidential role.
“In regards to Miss rich, but poor, Britney Spears ... yes, she may have had dysfunctional parents (for what good that broad term covers), but so do MANY kids who overcome and make proper decisions in life. Once Britney turned 18 she was turned over full time to agents and managers, which was no better than having dysfunctional parental control prior to turning 18. The agents and managers never really had Britney's best personal interests in mind ... they probably never had children themselves, I am not sure but I would guess that is the case. Everything involving Britney revolved around money and the making and controlling of it. Her mother went along with it, probably because she saw that Britney enjoyed the business and the attention it gave her. But once Kevin Federline came into her life, everything especially seemed to change. I imagine he was a big influence on the decisions she next made. She fired long time managers, who may have been the best thing for her ... she 'popped' out two children (enabling a stronger financial hold for Mr. Federline), then she was involved in divorce for whatever reason ... I imagine Mr. Federline was lacking a good family life himself and had no proper skills in maintaining a good marriage. But now Mr. Federline is given custody of the children ... he is not in the spotlight and his actions are not publicized. Who knows what HE does with the children ... maybe the paparazzi should be following HIM around. I am so glad poor Britney is out of the public eye for a while. She needs a GOOD celebrity psychologist to help her see and understand what she is experiencing, and to help her face life and her responsibilities. Her finances SHOULD be put on hold, including the amounts that are paid out to Mr. Federline for 'child support.' You are right that maybe Britney, just as Angelina Jolie did several years ago, needs to experience the anguish much of the world experiences just dealing with making enough to put food on the table each day etc. Perhaps that would be the best treatment for her once she is rid of the chemical addictions."
My reply:
Campaign financing is a huge problem. Like earmarks, the current system invites corruption, abuse and the power-elite. No wonder the Republicans rail against McCain-Feingold – certainly not a perfect law, but a worthy attempt. Today, only the monied elite can afford to run for Federal office. The turning point for expensive campaigns could be marked by several milestones – public access to television, the 24-hour cable news, and the Internet. This current campaign example demonstrates the insanity and exclusionary aspects at their very worst. Hopefully, we will learn a lesson from this campaign cycle, and do something to reign in the injurious elements.
I think you hit the nail squarely on the head. Britney’s parents did not do their primary task very well in preparing her for adulthood, but the agents and managers only care about today’s gravy train; pushing her personal life into the world-wide media serves their purposes, certainly not hers. That said and as you say, she is an adult under the law and fully responsible for her actions, or lack of same. Yet, I think she has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she is incapable of managing her affairs, in this case, hiring & firing those who serve her. Unfortunately, I think she has dug the hole far too deep and will need a whole lot of help extricating herself. In many ways, her course of self-destruction was set in her youth, by her parents and those who influenced her early years.

A different contribution:
"I did not read your piece very critically nor thoroughly.
"My idea about legislation is that it should be labeled/titled whatever fits the subject of it the best.
"But there should be NO way for anyone, from Either side of the aisle, to propose and by legislative deception/manipulation/coercion/bargaining under Present rules, try to insert by amendment, (whatever) anything NOT directly having to do with the subject bill. NO chance for Pork. No chance for any congressman or senator to slip something in, having nothing to do with the Bill, which would benefit THEIR constituency, nor any other congressman's or senator's constituents. The Bill is about "X." Period. Yea or Nay. (Yes, the $$$$ necessary to fund this proposal "X" could be debated and then resolved----as could the means by which it would be done-----etc).
"Some then want to fall back on the notion that they should now be taken care of in any number of ways by our Government. I say NO.
"Yes they will be out on the streets, trying to find a meal and a place to sleep tonight in some shelter, or finding themselves under a cardboard box in some alley. Sorry 'bout that. I don't care.
"They started out the same as me. But chose other paths. Yes "CHOSE." Don't give me that Crap about opportunities, single parent homes, bad neighborhoods and bad role models.
"I made MY choices early, as life choices do have to be made, and I am glad I had good advice from people and family who Knew and cared. I avoided a lot of grief in life that way.
"That is how life goes, and I feel NO need nor compassion for pulling them up out of their misery. THEY got themselves there. Let them get themselves out. It can be done. People have.
"Your piece has much more. I have not addressed it. Some I have not even read through.
"Youthful Dress codes:
"Back when I was a teenage boy, tight Levi jeans, a western/semi-western shirt, and what I want to say at this moment were logger's boots were in. Heavy duty boots. And as the trend grew, a strap of leather across the instep. I think then called 'Engineer' boots. I had a pair for maybe 40 years. They were well made. Also, as Elvis, or maybe just before him came 'in,' our hair got longer and more coiffured.
"Girls wore a number of underslips, (whatever) under fairly long skirts. Maybe halfway down from knee to ankle. Thus spreading everything out like in Civil War times. They walked home after school in groups, two's or alone, kinda leaning back, with their books cradled in their arms and the arms kinda crossed across their fronts. Still they managed to make sure their hips kinda swayed side to side at each step."
My reply:
Congress: I certainly agree as noted. I doubt few in Congress have the [chutzpah] to enact such focused rule changes. I have no problem whatsoever for a senator from Alaska proposing a bridge to nowhere, serving only a very small, local population; that’s all well and good; where I get my hackles up is when it is hidden from public view and debate. Most of these yayhoos in Congress do not want public scrutiny – too constraining. If enough of us speak up, it might change, but I am not so naïve to think it could happen in my lifetime. I would love to be pleasantly surprised.
What I failed to add in my WPA proposal was constraints. If I choose to accept government shelter (warm cot, community shower, etc.) and sustenance (2-3 nutritional meals a day), then it is only fair and reasonable that I live by dictated rules. If I choose not to work for the benefits, then I should be confined to a camp or facility, so I do not become an additional burden on society. If I do choose to work, I do the government’s work to the best of my ability; if not, then I revert to non-work status. The same would apply to substance abusers; I would be happy to pay for their drug(s) of choice, as long as they remain in an established, protected facility, and no longer a hazard to society. The cost would be far less than all the collateral damage done by non-productive and/or self-destructive citizens.
. . . and this follow-up:
"You would be ok about paying for drug user's drugs if they remained in established, protected places where they were no threat to society? Well---would you then just give them their drugs and let them kill themselves slowly with NO medical help? What purpose would any medical help have, and who would pay for that?
"I say let the homeless go. We cannot save them really, nor should we try. Education early on and continuing is maybe where $$$ should go, but not a penny to re-hab, re-education, etc. "
. . . and my follow-up reply:
To your points, short answer: yes! Obviously, I do not mean ‘pay for’ personally; my meager income would hardly cover one hardcore addict. If you look at the true cost of the abysmal ‘war on drugs,’ welfare programs, and such, ample funds are already available; we just should spend them on a different approach. Regarding the intoxicants portion of my WPA proposal, I truly believe that State-licensed intoxicants would eliminate the blackmarket, smuggled, drug trade and the associated criminal sub-culture that services that demand. I learned a long time ago and the hard way that individuals who succumb to abuse of intoxicants do so by choice, and there is nothing that can be done to stop them. The only known limiter is when they, as distinct, sole individuals, decide they have hit rock-bottom and choose to cast off the shackles of drug abuse; until that moment, there is nothing the rest of us can do. I am only an anecdotal expert, but the majority of users seem to be ‘functional users;’ very few abusers are truly destructive. To my thinking, a functional user can get their drug(s) of choice free from the government as long as they confine their use to the facility where they are protected and society is protected, and the destructive ones can have as much as they wish with informed consent. I also believe that every individual has unalienable and fundamental rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. If their free choice is the oblivion of drugs up to and including death, then so be it – that is their chosen exercise of our most fundamental rights, and their choices should be respected. At least they will not hurt innocent people in the process and will not be forced to violent crime to feed their choices.
Re: medical help. I am fully supportive of providing professional medical and psychological help to anyone who wishes to avail themselves of those services. But, that must be the individual’s free choice; anything other than that is a form of coercion or imposed ‘treatment’ and will never be successful. I am all in favor of helping those who truly seek help.
Re: homeless. I put them in the same category as substance abusers. There are probably a myriad of reasons individuals enter the category of homelessness. IMHO, some seek to remove themselves from the burdens of productive society -- their choice. In my WPA proposal, they can perform necessary, unskilled, public work projects, like road-side clean-up, painting curbs, manual labor in support of construction, et cetera. If they choose not to work, then they should remain in the facility, so as not to be a further burden on the rest of society, i.e., no panhandling, taking up library seats, trashing public or private property, et cetera. If they choose to remain free from the facility, then they must not interfere with productive society; to do otherwise, they take what comes in the wilderness or they could be ‘institutionalized.’
I am in favor of helping those who wish to be helped, but I feel no compassion for those who simply seek the proverbial ‘free lunch.’ If any of this seems Draconian, so be it. But, the bottom line is, I have no desire or interest in redeeming lost souls. The church can handle that without our help. And, for the record, I am not in favor of the President's faith-based initiative as I have written [271, 290] for a host of reasons.

A related comment:
“‘How does one rationalize the benefits while reaping the process?’ Bloody brilliant point! I have wondered that so many times. That and when people whine that the more terrorists we kill, the more we create. Using that logic, we should have stopped our advance through the Pacific after Leyte Gulf, when the Kamikazes started showing up. After all, the closer we get to Japan, the more of those suicide pilots we would be creating. When someone is determined to kill you, you need to get them before they get you. Yeah, the bad guys may use some of this stuff as a recruiting tool, but let's face it, they have the advantage of doing it in countries that don't have the benefit of media outlets that present multiple points of view. I totally agree there are too many people out there who are afraid of killing the enemy. God help us if they get into power.”

And, yet another contribution:
“Before responding to many important issues in this update, let me say the GMEN did it Sunday without bad ref calls and excuses. It was a great game to watch. And today is an important day in our country. My hope is that the whiners on both sides will pipe down long enough to come to their senses. They are starting to sound silly just like the kid who takes his ball and goes home because the game isn't played just like he wants it to be. Stand up for what you believe in and let the voters decide. Now on to your update.
“Not only the more terrorists we kill will bring us peace, the quicker we do it will bring us peace with fewer casualties. When the Dems campaign on a platform of bringing the troops home prior to job of keeping freedom alive, anyone who votes for that best remember this lesson. Regardless of who wins the election, are they ready to assume the role of coward?
“I was ho hum about the President's speech. But, like you I was astounded at the presence of the military. I will never forget General Walt addressing my Basic School class at Quantico. He told us Marines were not going immediately to Vietnam anymore and he barred us from wearing our uniforms to Washington DC, because of the danger we new Marine officers faced in our nation's capital. It was a sad day on two counts. We knew it meant our leaders were giving up in Vietnam, and we were the scourge of our vocal society given voice by the media. Some did go to Vietnam anyway to watch us lose, and the burn I felt of having to wear civvies to DC instead of wearing my Marine uniform proudly has never gone away. When home on leave before heading to Navy flight school, I put on my full Class A uniform (blouse an all) nearly everyday and wore it proudly in my home town to counter what happened in DC. I commented to my family and friends when they asked why didn't I wear more relaxed dress that it was my way of showing them how important the uniform is and what it represents. My Dad understood completely having gone from the beach to the Bulge, Remagen, and through Germany with Patton. He knew and I'm certain the Marines of our era knew as well. Our military today enjoys support that we lacked in the media and from our society. It is a good thing. But, hear this warning - if we cut and run, we surrender to the terrorists. We lose our safety and the future of our children, not to mention a return to marginalizing the lives of our fallen brethren just like we did in Vietnam. It will be interesting to see which, if any, candidate wants that on his or her tombstone.
“Being a university professor, I have no problem with a local institution establishing a dress code given what I witness in my classes these days. But, it is no place for the federal government to intrude. Our local K12 schools are pondering returning to uniforms and several are experimenting with it now. Some structure is good for kids growing up, especially when their parents seem to forget to teach them pride in not only who they are, but how they dress. I'm not sure I like the idea of uniforms, but dress codes are fine with me.
“A new and revised WPA is an idea whose time has come and I'm glad you raise the issue. Compassion for our fellow man is a good lesson my father taught me, but misplaced compassion is fatal. A WPA would provide opportunity for people to get out of homelessness and find a way to be productive again if they are capable of working. And, it is well-placed compassion instead of more enabling handouts.
“One last point. I would rather volunteer for root canal experimental treatments than spend one more second on substance-abused entertainers who infect our young with their fatal behaviors. Their parents are mostly to blame along with the media. The media builds it larger than life and that is not likely to change no matter how we feel. The more attention it gets, the more our society seems fascinated with it. I'm turning the page on that part of our dysfunctional society, even though I may be one of the few.”
My reply:
Glad you like the WPA proposal. Like the insanity of the war on drugs, I doubt any politician has the [chutzpah] to make such a proposal happen. It never hurts to dream.
RE: ‘substance-abused entertainers.’ Like so many of these so-called reality shows, the Press simply feeds the voyeur-appetite of the population. I would agree they add some prurient spin, but the ultimate accountability belongs with parents. I espouse a radical view that parents should expose their children to politics, crime, sex, finance, violence, war, prostitution, substance abuse, and so many other sensitive societal topics to prepare them to make the correct or best decisions they can, and do it before they are exposed in life. I would much rather have our children decide from knowledge and preparation rather than from curiosity and peer pressure.
. . . with this follow-up:
“Some politicians prefer keeping people in the handout program for perverse reasons. And, like you I prefer kids to be exposed as well. My 4 kids were exposed to the worst seedy part of our society so they learned the values of their parents firsthand and why. We are fortunate that our kids adopted a higher road of life. And, I am content with turning the page on the worthless side for me. Everyone else can decide if they want to feed the media's interest. Not this old Jarhead...”
. . . and my follow-up reply:
You got that right . . . similar perverse reasons drive our lack of immigration reform, the voter ID issue, this crazy electronic voting mania, among so many other topics.
I’d like to say we did a good job with our kids. In a sense, I think we did pretty well. However, I know we could have done better. Having the time and a forum to discuss such things has certainly sharpened the pencil.
Again, I’m not so sure it is the Media as much as it seems to be the voyeuristic mentality of our population.

A new topic:
“I hope you will comment on two things, and I hope your audience will spread these notions.
“First, we conservatives have a problem. This time there is no Ross Perot running so that at least we could vote for someone and not sit out the election in protest against the betrayal of the Republican Party. The Democrats have won the Republican Party nomination contest--McCain is just what they wanted. What now?
“Second, I loath the pandering inherit in the economic stimulus package, but it is a done deal now. Someone has said that it will stimulate the economy of China more than our own. I say let's start a national campaign to pledge to either put our green checks in long term savings or spend our United States money only on United States products! I know it's hard to know where ingredients came from, but we could try! What say ye?”
My response:
[First part, see above.]
I see two parts to the economic stimulus question as you have posed it. First, I have not heard a politically neutral, macro-economics professional even remotely hint that the stimulus package as defined by Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008 can have any technical impact. However, that said, a large factor in a consumer economy – which ours is and has been – is confidence. If buyers feel good, they spend, to put it in simplistic terms. So, the impact of this stimulus may well depend upon perception, id est, if we think it will work, it will. Second, IMHO, the notion of "Buy American" is a form of economic isolationism that ignores normal market forces in virtually the same way the "America First" movement ignored international political forces in 1940. There is one primary reason jobs go off-shore -- cost of labor, the largest single component. We must innovate, develop, enhance and separate our products from those produced elsewhere. Until we face the root causal factors in the economic equation, we are only fooling ourselves.

The continuing of a thread from the last couple of Updates:
“I agree on treating children with respect. Children are far more wise, intelligent, and intuitive, than many give them credit for.
“It all starts with our children. While I was not at all in favor of what was behind-the-scenes with Hillary's older slogan (and book) "It Takes a Village--to Raise a Child", I compliment the effort. What I would rather have seen popularized would be 'It takes parents to raise a child' and then something like 'It takes a community to care.' I think one big problem is a parent subordinating the ultimate responsibility of parenthood, off to some government agency, or school resource. It is one thing to ask for help, another to not want to do the work and task it out to someone/something easier.
“I find it a shame that kids are taught so much to prepare them for the workforce (not in all cases), but so little about being parents. We hear often people saying that high schools need to teach teens how to manage their finances when they graduate, yet very seldom do I ever hear folks saying we need to teach courses on being a good parent. Hopefully most children have their own parents fine model to default to (which is what most people do), or perhaps a grandparent or mentor, but the ones that need it terribly have a bad model to fallback on, maybe terrible parents or broken homes and being shifted around like an unwanted person. I cringe when I see 17 year old girls walking with a baby stroller, with a man/father who is ultra-MIA, and the girl herself is still a young child. Sometimes amazing results come from those situations, but often the syndrome as you refer to is just repeated, with offspring going to prison or joining gangs, and on and on and on.
“Since closing my own business, I have had children/teens in my care and responsibility before, as a professional commercial & private chauffeur (for a family). I have had situations without an adult in the cabin. I have had teens bring alcohol on-board and I have either stopped them or detected it when they tried to hide it. I approach them and they say things like "my parents let me drink!" and they are only 17. I then say "let's get your parents on the phone and clarify this, and even so, I must have the alcohol and lock it the trunk." Of course the kid will fess up right away and say "no, don't call my dad!" and we know the true story. But sadly, I have had parents say to me "it is okay if my son Benny has a few beers" and I say "it is not okay past me, he is underage, and in my care and responsibility." I have had well-to-do parents in my limo with their children, and their children are drinking right there with them. My sense was that the parent wanted to be liked and popular with their children while not establishing any boundaries. I had one situation where and adult friend in the cabin was giving alcohol to minors and I detected it, corrected it and asked that all the alcohol be locked in my trunk and I would return it to the adult at the end of the evening/service. The adult refused, I terminated service at that point. I was not at all popular that night, lost money, but when we do the RIGHT THING, it always is rewarding.
“I believe many children/teens get caught up in drugs not only because of bad peers, but bad parents. I suspect many of those households are chaotic and the children do not feel respected or loved, but may often feel neglected and disrespected.
“My hat is off like yours is to all parents, and conducting the best service to society using undefined mixtures of art and science with patience and perseverance, often with unpredictable outcomes yet sticking to the higher purpose and plan.
“I always tell people the three most important yet undervalued jobs in our society are 1. Parents; 2. Teachers; 3. Cops.”
My response:
Integrity and principle often have a cost, but the price of compromising our integrity is usually far greater.
Children in other parts of the world are exposed to alcohol early in their lives and taught to consume responsibly, usually under parental supervision. Too often we hear stories of parents allowing their children to drink, smoke, do some marijuana or worse. The age of exposure is important, but the preparation for such exposure is critical. So many cases, parents seem to exposure their children to such intoxicating substances without teaching them how to act responsibly. We see the consequences. Likewise, shielding and protecting our children from life’s temptations can be and often is equally destructive; by the time they exposed to intoxicants by their peers, they are ill-prepared to deal with those consequences, and often over-react negatively to “fit in.” Beyond intoxicants, I also include sex and other life realities.

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

04 February 2008

Update no.321

Update from the Heartland
No.321
28.1.08 – 3.2.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Another one bites the dust . . . hey, hey . . . This time, the Allies eliminated Abu Laith al-Libi, a top al-Qaeda commander, a Libyan, and presumably no relation to Abu Farraj al-Libbi [178] (captured and hopefully still incarcerated). The Press has speculated that a CIA Predator UAV might be responsible for the strike, in North Waziristan, Pakistan, but to my knowledge, no one has claimed responsibility. Silent death is fine by me; the more we kill, the sooner we can return to peace.

We do not find an abundance of praise from the uber-Left regarding war successes like the al-Libi strike. I suppose they are quite content enjoying the freedoms our military, intelligence and security forces provide while they remain sanctimonious, aloof and contemptible of all things violent. I have always wondered how one rationalizes reaping the benefits while condemning the process by which the benefits are protected.

The President gave a respectable State of the Union speech Monday night. I would give him more credit, except for two critical elements. His use of rather strident words and tone sprinkled throughout the hour long speech do absolutely nothing beyond extending the vast division in contemporary politics – not exactly the form of leadership the Nation so desperately needs. Then, the President finally finds his conscience to demand reductions in congressional earmarks. I am glad the President has taken the position, but 50% reduction is hardly enough. I would prefer zero earmarks – no funding for projects not voted upon by Congress, and thus all Federal spending should be open to public scrutiny. I recognize that the capability for earmarks is necessary, especially for certain quick response actions, but this congressional largess is insanity and directly contributes to corruption, abuse and this damnable, insane spending. The President’s “Johnny come lately” conscience only adds more division. Two other unrelated observations also struck me. What an incredible sight . . . all the uniforms in the gallery. For my generation, in our war, we were ordered to not wear our uniforms inside the Beltway – too inflammatory for the peaceniks. And, I do not recall any military professional other than the Joint Chiefs of Staff being invited to the Joint Session of Congress and the President's State of the Union report. My, how times have changed . . . for the good, in my view. I also listened to the opposition party response – Governor Kathleen Sibelius of Kansas. She started well, but the constant “join us” took the message right back into the mire and muck of divisive, parochial, party politics. When will we ever find a leader to heal the wounds, build the necessary bridges, and work for the general welfare of this Grand Republic instead of these equally damnable political parties? When?

As an unexpected follow-up to last week’s comment on voting selection criterion [320], I read with enthusiasm this week's Leonard Pitts column in the Wichita Eagle. He said it far better than me.
"Even if Obama were Muslim, so what?"
by Leonard Pitts
Wichita Eagle
Monday, 28.January.2008
For those who do not receive the Wichita Eagle, the same column can be found as:
"Obama foes make appeal to ignorance, fear"
by Leonard Pitts Jr.
Miami Herald
Posted: Sunday, January 27, 2008
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/story/393654.html

Jeanne recorded and asked me to watch Monday’s Dr. Phil show about baggy pants and featured these questions: “Do you think baggy pants are fashionable?,” and “Do you think it is OK for the government to ban baggy pants?” By ‘baggy pants,’ they mean the tendency of some young folks to wear loose fitting pants well below the waist with their underwear exposed. We have all seen the fad attire. I think the youthful fashion trend is silly, immature and self-limiting. I do not think saggy pants are fashionable. And, as I think everyone who has read previous editions will recognize, I absolutely do not think the government should be involved in such things. Like profanity in speech or writing, baggy or saggy pants simply demonstrate the immaturity of the individual. In a free society, individuals make choices important to them. Exposed tattoos, exposed body piercings, purple spiked hair, et cetera, may be individual, personal statements, but they are also public limiters. Many employers refuse to hire or employ people who use profanity, are intoxicated at work or in public, dress inappropriately, or otherwise present a poor public image . . . as it should be. Such discrimination is understandable, proper, and presents a societal ostracism, and yet using the law against such individuals violates their freedom of choice. Baggy or saggy pants leave no exposed skin or genitalia; there is no injury. I say, let them dress as they wish and limit their opportunities – their free choice. Just as I would object to a law forcing employers to accept these statements of attire or appearance, I would object to any law imposing our dress standards on individuals. Baggy pants are a parental issue, not a governmental one.

As ruthless as I may seem from time to time, especially in matters of warfighting, defending my home & family, or dealing with certain forms of criminal conduct, I am also quite a contradictory character when it comes to compassion for mankind. Needless to say, my compassion is tempered by an unwillingness to be made fool of or abused by those less scrupulous among us. I do not want any creature, including genus homo sapiens sapiens, to suffer . . . well, I do exclude a narrow class of capital criminals. I do not want any person to be hungry, or uncomfortable, or unhappy. And yet, I am not so naive to think we can, or even have a right or responsibility to, care for all those who may be in extremis. So many questions . . . does a homeless man actually want to work for a living? Does a brood-mare, welfare mother actually want to provide for her family or continue to have the State do it for her? I struggle with the fundamental challenging question of will, or desire, or motive. I learned the hard way, a long time ago, that individuals will change ONLY when they truly, deep in their gut, want to change or seek help; nothing else will alter their chosen path. Too many people are quite content having shelter and sustenance provided for them. The difficulty is finding those who truly want help. As I have written for many years, every individual’s freedom of choice should override all the ‘do-good-er’ motives of the rest of us. Just because a person is homeless does not mean he wants a home. In a similar vein, some indigenous people are quite content to live naked and forage for food. The notion that all humans want to live like us is silly, paternalistic nonsense. Nomadic tribes have survived for millennia with their hereditary skills to blend with nature as it is, not as some of us might wish it to be. This brings me to President Franklin Roosevelt’s Executive Order 7034, creating the Works Progress Administration (WPA) in 1935. The program was retrospectively funded by Congress a few months later. I acknowledge that not many things torch off conservative Republicans quicker than Roosevelt’s WPA, but I shall run the gauntlet. In my most humble opinion, the WPA was a necessary product of the time, and rightly ceased to exist in 1943. The WPA was many things, but predominately, it was a government public works employment program. Some lesser and limited version of the WPA might serve to weed out the leeches from the worthy, and allow detractors from society to be ‘collected’ into appropriate facilities for the public good. I have proposed a version of this concept before [128, et al] to insulate productive society from those possessed by a self-destructive penchant associated with substance abuse and other character anomalies. The WPA portion might be an appropriate stairway for those who truly seek improvement and offer public good in the process. The administration of a modern WPA would surely cost less than the degeneration of welfare. Those who choose not to be productive or choose a path of self-destruction should be allow their freedom of choice and the dignity of leaving them to their choice or helping them along the way. We must focus on those who truly seek help from those of us more fortunate, and save our societal remorse for those who find themselves in a spot of bad luck or a rough patch. In a reflective manner, we would find out how important freedom is to each individual. My bottom line . . . let us get the government working on those who do not want to contribute to society and get the government out of tinkering with private lives of the rest of us.

Please indulge me . . . another note from history. While I tempted the wrath of the uber-Right above, we can find a relevant lesson in the history files. Franklin Roosevelt took the oath of office as President on 4.March.1933, with the Nation deeply into the period we call The Great Depression. A mere few months later, on 16.June.1933, President Roosevelt signed into law, the National Industrial Recovery Act, (NIRA) [PL 73-67, HR 5755], that became the skeleton of the New Deal and the economic recovery program. Two years later and in the same month Roosevelt issued Executive Order 7034, the Supreme Court released its ruling in the case of Schechter v. United States [295 U.S. 495 (1935)], striking down the NIRA law. The Court decided that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Constitution when it extended the Commerce Clause into intrastate labor issues. The case sparked additional notoriety when Roosevelt objected to “nine old men” derailing his economic recovery efforts, and subsequently attempted to pack the Court to dilute sitting justices. We can find interesting parallels to the contemporary debate regarding the extension of Executive authority. The Court was correct in Schechter – the Constitution could not be suspended just because the country was hurting. The President’s war powers under the Constitution are substantially greater than his ability to affect intrastate commerce, and yet, the ambiguity of the President’s failure to seek a full declaration of war opens numerous questions of constitutionality similar to Roosevelt’s New Deal. The Court made a clear statement in 1935; it has yet to render a definitive ruling in the current debate. It does not appear President Bush will face his version of Schechter.

Comments and contributions from Update no.320:
“I read that the young suicide bomber was encouraged by his parents ... that is just not right.”
My response:
In the case of children becoming suicide bombers, you’re correct. Ultimately, I believe it is the clerics who have created and enflamed this jihadi environment, and the parents who convince the innocents to seek death. In this particular case, the parents and clergy set him up, i.e., put him into the martyr’s mentality, but this was an al-Qaeda mission. Jihadi suicide bombers are no different from or better than MS-13 drive-by shootings, or the Columbine HS massacre; parents failed their children. The parents got their kids in the frame of mind, but someone else loaded the weapon and pulled the trigger. What rabid ideology convinces children to kill themselves and take other innocent people with them? Radical, fundamentalist Islam lays beneath the surface, and the clergy must be our ultimate target.
. . . with this follow-up:
“I DO agree ... the clergy should be forced to wear a bomb attached to their bodies and place them in the middle of a desert to explode themselves and no one else. Perhaps THAT would stop this nonsense??”
. . . and my response to the follow-up:
A magnificent idea. Only problem is the whiners and hand-wringers would have conniption fits while blathering something about cruel and unusual punishment. If anything, I think your suggested remedy would be too kind for those who so wantonly destroy life. But hey, that’s just me.

This exchange was extracted from a separate threat regarding nuclear warfare and began with this article:
“Nuclear proliferation cannot be controlled now -- Former CIA agent says”
Hamid Mir, from Islamabad
The Daily Star
Published On: 2008-01-30
http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=21222
The opening comment:
“I think in many ways Einstein, Oppenheimer, Edward Teller, and others, likely regretted the future reach of their progress then. I have always thought it was that work that allowed the [Genie’s] escape from the bottle. Frankly, I am very surprised nukes have not been used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the Cold War (thank God it did not), and in the Kashmir theater with Pakistan v. India, or by North Korea against the South. It would not have surprised me if 9/11 would have involved tactical nukes, and since then with our own campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, I am a bit surprised it has not happened yet somewhere on our globe, by so-called terrorists with potential stealth state actors.”
My response:
There is a reason nuclear weaponry is lumped together with Chemical and Biological warfare. I have a hard time rationalizing B & C, but the N is still viable, and if presented circumstances similar to what we faced with Imperial Japan, I would have no remorse to use all the weapons I have to win. But, hey, that's just me.
. . . with this follow-up:
“I am far from any ‘bleeding heart liberal’ (use to think I was more fiscal-conservative, but lately I think that party got hijacked) but in my conscience, I would have had a very hard time ordering the use of the atomic weapons on Japan, for many reasons. As one who endorses and believes in much of what Christ taught, I have a hard time reconciling that perceived paradigm with using weapons of mass destruction. On a more logical and some would even say humane angle, there are many who provide fairly good evidence that by not having dropped the two atomic bombs, the global injury, death, misery, costs and destruction would have been far exceeded as compared to the losses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I've also often thought one must be careful (especially organized groups) from creative rationalizations or justifications.
“In a more esoteric moment, I have feared that our own use of the weapons, might have set an almost karmic course where the weapons could be used on America, or at least give some form of justification to a terrorist or state actor for such use, because we had green-lighted the development and only use of them. Then again, in the chaos of the human condition, I suspect had we not, someone else would have.”
. . . with my follow-up response:
There are several points here.
1. The casualty estimates for Operations OLYMPIC and CORONET (the invasion of the Japanese home islands) projected 1 million Allied dead, 5 million wounded, and 2-5 million Japanese dead with 10 million wounded and up to 20 million displaced & homeless. There was no question the majority of the Japanese people would have chosen to die for the Emperor. Whether we like it or not, war is killing and destruction; the sooner the enemy can be convinced to capitulate the better. So, I am with Harry; he did precisely the right thing. He repeated his demands for unconditional surrender. They refused. Harry did what had to be done, and he saved millions of Japanese and Allied lives.
2. The enemy we fight today is not total war, but a broad scale insurgency with the fighters embedded in a generally sympathetic population. Using nuclear weapons would be like using a sawed off shotgun with a single kidnapper among a group of hostages – an inappropriate weapon for the conditions. The same is true for the IRI or even the DPRK; the populace is not engaged.
3. I doubt very much that the IRI would use nuclear weapons even if they had them, because they know what would come their way. But, just as Saddam’s Iraq or the IRI probably would not use such weapons directly, they would get their surrogates to deliver the death they sought, as they have done for decades. Therein lies the dilemma. If we do not stop them before they gain the technology, then we would have no choice but to respond in kind.
4. We face an enemy who has repeatedly demonstrated his ruthlessness and paucity of any semblance of humanity, comparable to Imperial Japan and Hitler’s Schutzstaffeln. There is only one choice – kill them as quickly and efficiently as possible until they decide to stop their indiscriminate terrorism of innocent people.
5. The day we refuse to kill our enemies . . . le commencement de la fin.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

The following sequence came from yet another separate exchange regarding a commercial pilot’s in-cockpit breakdown (please look beyond the Britney Spears medium) and the continuing issue of parental / societal responsibility:
“The stuff on Britney I find tragic. Not only are her children victims, but to a degree she is. She has demonstrated she cannot manage her life nor the fame (and perhaps abundance of money/material factor). Hopefully she is getting the help she needs. I never considered her an actress or gifted musician per my tastes, but I do know many young people grew up in pivotal and memorable years with Britney their idol, and so I think those young adults now, and some are no doubt affected by watching this stage show play out with Britney, and others in her league.”
My reply:
Yeah, my wife and I talk about Britney every time she comes on the news, and ask ourselves what we would do if she was our daughter. She is a train wreak, self-destructive, and otherwise a very troubled young woman. She needs major treatment, but her money makes everyone reluctant to intervene. I suspect she is not longed for this world.
. . . round two:
“Hopefully Britney will make some kind of surprising comeback, and be a symbol of recovery and hope for those that idolized her years back, or may still do so. I believe if they can keep her away from chemicals, she could climb out of her low situation but will likely need to accept the public fall and harsh critics (and changes in her income/balance sheet). You'd think the opportunity of motherhood would have been adequate motivation for her, with many things coming easy for her and caring for her children with the massive cash-flows she has, but it is another story of selfish actions/behavior and chemical addiction, that has harmed far too many individuals and families. And that seems to go back to the Psychological and Spiritual 'P' + 'S' in the BPSSF equation or acronym above, although if she was/is eating drugs like candy, she is damaging her biological state most seriously too.”
. . . my reply to round two:
I suspect Britney never had an opportunity to mature, and it sounds like she had complacent and/or dysfunctional parents. Motherhood probably pushed her over the edge. Whatever is going on, she's a troubled young woman who needs one hellava lot of professional help, or she will continue in the death spiral she's in.
. . . round three:
“I agree on Britney. I also think she had come from a dysfunctional family, which is too common these days. Hopefully she will get the help and come through, but maybe not, and the poor kids will suffer, although they deserve functional parents, and maybe adoption is better in this case. One would have thought when the courts gave Britney opportunity to be a mom and keep custody, she would have met their standards, but she did everything to defy them (and thus her own kids). It is character/behavior that seems far too common with the younger generation, most sadly. Thus why she should not be the beacon or idol that young girls take their cues from?
“What I also meant to say in my dissertation[above], is I believe our most basic yet most high calling (purpose) in our lives is to be of service to others, our community, our Earth and universe. Even the guy that has to empty trash at the park is of service to all of us, and someone is there to do the many various jobs that keep the gears oiled and moving.”
. . . my reply to round three:
As I have written many times, I truly believe many of our societal problems are a direct product of poor to injurious parenting. I would add to your high calling . . . service to our children. Parenthood is a long-duration sacrifice for the good of our children. Once we have children, we no longer enjoy the freedom we once knew or might wish for, and we have an obligation to provide for, instruct, and most importantly love our children. I do not know the Spears family, but the public evidence strongly suggests Britney did not have the best of parents and certainly does not possess the life skills to handle the fame and fortunate she acquired. The train wreck she is today formed in her infancy; her parents failed her. Remedy will take considerable work and willingness on her part to correct, and help her becoming a productive member of society.
. . . and this rather lengthy but relevant and important follow-up:
“We live in a strange and surreal world in many ways. In some respects, the children coming out of the poor areas in our world, may have more love and attention, and thus grow up more emotionally balanced, than too often we have in more "advanced" countries like our own.
“The great and too quickly late management author and professor Peter Drucker, who passed away a few years ago at a young 96 years old, once said something in one of his books I read, about being an observer of everything/everyone in life, was the best way to truly learn. I think that was in the book ADVENTURES OF A BYSTANDER. I have tried to observe some things with the parent-child interactions, models, behaviors, and one thing I see that some parents make a big mistake doing is trying to be popular with their children. I also think it is because of their own lacking self-esteem, they try to win their own child's approval, when nothing could be further from proper nurturing. The tough-love stuff might be much better, like you suggest about "instructing" our children yet "loving them."
“As I have always thought about proper management and leadership actions, you cannot develop people and organizations by trying to be popular, it will never work, and it does not work with parenting. Kids are even better than subordinates at detecting any possible small gap between the walk and talk. servant leadership models could even be applied to parenting, serving your children with unconditional love and instruction, yet having sensible rules, boundaries and consequences for breaches of those instruction-sets taught by parent.
“The broken family syndrome is causing terrible things to children and grown adults. Fathers that are MIA not because of war, but because of lack of responsibility/accountability. Mothers that don't want the children but keep having them because it increases their monthly benefit check.
“I recall someone telling me a story about a mom and dad that were always busy putting time with their kids in a calendar, and racing from soccer game to school, to shopping center, timing dinners and juggling the household like a business enterprise. One day the car broke down and the dad forgot the cell phone. The mom and dad had to sit for an hour with their children waiting for a tow. The kids told the parents later that was the best time they ever had, they all talked in one car, were not racing to get somewhere, no cell phones, no dropping one kid off to go hitch another. Maybe people are trying to keep too busy, and they just need to go back to the old fashion ways of the Cleavers...maybe a nightly dinner at the table.
“I also believe teenagers are being time-warped ahead too fast, with all the exposure to adult shows, sex, violence, angry music, and all that. What happened to being able to be 5, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19? Why are so many 13 year olds acting as if they are an adult? And also too many kids are not being taught that one must have discipline, and sacrifice things today for better things in the future. Teens do not need credit cards to get anything they want, without parental controls. My first two cars in life, I had to work for, and they were not easy to get or luxury cars, they were transportation, and if I wanted something better, I had to work for it, earn it, then buy it. There was no easy money.
“In reading the wires this weekend, I cannot help from occasionally clicking on the constant Britney updates although I realize it is not a news event in importance, but yet many are captivated by the almost Shakespearean play of a falling star. She is now in on the mental hold well to exceed 72 hours. Her estate is being placed into a temporary conservatorship. I believe her dad will get some control. I don't know if he should or should not. Hopefully the access potential to her money by other family, is not going to cause dirty traps, tricks and tactics by any/all involved. I think her recovery besides severe avoidance of any chemical agents including alcohol for her, needs to include heavy counseling and privacy which means she must stay out of the spotlight and not want the stage that she is use to. She needs to be given some hope that she can regain custody of her children and win their love and desire to be with her, as much as she desires to be a good parent without being selfish, meeting many of the those principles you outlined below.
“While I do not want Britney to get taken in by any cult-like churches or religions, I have seen many people in the past who were in the wilderness, find wholeness or something much better than the dark hell Ms. Spears is now in, by embracing something bigger, a calling, maybe it could be worship, study, being humbled even more than I bet she now is, and then putting much of her problems in God's hands or for those that don't accept that, a higher intelligence and loving creator we don't really understand, yet sense an awesome beauty, order and future from.
“And if that all does not work for her, maybe they need to send her down to the Marines boot camp, let her go through that and take an Iraqi tour. Or, send her to Tijuana or Calcutta for 3 months to see how good she really had it in the material and monetary realms, but was so mixed up psychologically and spiritually, thus doing self-destruction physically, that she will no longer take that for granted when she sees 60 year old men, with no health insurance, no retirement, begging to shine someone's shoes for $2 so at the end of their day they can go home with some food to feed their family.”
. . . and I could not pass adding another few observations:
Very good points, parenthood is not a popularity contest, but rather teaching and sacrificing for the benefit of our progeny.
As with leadership and management, parenthood can and should be firm and disciplined, but where some go awry comes with not treating children with respect. They are not minions, slaves, or some other form of untermenschen. Children are young, impressionable, absorbent and quite sensitive. They need oooodles of love, affection, attention and interaction.
Many of us were taught: “Judge not, lest ye be judged,” and “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.” We do not confront dysfunctional, complacent or abusive parents, because of those precepts. And yet, when we withhold our confrontation, society fails those children, and then we have school yard bullies, petty criminals, and those who seek the numbing intoxication of substance abuse. From there, we gain capital criminals, traitors, and those who perpetuate the cycle into the next generation. Society must hold parents accountable . . . more as an example, since so much of a child’s character is formed in infancy and firmed by age 5.
For the great majority of parents out there, thank you very much. One day, we shall see all society’s children as vital to our stability and future, and hold those parents accountable, who wreak such havoc upon our societal well-being.

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