26 May 2008

Update no.337

Update from the Heartland
No.337
19.5.08 – 25.5.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Memorial Day . . . a day to remember our fallen patriots. God bless them all.

Our oldest grandchild Aspen Shae is on a grand adventure to New York City. The primary purpose of the trip was to participate in the Museum of Natural History’s overnight lock-in, made famous by the movie “Night at the Museum” (2006), starring Ben Stiller. They also took a carriage ride through Central Park, visited Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum and FAO Schwartz (from the movie “Big” (1988), starring Tom Hanks), and rode a double-decker bus around parts of the city. On Sunday, they attended the Broadway show “The Lion King.” She commented on how light it is there at night because of all the signs and tall buildings. Aspen is due back home Wednesday. We are all eagerly awaiting the stories and pictures.

I am the master of my domain, the king of my castle, and to demonstrate the veracity of these claims, I came home Friday night after a full day of work to our granddaughter Shalee Lynn and a new puppy. I begged Jeanne NOT to get a third dog and especially a puppy, but there she was . . . a 9-week-old, female, Rottweiler puppy. Oh yeah, I’m da man! Her name is, Abby Rose, and I will love her as I have loved all the others.

The follow-up news items:
-- One positive aspect to this particular silly season . . . public scrutiny is flushing out quite a number Christian clerics with a penchant for bigotry, intolerance, and outright hatred against those not in their flock, or who do not believe as they believe, or who do not subscribe to the notion of an angry, vengeful God. As Justice Brandeis said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.” So, let us all shine a bright light on the bigots among us, and especially those who hide behind the trappings of the clergy. Bigotry is bigotry.
-- On Thursday, the Texas State, 3rd District, Court of Appeals, at Austin, issued a scathing opinion in the case of In re Sara Steed [TX 3CA, no. 03-08-00235-CV (2008)] – the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), polygamy, child-abuse case [332]. The striking fact of the nine-page ruling was the repeated use of the words “no evidence” – nine times! The court was clearly not happy with the conduct of the police, the prosecutor, or the district court judge. Chief Justice W. Kenneth Law noted for the three sitting justices, “We find that the Department [of Family and Protective Services] did not carry its burden of proof” under the law, and that the district court “abused its discretion in failing to return the children” to their parents. I suspect this case is far from decided. The State of Texas will most likely appeal to the state supreme court, and if that ruling is insufficient, may well appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is unclear whether some or all of the children will be reunited with their parents; the appeals court clearly thinks they should be until sufficient, specific, individual evidence can be legally obtained and presented to justify the abuse charges. The court noted that 468 individuals were removed from the FLDS compound; of those, five had become pregnant between ages 15 to 17. All of this trauma because of an anonymous accusatory telephone call from a presumed, teenage female, alleging sexual abuse; the court noted the fact. The issue for me is not whether we agree with or condone polygamy, but rather that the State exceeded its authority and acted in a harsh manner. The case is a long way from its conclusion.

Some uber-Right talking head asked, “Is Obama Muslim?” Such ludicrous queries are foolish for a myriad of reasons, for Obama just as they were for former governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney [320]. I find the whole notion of religion being injected into the political process about as nauseating as a decaying corpse. I don’t care! I don’t care whether he’s Christian, Muslim, Jew, Mormon, Hindu or Buddhist! His religion or lack of same is his business and his alone. There is no legitimate, proper or reasonable basis to even ask such a foolish question. If this is the line of silly season scare tactics . . . well actually I don’t care about that either. If this is how Christian Americans seek to influence the political process, by creating doubt in the feeble minds of their mindless ‘believers,’ then they shall not enjoy my support. This whole Obama = Muslim is the most revolting political crap since Lyndon Johnson’s ‘Barry Goldwater = nuclear holocaust,’ one-hit wonder ad campaign that the Press played incessantly. I’m angry as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore.

Some folks have taken to calling John McCain -- McBush or Bush III -- in their mindless, parochial, political nonsense, trying to attach W's very low popular support to the presumed Republican nominee. People who say such things have not the slightest notion of John McCain. Further, while I'm on a silly season role, we have everyone touting Barack Obama’s defense of his wife on Good Morning America. I have a very simple, direct, succinct statement. If you put your wife or your children out on the stump campaigning, then they are fair game for ANY statements they make, period. There is no safe-square or get-out-of-jail-free card. The remainder of this silly season is going to get really crazy . . . that's a technical term.

On Wednesday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an interesting ruling – Witt v. Air Force [9CCA no. 06-35644 (2008); D.C. no. CV-06-05195-RBL]. Major Margaret Witt, USAFR, was honorably discharged for homosexual conduct. Circuit Judge Ronald Murray Gould, writing for a 2-1 majority, vacated the district court judgment and remanded the case for detailed judicial scrutiny. The law in question is the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 [PL 103-160; H.R.2401; 10 U.S.C. §654] [312]. Gould said, “We hold that when the government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals, in a manner that implicates the rights identified in Lawrence {v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003); no. 02-102]} the government must advance an important governmental interest, the intrusion must significantly further that interest, and the intrusion must be necessary to further that interest.” Curiously, the dissent, Circuit Judge William C. Canby, Jr., believed the court did not go far enough in demanding the government demonstrate the compelling interest sufficient to justify the intrusion into Major Witt’s private life. I suspect this case may eventually reach the bar of the Supreme Court.

Then, we have dueling Op-Ed articles:
“Democrats and Our Enemies”
by Joseph Lieberman
Wall Street Journal
Published: May 21, 2008; Page A19
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121132806884008847.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
and
“Republicans and Our Enemies”
by Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Wall Street Journal
Published: May 23, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121150000249615875.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Former Democratic vice presidential candidate (2000), now de facto Independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut offered his opinion, only to be rebutted by former Democratic presidential candidate (2008), Senator Joe Biden of Delaware – interesting perspectives.

The Wall Street Journal was on a roll this week.
“Does the Libertarian Party Matter?”
by Bruce Bartlett
Wall Street Journal
Published: May 22, 2008; Page A13
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121141302518112431.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

A follow-on article to last week’s item:
“Mexico: Examining Cartel War Violence Through a Protective Intelligence Lens”
by Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: May 14, 2008; 01:29 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/mexico_applying_protective_intelligence_lens_cartel_war_violence

The California Supreme Court decision In re Marriage Cases [Six consolidated appeals] [CA SC S147999 (2008)] [336] continues to produce serious disturbances in the Force. A few more thoughts on this ruling . . .
-- If marriage law is about a family unit headed by a woman and a man, then why is divorce legal? If a marriage is about raising children, then why are contraceptive devices and substances, and abortion legal? If marriage is about producing children, why don’t we have a law requiring married couples create the requisite parity 2.2 children? The opponents hold such a weak argument to continue discrimination against the freedom of choice and fundamental right to privacy of other citizens who do not make the same or similar choices as them.
-- I wonder if those who truly believe that allowing homosexual couples to enjoy the full rights and privileges of marriage under the law devalues all marriages, might also feel that a family with dark skin pigmentation moving in next door to them devalues their home. Let us call this what it is.
--- Some view anything other than heterosexuality a hedonistic choice; and, a subset of those who believe sex for any reason other than adult procreation is sinful. The simple, direct fact is, whether genetic, hereditary or hedonistic choice, sexuality is a private matter within the heart & soul of each and every individual citizen, and thus should be beyond any legitimate interest of the State. The nomenclature or title was one of the essential argument points in the Marriage Cases ruling, i.e., if heterosexual couples are ‘married,’ and homosexual couples are ‘domestic partners,’ then the title alone publicly illuminates what should be a private attribute.
-- The decision did not cite Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka [347 U.S. 483 (1954)], but they clearly stated that “separate but equal is inherently unequal.”
-- The study of the law, the reasoning, and the writing in this case illuminates the criticality of judicial perspective. The California Supreme Court chose to see the law from the People's perspective. The defendants [status quo ante] encouraged the Court to recognize the "will of the majority." The argument basis represents the central issue at play here . . . does the majority have a right to impose its will beyond the public domain, or in other words, when does the public have a right to intrude upon an individual citizen's fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice within his private domain?
-- A quote from In re Marriage Cases: “[I]t is irrelevant that the voters rather than a legislative body enacted [the challenged law], because the voters may no more violate the Constitution by enacting a ballot measure than a legislative body may do so by enacting legislation” -- Chief Justice Warren Burger, Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley [454 U.S. 290 (1981)].
-- Here is another relevant quotation from In re Marriage Cases: “There is a reason why the words “Equal Justice Under Law” are inscribed above the entrance to the courthouse of the United States Supreme Court” -- Associate Justice Joyce Luther Kennard concurring.
-- The essential question is not whether we agree with or consent to a marriage of same-gender individual citizens, but rather than whether the nature of such a relationship constitutes a public or State interest, and if so, is that State interest sufficiently important to allow dictation of the content of that relationship? I have yet to see a rationale that justifies the State dictating the content and conduct of my marriage, your marriage, or any citizen’s marriage. In my humble opinion, our debate should focus upon the proper State interest regarding any marriage and where the boundaries to that intrusion lay. Regrettably, we are still embroiled in the emotions of dissatisfaction with the choices of others, rather than proper State interests in private relationships.
-- It would seem even judges are polarized by their biases toward the law – surprise, surprise! If we view the Constitution as all-inclusive and thus nothing exists beyond its words, we see the law through a strict-constructionist lens. If we view the Constitution as certain enumerated authorities delegated by We, the People, to the Federal or state governments, then we see the citizen as possessive of fundamental rights beyond the Constitution. If we see marriage as religion’s or society’s consent, then we see marriage in sanctified terms. If we see marriage as a public contract establishing a private relationship, then leave it to individuals to define the rules of that relationship as they freely choose.
-- The dissent argues that traditional marriage should be preserved in deference to the State's prevailing interest in the institution. The strange and unusual fact is the dissent sees no need to articulate the elements of the State's interest, as if they are inherent in life, like the Sun rising in the east. The failure to define the State's interest does serious disservice to their argument and the public debate. Lacking a clear and reasonable definition of the State's interests, I side with the individual citizen.

Comments and contributions from Update no.335:
“You are wrong about the Federal Government being the only place with the resources to make fusion happen.
Starting A Fusion Program In Your Home Town
based on this:
The World's Simplest Fusion Reactor Revisited
and this:
Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion
“There is an awful lot of work that can be done in the field if it was handled by college kids for labor and their teachers for guidance.
“If you want to actually do something contact me. I will help all I can or put you in contact with others who can help. BTW there is one college in America that has actually done something and another that is starting.”
[NOTE: I offer Mr. Simon’s comment as information to all those who may be interested. My comments in Update no.335 were not meant to imply the Federal government was the only entity capable of conducting research into new energy source technologies, but rather that only the Federal government has the capacity to create the necessary infrastructure, and coordinate or sponsor such technological development on the necessary national scale.]

Comments and contributions from Update no.336:
“I presume you are being a bit sarcastic in your first paragraph. Especially, since it turns out that he actually didn't give up the game when he said that he did, having been seen playing on the links since the date of his stated decision to give up the game (the UN HQ in Iraq being bombed and UN official de Mello being killed). He probably gave it up due to knee problems-- the HQ was bombed in August 2003-- his last game was at least October 13, 2003. He had knee problems in 2003 and an MRI later in the year, and has had to give up jogging.”
My reply:
Well, actually, no; I took him at his word, and I thought it was consistent with other gestures of compassion. Another subscriber already laid into me for that item specifically. I’m such a sap.

Another contribution:
“Your comment re BA Flight 38. Latest reports are suggesting frozen fuel due to exceptionally low temperatures over Russia that day. (This might support your cavitation erosion.)
“This bothers me as the situation could/will arise again. Neither Rolls Royce or Boeing are contemplating modifications at this juncture to what is after all a splendidly safe flying machine. Apparently fuel samples have revealed that the fuel was of the highest quality.
“I do remember however alcohol injection into filters that were causing back pressure due to 'thickening' of the fuel. This on the Rolls Royce Avon in the Hawker Hunter. Then again we have the 'fuel cooled oil cooler' common to modern engines this cools the oil and very slightly warms the fuel I assume the Boeing's engines have this unit in the oil systems.
“I feel that neither RR or Boeing can ignore this situation. We shall have to see and I shall watch for developments.”
My response:
The two prevailing hypotheses at the moment are: fuel icing and EMV. I am having a bit of a struggle understanding how fuel system icing would hit both engines the way it did, and why that particular aircraft with so many similar aircraft in service and flying the same conditions, and why on final approach? The EMV hypothesis is a little more worrisome simply because of the implications. If it is the latter, we might see this one go to the dark side, and corrective action taken beyond public view. This is an interesting one. Nonetheless, the pilots did a stellar job getting the disabled airplane inside the perimeter fence, so no one was injured on the ground, and with no fatalities or serious injuries. Magnificent pilotage!
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Magnificent piloting understates this case. I expect you know that the first officer was flying the machine at this point.
“It is a tribute to the training regime and the coolness of the crew that the captain did not wrestle the controls from the FO. I have some contacts in the business and will keep you updated should any newsworthy items sneak out.
“My best wishes, especially in your selection of a new president...this seems to have gone on since Pontius was Pilot!”
. . . and my follow-up response:
Excellent. I always appreciate information from many sources. BA38 does not have the strangeness of TW800. I also believe the root cause will be determined. And, I worry about the investigators or rather the government taking the investigation to the dark side and out of public view. We shall remain attentive.

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

19 May 2008

Update no.336

Update from the Heartland
No.336
12.5.08 – 18.5.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- In an interview this week, the President said he gave up the game of golf in deference to the sacrifices of those lost, those standing in harm’s way, and the families of our patriots. We could hear the snickers from the uber-Left. I have pulled no punches at the President, and yet I find myself holding him in high praise for gestures such as this. Despite his multitudinous rhetorical faux-pas, he has continuously and quietly reached out to those who serve this Grand Republic with honor. And, I proudly and unashamedly proclaim my unqualified admiration for that trait in George W. Bush – the man!
-- Reports of the demise of Zimbabwe Dictator ‘president’ Robert Mugabe [85, 159, et al] apparently have been exaggerated as reports from multiple sources suggest that he refuses to accept the outcome of the election [330] and has turned his goons loose to carry out methodical attacks on opposition leaders. How much more proof do we need that Mugabe is a really bad man?
-- Former Representative Robert Laurence ‘Bob’ Barr, Jr., of Georgia, announced his intention to seek the Libertarian Party nomination for the presidency. The silly season is getting curious'er and curious'er.
-- Former Senator and Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards endorsed Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic Party nomination. Edwards campaign officials are reportedly working on pledged and super delegates to transfer their votes to Obama. The Edwards endorsement had to be a hard blow for Senator Hillary Clinton. Well, at least, nobody can say that Hillary cannot take a hammer hit or that she is not a fighter. She has proven many times in this silly season that she takes the hit, picks herself up, and keeps on going. Good on her!
-- On 17.January.2008, a Boeing 777 (with a tail registration of G-YMMM), designated British Airways Flight 38, was on short-final approach to Runway 27L at London Heathrow after a ten plus hour flight from Beijing, China. The autopilot was engaged in Approach mode with auto-throttles also engaged. As the aircraft drifted slightly below the glide-slope, the auto-throttles commanded increased thrust; the engines failed to respond. The pilots intervened and did a magnificent job crashing the large airplane just inside the airport perimeter fence without serious injury to anyone on board. The high pressure fuel pumps on both engines exhibited fresh cavitation damage, which indicates the fuel supply to both engines was temporarily disrupted or constricted. Several theories are evolving, but the investigation continues.

The uber-Left continues its broad, relentless campaign to whittle away at the President’s authority and ability to wage war successfully from litigation against companies assisting the administration, to the utilization of intelligence tools, to the wide use of contractors, to the detention of battlefield combatants, and to the very conduct of battlefield operations. I have supported the President and the administration while I remain staunchly critical of the choices they made. I am not an advocate for war in general, but I still believe the battles for Afghanistan and Iraq are essential elements of the War on Islamic Fascism.

As if we cannot produce sufficient rationale to legalize psychotropic substances, here is an independent, knowledgeable opinion illuminating the consequences of our insatiable, black-market industry.
"Mexico: On the Road to a Failed State?"
by George Friedman
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
May 13, 2008; 20:35 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/mexico_road_failed_state
Our foolish, moralistic, prudishness toward what for the most part is a private, penchant toward self-destruction, we (and here I mean Americans) are on the verge of destroying yet one more sovereign nation. Perhaps our mindless desire to regulate private behavior leads us to geo-political blindness and an irrational “damn the world” attitude. I continue my intellectual search for reason(s) why we believe we can regulate private behavior? We could not do it regarding alcohol. We could not do it with respect to tobacco. The world has NEVER done it regarding prostitution. What drives us to think we have any hope whatsoever of winning the Quixote-esque war on drugs?

I doubt many, if anyone, who reads and/or participates in this Update forum, have not heard of the monumental ruling from the California Supreme Court last Thursday. The case is actually a half dozen related appeals known under the collective title: In re Marriage Cases [Six consolidated appeals] [CA SC S147999 (2008)]. The 172-page, judicial study takes us through California and Federal law regarding marriage, and by a narrow 4-3 majority, the court decided non-heterosexual citizens were constitutionally entitled to equal rights and treatment under the law. To the uber-Right and social conservatives, the decision was a nuclear detonation close to home. The words of judicial pronouncement offer a fertile ground for public debate, as the issue of non-heterosexual relationships and marriage is far from settled within the law or the social fabric of this Grand Republic. In the legal context, the plaintiffs in four of the six cases were seeking remedy, while the other two plaintiffs defended the current statues; the court redefined plaintiffs and defendants in their ruling as for and against, rather than who filed the claim -- interesting little related factoid. The counter-argument rests heavily upon the traditional and historical, 'implicit' limitation of marriage to be one male with one female. In essence, to the lower courts, since precedent did not exist, claims of undefined rights had to be rejected. As a related observation, arguments such as these place significant weight in the State’s power to regulate rather than the freedom of choice inherent in We, the People. This is one of many facets of the fundamental right to privacy that remains so crucial to all our basic rights and freedoms. As is so often the case in debates on sensitive or controversial issues, the paucity of logical, factual substance can be readily spotted when one side resorts to emotional elements rather than reasoned counter-arguments. In this case, the defendants claim that same-sex marriage will ‘deinstitutionalize’ marriage and traditional family values, and they offer dire predictions of the downfall of mankind, simply because a citizen chooses to enter into a personal relationship of their choosing. Odd thing is, I recall similar terrible predictions from history when women gained the vote, or alcohol became legal, again, or racial discrimination became illegal. Perhaps, one of these days, we shall get around to a true debate about the family and raising children to be responsible members of society and the creators of the next generation of mankind. Beyond a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy as well as each citizen’s “unalienable right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” so much of cases like these hang by a single thread – what is the State’s proper interest in regulating behavior / conduct beyond the public domain? Or, from a different perspective, where does a private relationship enter into or infringe upon the public domain, and thus become a matter of State interest by implication? An initiative in California has begun in earnest to place a constitutional amendment before the People in an effort to override the court’s ruling. To my family, friends, and subscribers eligible to vote in California, I strongly urge you to set your personal opinion regarding non-heterosexual marriage aside and cast your vote not whether you personally agree or disagree with non-heterosexual marriage, but rather whether the same rights and privileges you enjoy should be denied to another citizen. The frame of the question is crucial.

Most of my available attention in the law focuses on the threshold between public and private, between the individual citizen and the government. Occasionally, my gaze is diverted. A recent Press clipping noted the House’s passage of H.R. 2831 (AKA Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007) and the effort by Senate Majority Leader Reid to take the bill directly to a floor vote. The legislation is the latest in a sequence of events that began with a pay discrimination claim by Lilly Ledbetter – a supervisor at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber plant in Gadsden, Alabama, from 1979 to 1998 – when she retired. Her case worked its way through the courts to the Supreme Court – Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. [551 U.S. ___ (2007); no. 05-1074]. The Supremes reversed the District and Appeals Court decisions on a strict technical interpretation of the law regarding the time window available for a pay dispute. Three weeks after the Court’s ruling and apparently unhappy with the decision, Representative George Paul Miller III of California introduced H.R.2831. Employment law is not normally within my sphere of interest. However, my curiosity peaked when Congress decided to act so quickly and especially when the Senate Majority Leader tried to jam it through without committee review. The essence of these Federal convulsions attempts to amend a handful of existing laws to give an employee more latitude in filing pay discrimination claims. Numerous elements of the Court’s ruling as well as the proposed legislation strike me in a wholly different manner. My meanderings through commercial employment in several countries taught me many lessons and gave me unique observations. Employment is not dramatically different from any relationship dynamics . . . so much depends upon trust, confidence, loyalty, and in emotional terms, what is in the hearts of the players. In simplistic terms, if someone thinks I will be successful, then I cannot fail, and conversely, if they think I will fail, there is nothing I can do to be successful. From a different perspective, if a company values my contributions, they will ensure I am competitively and justly compensated as their side of the loyalty equation; if not, I should probably look for employment elsewhere. Likewise, discrimination, bias, prejudice, or whatnot begins at a mental and/or emotional level usually taught by parents, clerics or the social environment, and thus remains predominantly beyond the law or even the proper interests of the State. Lastly, reading Ledbetter left me disappointed in that the Supremes took such a narrow view of the issue . . . but hey, that’s just me; and, H.R. 2831 is ill-advised and an inappropriate knee-jerk reaction.

Comments and contributions from Update no.335:
"Several years ago I coined the term 'Conserberal' to describe myself in vigorous email conversations with wonderful conservative and liberal friends in our unique Starkville High School Class of 1957. Now I have thought of a name to more accurately describe the political party with which I used to relate and whose candidates I often supported: 'Repandercrats.' Over the past few decades, the Democrats perfected pandering to that part of the public whose prideless votes could be purchased with taxpayers' money. Now the Republican Party has firmly adopted that disgusting and transparent tactic, in a futile effort to regain power and to the everlasting detriment of the two party system as we used to know it. The GOP henceforth should be referred to more honestly by its earned name 'Repandercrat Party,' and we may have to look to the Libertarians for our only hope. And that's the opinion of a true flaming conserberal."

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

12 May 2008

Update no.335

Update from the Heartland
No.335
5.5.08 – 11.5.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
We enjoyed a gathering of the clan to celebrate Mother’s Day. We had my Mother (the matriarch of the family), my Sister Melissa, my Wife Jeanne, our Daughter Jacy and her partner Tracy along with Aspen Shae & Shalee Lynn (moms to be, a long time from now!), and Taylor with his girlfriend Sherri and her son Jack. Jeanne’s friend and cruise-mate Cindy joined us and brought a yellow rose-bush. The only missing moms were Tyson’s Melissa along with Tyson & Judson James, of course, and Jeanne’s best-friend since childhood, Ginger. Our oldest Son Courtney remains in California. We had a magnificent spring day on the Great Plains to accentuate our enjoyment of the day. I hope all the moms out there had a glorious day as well.

The follow-up news items:
-- On Friday, 2.May.2008, Mildred Delores (Jeter) Loving passed away. The name may not be recognized by most citizens, yet we all owe her an enormous debt of gratitude. Mildred, and her husband Richard (who died in a 1975 car accident), were the reluctant, humble and private plaintiffs in a landmark Supreme Court case – Loving v. Virginia [388 U.S. 1 (1967)], issued nearly 41 years ago [175]. Why were the Lovings before the bar of our highest court? She had dark skin pigmentation and he did not, and the law of that day in Virginia and 15 other states prohibited their marriage. May God rest her immortal soul; we are enormously grateful for her courage.
-- Iraqi special security services reported the capture of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri, AKA Abu Hamza al-Muhajer [236] and successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, during a targeted raid near Mosul – another success however small.
-- An opinion from a columnist whom I respect:
"The messenger who killed the message" [334]
by Leonard Pitts, Jr.
Miami Herald
Posted: Sunday; 4.May.2008
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/story/518864.html

Neo-con talk show host Rush Limbaugh has been espousing his so-called Operation Chaos project during most of this silly season, where he advocates registered Republican voters participate in Democratic primaries in states that permit cross-over voting – a legal but disgustingly cynical activity. I denounce Limbaugh’s advocacy of such conduct as well as all those who succumbed to his Siren’s Song of primary interference. The political selection process is divisive enough without adding such malfeasance to the equation.

I have not said much about the current credit-crisis, sub-prime mortgage fiasco, and general economic malaise gripping this Grand Republic and a goodly portion of the planet. I hold no ill-will toward anyone grappling with mounting debt, upside-down mortgages, and escalading credit payments. I do not want anyone to be homeless or to lose their property. However, the vast majority, if not all, of the mortgage foreclosures are self-inflicted wounds. I do not believe anyone coerced signatures to the loan papers. Now, with all the presidential candidates pandering to those who gambled-and-lost, I must raise my voice in objection. Using public funds to make good, ill-advised risks is nearly as obscene as the largesse of earmarks – more suckling at the public teat. We have heard stories on the news of various hard-luck stories and success going bad. All I care to say is, I’m sorry for your mistakes. Now, to be candid and forthright, years ago we tried an ‘adjustable rate mortgage;’ seemed like a good idea at the time. Long story short, we learned our lesson, paid the price, and will NEVER do that again . . . and, I advise all who will listen to never sign up for more than you can afford no matter how good the conditions may seem. We are experiencing a necessary correction. So, let us stop whining, endure the pain, and get on with life without giving the Federal camel another inch into our tent.

The current administration failed to find the necessary courage to lead the effort in the vastly important arena of stem cell research, and the President has squandered so much of his leadership capability that I hesitate to suggest, yet . . . . I have espoused and continue to advocate for a Manhattan-Project-class, national development program to create a family of renewable energy source technologies to power everything from lawn mowers to giga-watt powerplants and everything in between. The objective would be to eliminate fossil fuel energy demand, and would obviously have to include the necessary infrastructure to deliver the source materials, e.g., local, rapid, electric battery recharging facilities. The Energy Project would also need to develop new synthetic lubricants and such. Private industry would not have been able to develop fission or fusion power; only the Federal government could conduct such a massive project. Further, I would argue that we should hold our petroleum resources in reserve to supply the petro-chemical industries into the extend future, and thus, we would remain at the mercy of the petro-dictators as Thomas Friedman says and more significantly the energy traders who actually manipulate the price we pay for crude oil.

The Patriot Post offered this quote from John Adams:
“The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families. . . . How is it possible that Children can have any just Sense of the sacred Obligations of Morality or Religion if, from their earliest Infancy, they learn their Mothers live in habitual Infidelity to their fathers, and their fathers in as constant Infidelity to their Mothers?”
-- John Adams (Diary, 2 June 1778)
Reference: The Works of John Adams, C.F. Adams, ed., vol. 3 (171)
To me, the key words are ‘private families.’ Public morality can, should be, and largely is defined by proper laws created by the Legislative and executed by the Executive. The process goes off the rails when the government attempts to regulate private morality (beyond the proper interests of the State). For the last 15 plus years, some moralists in Congress have relentlessly carried out a campaign to do just that, and more specifically pointed their crooked moral fingers at the military . . . because they can. The latest version of the Military Honor and Decency Act [H.R. 5821] was proposed by Representative Paul C. Broun, Jr., of Georgia, who is apparently unhappy with the extent of moral dicta put into law by the Military Honor and Decency Act of 1996 (MHDA) [10 U.S.C. § 2489a], buried in the massive National Defense Appropriations Act of 1997 [PL 104-201; H.R.3230] [309]. Broun proposes to tighten the language of the law to be more expansive and inclusive within its prohibition, by amending the definitions to read:
“The term ‘sexually explicit material’ means--
“(A) an audio recording, a film or video recording, or a print publication with visual depictions, produced in any medium, the principal theme of which depicts or describes nudity or sexual or excretory activities in a lascivious way; or
“(B) if the print publication is a periodical, it regularly features or gives prominence to nudity or sexual or excretory activities; and
“by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
“(3) The term ‘principal theme’ means a theme that is primary in importance, influence, attraction, or degree but not necessarily dominant relative to other themes in the material.
“(4) The term ‘lascivious’ means lewd or indecent and intended, designed, or given to elicit a sexual response.
“(5) The term ‘nudity’ means human genitals, pubic area, anus, anal cleft, or any part of the female breast below a horizontal line across the top of the areola with less than an opaque covering but does not include the exposure of the cleavage of the female breast exhibited by a dress, blouse, bathing suit, or other apparel.”
Everyone is entitled to their moral values -- attributes of life that are important to them. If Paul Broun is disgusted by the naked human form or by the pleasures of sex, he has every right to reject those facets of life. When he tries to force his opinions, his attitudes, upon other citizens, he crosses the line. I object! He and his moralist colleagues pick upon our brothers-in-arms because they can, which makes it even more objectionable. For those who agree with Paul Broun, support and advocacy comes quite easily. And, for those so inclined, I strongly urge you to step back from the temptation to project your moral values on other citizens who have the same and equal rights as you, to their choices for Life, Liberty, and their pursuit of Happiness. Please, let us stop this silliness, and urge your representative to reject H.R. 5821 and any resultant variant. In fact, the original MHDA should be repealed.

For reasons that are probably irrelevant, I had cause to read a particular 1st Amendment case -- Bridges v. California [314 U.S. 252 (1941); nos. 1, 3]. The ‘Bridges’ in this case was none of other than notorious and infamous union activist and avowed Marxist Alfred Renton “Harry” Bridges – long term president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) founded in 1937. I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area, and the name 'Harry Bridges' featured prominently in a variety of news stories of my youth. I remember my father used to practically froth at the mouth at the mention of his name. Bridges organized the ILWU to control the West Coast seaports and took exceptional advantage of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 [PL 74-198] to extend his influence over the waterfront union movement. During those tumultuous years, two union goons assaulted a non-union truck driver in 1937. They were tried and convicted of their crimes. As the sentencing phase approached its conclusion and Judge Schmidt’s decision, Bridges wrote a telegram to the Secretary of Labor, saying in part, “Attempted enforcement of Schmidt decision will tie up port of Los Angeles and involve entire Pacific Coast. The ILWU . . . does not intend to allow state courts to override the majority vote of members in choosing its officers and representatives and to override the National Labor Relations Board.” The telegram was released to the Press by an anonymous source. The state tried and convicted Bridges for contempt in what the judge said amounted to interference with a judicial proceeding. The case is notable in constitutional law as the first break with English common law regarding the tension between freedom of speech and contempt of court, and favored individual freedom over the traditional expanse of contempt law. Interestingly, the Court issued its Bridges opinion the day after the Pearl Harbor attack.

We received no comments and contributions from Update no.334, however, I did find this over-looked contribution from Update no.333:
“I do not know----cannot figure out, JUST how all this "stuff" (going Far beyond This particular thing of hunger) has happened----the progression and spreading out of it---- the wars/fighting, etc, but I DO know that when the American Dollar fluctuates in value around the world, ALL things are affected.
“Is it All driven by oil and the price of oil? I doubt it, though I'm sure the price of oil has a lot to do with it. Oil fuels all the world's country's economies in a very significant way.
“Some way to fuel the world's economies, OTHER than oil, HAS to be put in the forefront of Every country's primary goals.
“I believe it is a ‘figure it out and do it’ situation-----or die. Period!
“The solution, in My opinion, is Not drilling for oil in some other place, like further out in the oceans or in the Arctic or Antarctic, or Russia or ANYWHERE. We all Need an Alternative source/sources of ‘power.’ Some very bright minds back at least into the 1950's, TOLD us we needed to do this because oil was a limited resource. But back then No One listened. Because Oil was cheap then and there seemed to be a lot of it. Those days are gone and are going faster every year.
“Is the answer in Coal? Or maybe in Wind machines, or running Water, to give us POWER? Is it Nuclear? Something not yet thought of? There IS a way I believe, though I do not know it myself.
“Maybe all those or a combination of them could work. Or some totally NEW thing. Then we could perhaps figure out a Major/Main fuel source to run all our countries. One better suited to our times, and better/more reliably replaceable. As Oil NOW drives and affects virtually Everything, we need to find another source.
“Maybe a new and more everlasting source for protecting ‘Life’ can be found. I believe it MUST be found. I believe it CAN be found. That will take many human minds focusing on and thinking about ‘The Problem.’
“Which will take many $$$ to fund that research. Funds hopefully diverted from war to research. And those $$$ contributed to by ALL countries.
“Because we are not going to go back to earlier times. That Can't happen and Won't happen.
“Technology in all corners of the world CAN figure this out. And MANY individuals have shown how maybe this or that new ‘thing’ could work. But normally, so far, no one listens. Big guys anyway. For many reasons I suppose---including not wanting to lose the $$$ they are making now in order to shift to something new on the HOPE of making $$$ in the future.
“Given that we put aside our differences, stop trying to kill each other for this reason or that, Private Enterprise, (seeing the opportunities to make $$$) Will make what we have to have happen. I totally believe that. That has been the way everything has gone in the last few hundred years of human evolution anyway. And actually MUCH farther back than that.
“All That above maybe makes me sound much like a Democrat in my view of looking at things, (speaking politically for a moment), but it is Not. It is a very practical and totally non-political way of looking at what is happening, and suggesting a few things to maybe help the situation. Maybe none would work in the long run. But maybe some would. Take a look at it is all I really say.
“Whatever goes down in/on our planet will determine the length of time we are a viable global society. And THAT has nothing to do with our disputes between our many peoples. It does have to do with the survival of our species.
“That survival is something which will ‘Someday’ be lost---but we can forestall, though not prevent that time, I believe.”

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

05 May 2008

Update no.334

Update from the Heartland
No.334
28.4.08 – 4.5.08
Blog version:
http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Just a question of perspective:
Is the Constitution a document that creates the Federal government and establishes the powers of that government, or is it a document that delegates limited power from We, the People, to the Federal government?
The answer profoundly affects the way we view constitutional authority and interpretation, and conversely how the government impacts our rights and freedom.

The follow-up news items:
-- The Obama v. Wright kerfuffle raised its ugly head again. One sentence in Barack's denunciation of Reverend Wright struck resonance with me. He said, “I see the commonality in people.” I can relate to the junior senator from Illinois, but I would add a qualifier, ‘ . . . until they harm others.’ One observation: one bathes in the hatred, division, inhumanity and injustice of the past while the other tries mightily to look to a brighter future. I prefer the latter, thank you.
-- Five year ago this week, President George W. Bush flew in an S-3 Viking to land aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) [74] and declared, "Mission Accomplished." Oddly, all these years later, the moment remains the marquee event, indicative of the administration’s naïve attitude toward the Battle for Iraq – quick, get ‘er done, walk away. They thought the battle would be hard, the peace relatively easy, and the occupation short and inexpensive, so they celebrated when conventional combat ceased.
-- Guantánamo detainee Sami Mohy el-Din Muhammed al-Hajj was released and returned to Sudan after six years of incarceration – another cause célèbre for the uber-Left. To me, this simple event represents another failure of the administration to wage war successfully.

Former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newton Leroy Gingrich of Georgia, answers an important and relevant question:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/08/gingrich/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

With the conflagration sparked by Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., the Pope's visit to the United States stands in stark contrast. Pope Benedict XVI -- Bishop of Rome and Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church -- brought a message of apology and universal peace. The Pope is perhaps the most prominent cleric on the planet. The Roman Catholic Church has done a magnificent job making sure he maintains that prominence. The Dalai Lama holds similar pre-eminence beyond his Buddhist faith. The Archbishop of Canterbury is probably the next most prominent Christian cleric. I wonder why we don’t see a face to the world of Judaism, Islam or Hinduism? The contrast is dramatic. I have listened to Anglo-Saxon Christian clergy of various flavors preach insanity and hatred just as vile as Reverend Jeremiah Wright – Reverend Fred Phelps being one. In fact, the urge to stand up in the middle of a sermon and confront a preacher spewing similar venomous vitriol nearly overcame me. Mindless religious fanaticism is not confined to radical Islamic clerics. When I hear sermonic rhetoric in the vein of Reverend Wright, I feel a wave of nausea toward the deeply flawed men enveloped in their clerical finery who profess to speak for God or even offer an opinion of God’s law. How does such anger and hatred come from these men? And, why would any rational human being listen to such obscenity? Religion, and all the practitioners thereof, does not tell us how to live our lives. Likewise, when we turn to government for such guidance or to mitigate our accountability, we cheapen our lives and more importantly our freedom. We must confront those who preach hatred, and keep religion in its proper place in our lives.

Austrian police unraveled a horrific crime scene in Amstetten and arrested Josef Fritzl, 73, for multitudinous crimes. Rosemarie and Josef Fritzl had seven children, one of whom was their daughter, Elisabeth, now 42, who had been confined by her father in an underground dungeon for 24 years. Worse, Josef impregnated his daughter at least seven times. The illness and hospitalization of Elisabeth’s eldest daughter, Kerstin, 19, opened Josef’s façade and cracked the case. The dimensions and inhumanity of Josef’s crimes defy imagination. As I have read the wide coverage of this case, I am struck by yet another example of what can happen with unchecked authoritarianism.

As I read court rulings, I take notes to capture words, understand the legal implications, and develop my opinion. My notes for a recent case are sprinkled with simple exclamations – Wow! Last week, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Virginia v. Moore [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-1082] – another 4th Amendment judgment (we seem to be getting quite a few of these ‘search and seizure’ decisions). Antonin the Impaler wrote the Court’s opinion. He observed, “A State is free to prefer one search-and-seizure policy among the range of constitutionally permissible options, but its choice of a more restrictive option does not render the less restrictive ones unreasonable, and hence unconstitutional.” He went on to say, “Virginia chooses to protect individual privacy and dignity more than the Fourth Amendment requires, but it also chooses not to attach to violations of its arrest rules the potent remedies that federal courts have applied to Fourth Amendment violations. Virginia does not, for example, ordinarily exclude from criminal trials evidence obtained in violation of its statutes.” And, he went on to say, “We conclude that warrantless arrests for crimes committed in the presence of an arresting officer are reasonable under the Constitution, and that while States are free to regulate such arrests however they desire, state restrictions do not alter the Fourth Amendment’s protections.” In this instance, I do not quibble with this particular pronouncement by the Impaler; to the best of my knowledge, his digestion of the law was accurate, reasonable and proper. And yet, what gives me a definite chill and pause for concern is what was not said. As the Court states, once a law enforcement officer affects an arrest, probable cause allows him additional latitude to search and render safe the arrestee and his automobile; evidence of a crime discovered during a probable cause search is admissible and the crime punishable. However, in this case, because the state chose not to examine the validity of the precipitating arrest, the Court remained mute on the originating action. What bothers me about this ruling is not that a bad man was tried, convicted and incarcerated based on evidence derived from the biased police search, but rather the increased potential and profound impact upon our fundamental right to privacy and protection from unwarranted intrusion by the State. If a law enforcement officer can arrest a citizen on a whim, and thus open up the probable cause window, what stands between us and the full impact of an authoritarian State? The War on Drugs [197], the War on Islamic Fascism, and the public dependency on the State continue to impose enormous pressure upon our civil rights. The Executive possesses tools of intrusion far beyond those envisioned by the Founders, far beyond anything imaginable outside science fiction just a few decades ago. Couple this mounting pressure and capability with the Court’s newly found penchant to reinforce the power of the State, e.g., Hudson v. Michigan [547 U.S. 586 (2006); no. 04-1360] [236], and we face unprecedented challenges to our most basic freedoms and rights. We must pay close attention to the mood of the Court, if we care about preservation of the freedoms we have enjoyed.

On Monday, the Supremes touched off the uber-Left with their ruling in the Indiana voter ID case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 07-21], affirming the 7th Circuit’s affirmation of District Judge Sarah Barker’s original judgment [318]. The essence of the judicial pronouncements validates Indiana’s requirement for a state-approved, photographic identification to vote in person at a polling station. As a side note, if anyone wonders why I have hung the moniker ‘Antonin the Impaler’ upon Associate Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia, part of his concurring opinion in Crawford seems to be descriptive enough. Antonin said, “That the State accommodates some voters by permitting (not requiring) the casting of absentee or provisional ballots, is an indulgence—not a constitutional imperative that falls short of what is required.” While his observation was accurate, his conveyance was rather raw. Nonetheless, the liberal Press launched into a divisive rant conjuring up images of the 2000 election and Bush v. Gore [531 U.S. 98 (2000); no. 00-949], along with foolish accusations of denying voter’s rights and disenfranchising citizens. The tragedy in such irresponsible public ruminations lays in the error of reading Crawford, if they read the ruling at all (and in some cases, there is not a hint the author read the ruling). The inverse of the dissent and opposition’s argument seems to be that any living human being should be able to show up at a polling station and vote on Election Day, albeit any qualification, registration, or identification requirement is excessively burdensome. The arguments on both extremes of the voter ID issue have us chasing our tails trying to prove a negative. One thing you learn the hard way in the engineering discipline . . . proving a negative often becomes a box canyon or an objective in the mist . . . very illusive, if not impossible to attain. Sometimes, common sense should prevail. There are a few things that strike me as quite odd in this argument.
1. When often more than half of the eligible electorate failed to vote, I have a hard time arguing against simple, positive identification for those who wish to vote.
2. A citizen who wants to vote will do what is required to cast his precious vote.
3. The opponents point to travel costs & birth certificate copy costs to obtain the prescribed photographic identification card. If those costs are an obstacle for identification, are they not obstacles for the act of voting? And, if so, are we to provide public funds for all citizens to get to the polling station?
4. The advocates point to inflated registration records and the susceptibility of such lists to phantom voting abuse. All large registries in our mobile society exhibit that characteristic. States, like all registry holders, must have an established, unbiased method to purge and renew their records
All-in-all, Judge Barker got it right, and her judgment was confirmed by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and now the Supreme Court. I add my voice to the court’s; it is high time we face the real issue of positive voter identification.

Comments and contributions from Update no.333:
“Civility is good. This past couple of weeks our current mayor of San Diego, Jerry Sanders, was speaking at an event where an opponent/challenger who is going to run also for mayor in the next election, Steve Francis, went to shake Mayor Sanders’ hand. Mayor Sanders said: “F*** YOU FRANCIS!” and what Sanders did not know was a popular political blogger was standing right there, and someone else got the episode on a video-phone. It made news alright. Sanders was formerly the chief of police for San Diego, had been a SWAT commander, so you’d think he could handle stress. What bothers me is that the position requires leadership for one, second, what about the children who may have overheard Sanders? Besides the multitude of problems our city has (before and during the mayor’s term), I doubt that conduct will get him to much higher positions. The local news interviewed Sanders ex post facto, but he refuses to apologize. So a group has been printing up tee-shirts that show the mayor with a slogan-caption that says what I just said he said but I need not repeat it. But now we have popular radio talk hosts saying to callers “go to hell!” and hanging up on them as part of the normal day. CNN and FOX News analysts on the set arguing, yelling and over-talking each other. Cap will respond to folks but never talk down to them or call names. Character, courtesy, class, civility (4C) still go a long way! I have to remind myself of that daily, I’ve lost my cool before and found blog sites/forums are easy to that in especially. One big happy sand box on the ‘Net. All of us can benefit from Dale Carnegie’s HOW THE WIN FRIENDS & INFLUENCE PEOPLE. Every politician and politico should read that book and then Sun Tzu’s ART OF WAR.
“I've been curious too about the rates fuel prices have increased in the Bush-II term. I heard early this morning on a radio program called Wall Street Journal Report that since October 2004, fuel prices have now doubled!”
My response:
Sanders may have admirable attributes, but the paucity of self-control is a significant detractor for me. I’ve seen characters like him in the military, in business and in politics. Hopefully, the citizens choose wisely.

Another contribution:
“I've proffered some opinions on the very controversial Rev. Wright. Sadly, he is very articulate yet divisive. A good orator, yet almost too clever. People in his specific position need or should be in a role of uniting versus dividing. I did not like the shots taken at Irish and Italians (nor Jews). Strange one talks so much about differences and valuing them, while true, the style/content/subtleties, may serve to only divide further. It is the old tribal-ego, whites have practiced it, black do, part of the human condition. The last thing blacks need to do is feel victimized while they can (and should) seize opportunity.
“If it could only be that Obama had Martin Luther King as his ‘spiritual advisor.’ What a pity. King was much more the uniter.
“While I appreciate there is a bipartisan war in this election cycle timing, I think the right and far-right talk hosts might do better now by distancing themselves from the projected/perceived weakness of the opposition and associates, and focus/promote the strengths of their own candidate(s) and party.
“While the accomplishments of Secretary of State Rice prior to her role in the Bush administration appear stellar, unfortunately I think she does not have the prestige-value expected when she began. And she wants to go back to Stanford to teach. If things in Iraq and world affairs had gone better, I believe she would have made a great running-mate to McCain, and the confidence of the voters would have been likely higher than what Obama & Hillary could sum. But that is only guesswork on my part.”
My response:
As ‘Slick Willy’ Clinton so aptly and succinctly states from time to time, “Politics is a contact sport. If you’re not willing to get knocked around, don’t suit up.”

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