Update from the Heartland
No.336
12.5.08 – 18.5.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
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 :-)
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 :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment