29 December 2008

Update no.367

Update from the Heartland
No.367
22.12.08 – 28.12.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The saga of California’s Proposition 8 (AKA Prop H8) [345, 360, et al] continues. California Attorney General Edmund Gerald ‘Jerry’ Brown, Jr., AKA Governor Moonbeam [former and 34th governor of California (1971-1975)], petitioned the state Supreme Court to invalidate the recently, voter-passed, constitutional amendment that he claims conflicts with constitutionally guaranteed personal liberty. It is not yet clear whether the Attorney General’s action will be combined with the Court’s earlier agreement [363] to hear arguments in a handful of challenges to the Prop H8 vote.
-- It is not just Kent Elder [366] who is confusing God and religion as well as the constitutional debate regarding the Establishment Clause and the need for separation between church & State. Fox News re-broadcast a program titled, “Religion in America – Church & State” with Brit Hume (I believe first broadcast in April 2006), which I saw for the first time Friday morning. We must reconcile our need to recognize God’s greatness with the role of divine providence in our history and the foundation of this Grand Republic; and yet, we must avoid the explicit or implicit State endorsement of any religion. The Fox News program did not further proper public debate but rather sought to enflame the religious fervor of the Christian majority.

Then, we have a relevant and timely quotation from the Patriot Post:
“I have often expressed my sentiments, that every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.”
-- George Washington,
(letter to the General Committee of the United Baptist Churches in Virginia, May 1789)
While our first president as one of our Founders (if not a Framer) did not use direct words as did Thomas Jefferson, the meaning is clearly the same, in my most humble opinion. God and the meaning of religion rest in the heart and soul of each and every one of us . . . as we choose. And, implicitly and conversely, the State must not intrude upon our individual expression of spirituality, and concomitantly, vice versa. It is that latter part that gives us such angst and turmoil. The debate continues.

In a similar, more poignant vane:
“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
-- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Perhaps we can still learn from the venerable scientist and philosopher, whom the church sought to intimidate into submission and silence despite the facts. We still have much to learn.

Although I suspect most will not be interested in reading the following article, nonetheless, I note it for your selective rumination.
“Pope ‘spreading fear’ with claim that Man needs protection from homosexuality”
by Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
The Times [of London]
Published: December 24, 2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5391794.ece?&EMC-Bltn=NNYF0A
Pope Benedict XVI, referring to Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae, declared that the Church had a duty to “protect Man from destroying himself,” with an implicit slap at homosexuality as an intrinsic moral evil. Reverend Giles Fraser, vicar of St Mary’s Church in Putney, Greater London, England, provided a more insightful and tolerant message; “I thought the Christmas angels said, ‘Fear not.’ Instead, the Pope is spreading fear that gay people somehow threaten the planet. And that’s just absurd. As always, this sort of religious homophobia will be an alibi for all those who would do gay people harm.” While Joe is entitled to his opinion, I say, Spot on, Giles!

This week’s news from economic front:
-- The list of businesses putting their hands out for Federal economic recovery funds continues to grow. Now, big property developers, presumably the likes of Donald Trump and Mort Zuckerman, are predicting doom & gloom with respect to large commercial development projects like shopping centers, hotels, office buildings and such, without Federal support funds. The list of folks seeking to feed at the Treasury trough will grow, maybe even explode, before we feel recovery.
-- The Treasury Department’s Inspector General Eric M. Thorson opened an investigation into the activities of the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) regarding an alledged backdated capital infusion just weeks prior to the collapse of IndyMac on 11.July.2008. IndyMac began in 1995, as the Independent National Mortgage Corporation, created to collateralize the holdings of Countrywide Financial, and was spun off as an independent bank in 1997, until it was seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Company (FDIC) in 2008. It now operates in conservatorship as IndyMac Federal Savings Bank. From what little we know today, I suspect this cathartic process will not be pleasant.
-- The Office of Thrift Supervision removed Darrel W. Dochow as director of the OTS western region. His office held regulatory supervision responsibility for several of the recent and largest bank failures – Washington Mutual, Countrywide Financial, IndyMac and Downey Savings and Loan. Appointed to his position in September 2007, Dochow was hardly a factor in the mortgage crisis; yet, if he had done his job properly, action could have been taken sooner to reduce the severity of the debacle. For the most part, Dochow is one of what will undoubtedly become many fall-guys for the real perpetrators (who just might escape justice).
-- Existing home sales dropped 8.6% -- the steepest monthly drop in 40 years – and the median home price fell 13.2% to US$181K, and I suspect we have not seen the bottom, yet, in the real estate market.
-- A week after Toyota Motor Corporation announced its first expected annual net loss (¥150B = US$1.6B) since 1941, rumors began to spread that Toyota President Katsuaki Watanabe was expected to retire next year. The formal public announcement has not been made, and it is not clear whether Watanabe’s departure would be associated with or a consequence of the company’s financial performance. Akio Toyoda, the grandson of the auto company’s founder, is a possible successor.
-- The Federal Reserve granted General Motors’ financial arm, GMAC, bank holding company status, which makes it eligible for Federal TARP funds. The action relieves some financial pressure on GM. The USG also extracted concessions as conditions. GM and Cerberus Capital Management, which owns Chrysler, must reduce its ownership interest in GMAC to less than 10% in voting shares and total equity.
-- Executive compensation will (and rightly so) attract considerable attention from the Press and We, the People, and hopefully from prosecutors. This week, we learn that Angelo R. Mozilo, who led Countrywide Financial into the abyss, received US$500M+ in compensation from 1998 to 2007, including US$122M from cashing in stock options last year alone. And, Charles O. Prince, who led Citigroup to the brink of collapse, was awarded a retirement deal worth US$28M. [It will probably cost less to get rid of him than it will to deal with the consequences of his failure.] Belatedly but fortunately, more top Wall Street executives are foregoing their bonuses. [Again, please note that the absence of any downside penalty for executives who failed in their responsibilities is a direct and sole failure of the respective boards of directors – upside benefit with no downside cost is foolish, capricious and otherwise contemptible.]

The Madoff Scandal [365], or as the French call it, L’Affaire Madoff:
-- Sadly, we have the first physical casualty of the Madoff disaster. The co-founder of Access International Advisors, Rene-Thierry Magon de la Villehuchet, 65, was found dead in his Madison Avenue office – an apparent suicide. De la Villehuchet reportedly lost US$1.4B in investor funds in the exploding scandal. He was no novice to international banking, having also served as chairman and CEO of Credit Lyonnais Securities USA. I suspect de la Villehuchet will not be the last sacrifice in this debacle.
-- The scale of the Madoff US$50B Ponzi scheme is hard to comprehend, and the notion that he acted alone is even harder to believe. The pundits and talking heads have and will continue to offer their disaster assessments as the story unfolds. I thought I would note the opinion of Noble-Laureate Paul Robin Krugman – although I am not a particular fan of his political rationale.
“The Madoff Economy”
by Paul Krugman
New York Times
Published: December 19, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/opinion/19krugman.html?_r=1&em
-- The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity [366] lost more than US$15M – nearly all of its assets – in the unfolding Madoff fraud.

The Blago Scandal [365]:
-- The Obama administration transition team released their internal investigation into staff interactions with Blago, his chief of staff, or any other members of the governor’s circle of friends, colleagues and confidantes. They reported nothing untoward. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald interviewed (unknown whether under oath) Obama, Emanuel and others on their involvement, and I have faith that if Fitzgerald finds offenses, he will prosecute them.
-- The Illinois legislative impeachment committee decided against issuing subpoenas in their investigation in deference to the Federal criminal prosecutorial investigation underway. Of course, they reserved the right to issue subpoenas in the future. What this represents to me is a protraction of the agony we shall all suffer in one way or another. Blago has shown no signs of honor or dignity, and appears to be driven only by self-interests – a sad, despicable commentary on American politics no matter how we cut it.

Perhaps, women can improve pornography as they have so many other human endeavors.
“Women on top: Female execs rise in porn biz – Some say they’re trying to instill change while others see them as ‘traitors’”
by Brian Alexander
msnbc.com contributor
Updated: Wednesday, 3.December.2008; 07:41 CST
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28022805/

Comments and contributions from Update no.366:
“I couldn't follow the Sam Adams quote, but I thought you wrote well on the separation of church and state. Your reader who wrote in support of ‘God’ (definition not given) probably needs to study the religious background of those Founding Fathers he so easily believes he supports.
“Before mentioning Shrub's verbal support of the troops, you might want to study the history of the Veterans' Administration and veterans' programs in general during his administration.”
My response:
The Samuel Adams quote was an opportune thought to contrast the notional of the Founders advocating for the church and religion versus God in the general, broader, circumspect sense of what I certainly believe was the true intentions of the Founders / Framers. Perhaps my choice failed. It happens more often than not. My point, which I think Samuel was attempting to say in his perhaps convoluted word choice was what I was trying to say in my response to the newspaper reader (Elder). The Framers did not ignore God in the construct of the Constitution; they simply sought to distance the new nation from the organized religions and more specifically from the men who ran the churches.
There are always plenty of angles to criticize the President, but I do not recall any president in my lifetime who tried to connect with line troops as much as he has. There are multitudinous examples. We can argue about the performance of the Veterans Administration and even the President’s failure to manage his administration. However, his personal conduct with the troops has remained noteworthy, IMHO.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

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

15 December 2008

Update no.365

Update from the Heartland
No.365
8.12.08 – 14.12.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The Justice Department unsealed the indictment of five (5) Blackwater security personnel [305, et al] on 35 counts ranging from manslaughter to weapons violations linked to a 2007 Baghdad incident in which 17 Iraqis were killed. My opinion of this incident and now these charges remains unchanged. Regardless, these Americans will have their lives altered as they are tried by a jury of their peers (who will have little understanding by which to judge them). Such is the story of our time.
-- The sole surviving Mumbai terrorist provided a detailed confession regarding the plans for and execution of the tragic attack [363/4]. In other related news, the Pakistani government moved quickly to capture the leaders/planners of the Mumbai attack. Pakistani security services raided a riverside camp near Muzaffarabad, the main city in Pakistani-administered Kashmir, where they captured (alive) Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, the Laskhar-e-Taiba operations chief, and at least 12 other individuals. I am certain Lakhvi will be given the opportunity to sing.
-- The Indian Navy, on patrol in the Gulf of Aden, received a distress call from a merchant vessel MV Gibe, under attack from two small boats [361]. INS Mysore dispatched its helicopter and sped to the scene, whereupon they captured 23 Somali pirates. Congratulations to the Indians. I say to the various allies in the region, good hunting!

A contemporary philosophical question for your critical rumination:
Even if we assume homosexuality (or other than heterosexuality) is entirely a matter of hedonistic personal choice with no genetic, hereditary, biological, environmental, or educational linkage, does the majority have a right to dictate who an individual adult citizen can choose to enter into a state-sanctioned, binding relationship?

This week’s presidential nominations:
Thomas Andrew ‘Tom’ Daschle – Health and Human Services
Steven Chu – Energy
Shaun Donovan – Housing and Urban Development
Lisa P. Jackson – Environmental Protection Agency
Jeanne M. Lambrew – White House Office of Health Reform (new)
Carol M. Browner – White House Office of Energy and Climate Policy (new)
Nancy Sutley – White House Council on Environmental Quality

Economic news:
-- Merrill Lynch CEO John Alexander Thain eventually and ultimately decided to forego his annual multimillion dollar bonus after considerable Press scrutiny. I am shocked! The audacity of some folks is mind-boggling. I am all in favor of business executives having a greater portion of their compensation at risk, the higher up they go. In some measure, we must question the performance of the Merrill Lynch Board of Directors. It is the Board that determines and defines the conditions under which to award executive bonuses. And, if the Board has not established performance metrics for the determination equation, then shame on that Merrill Board (and all the other corporate boards who fail to perform their fiduciary duties).
-- The Bank of Canada – the nation’s central bank – reduced its key lending rate by 0.75 points to 1.5% and declared the Canadian economy officially in recession.
-- The scaled down, automobile industry bailout effort stalled in the Senate after the House passed the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act (H.R.7321) [House: 237-170-1-26(1)]. Then, the White House hinted they might use TARP funds to support the industry into the next administration and Congress.
[NOTE: Much ado has been made about the apparent paucity of conditions and vastly larger numbers of federal treasury funds going to the banking industry, Wall Street, and the insurance & mortgage industries in comparison to the ‘pound of flesh’ Congress is attempting to extract from the automobile industry. The criticism is valid, and worthy of scrutiny and debate; however, there one major factor – manufacturing industrial costs and specifically excessive labor costs.]
-- Bank of America announced planned work force reductions of up to 11.3% (35,000 jobs) over the next three years. Part of the reductions are a consequence of acquiring Merrill Lynch, which should be completed early next year, but there is also a portion that reflects the contracting U.S. and international economies.
-- Prominent New York lawyer, 58-year-old, Marc S. Dreier was arrested in Toronto on felonious impersonation charges and was also charged by U.S. Federal prosecutors for securities and wire fraud involving a multi-million dollar real estate scheme and hedge funds.
-- Amid the worries and horrors of the economic crisis, and expanding criminal cases, FBI agents arrested 70-year-old, Bernard Leon Madoff – a long-term, Wall Street, trading guru – on securities fraud charges related to what may well be a US$50B Ponzi scheme – a new, infamous record if proven. The list of his victims is equally as impressive as the numbers involved, and reportedly include New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon, GMAC Chairman J. Ezra Merkin, former Philadelphia Eagles owner Norman Braman, among dozens of other seemingly sophisticated investors. I suspect the legal fallout and collateral damage from the mortgage meltdown are only just beginning. This will pale the Enron debacle [2001].
-- Economists are estimating the current recession to be the longest and deepest since the Great Depression with the unemployment rate reaching 8.4% and recovery not beginning until mid-2009, which means the worst is still ahead of us.
-- General Motors joined Chrysler [364] in retaining their bankruptcy / restructuring specialists – just in case, they say – Weil Gotshal & Manges; Evercore Partners; and Blackstone Group.
-- U.S. retail sales declined by 1.8% in November, which the Commerce Department declared was less than expected, and at the same time, the Labor Department announced that wholesale prices dropped by 2.2%.

I try mightily to avoid commenting on criminal conduct of individuals, yet the events of Tuesday morning in Chicago cannot be brushed aside. In the early morning hours, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) called Illinois Governor Milorad R. ‘Rod’ Blagojevich on his cell phone informing the governor that he needed to go to the front door to be arrested by several waiting FBI special agents. The FBI handcuffed the state chief executive in front of his family and carted him off to jail for processing. He stands accused of a myriad of corruption, extortion and other crimes, not least of which was trying to “sell” the open Senate seat of President-Elect Barack Obama. I know Blago is innocent until proven guilty, but I must say, things are not looking good for the governor. Regardless of the outcome of his trial, Blago has defined a new, deeper gutter even for Chicago machine politics.

In an unusual but understandable action, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a motion with the Illinois Supreme Court to declare Governor Blagojevich unfit, to remove him from office, and to seek a restraining order against him until he is removed from office. The governor’s ego is likely to bring this to a constitutional confrontation at a very inopportune time for President-Elect Obama. This is going to get uglier before it is done.

Comments and contributions from Update no.364:
“I've been intending to write and say I read you letter to the editor a couple of weeks ago on gay marriage and heartily agree.”

Another contribution:
“For me, mixed feelings about the [Army-Navy] game--and actually it was a pretty poor ‘game.’ I knew a couple of [my son’s] classmates from USMAPS who were playing – one was a defensive co-captain. If the game doesn't get more competitive, we may loose national TV – we almost did in the 70's.”
My reply:
You are of course quite correct. It was not a good game . . . one of the more embarrassing games for our brothers of the Long Grey Line. In fact, it was rather painful to watch. But, c’est la vie, e c’est la guerre.

A different contribution from the same contributor:
“Regarding Senator Chambliss' re-election. The 60-seat majority is not the ironclad instrument that allows "unfettered control of the instruments of state." In any bill, there will be Democrats who vote against their party's position for various reasons and Republicans who vote for the presumed Democratic position for their own reasons-- usually related to their own electorate's demands. 58.59 or anything in the high fifties, usually denotes that the party with that majority will have smoother sailing getting something through, but 60 does not always mean that a bill is filibuster-proof.
“Also, Sen. Chambliss is not friendly to veterans. He won his seat the first time using very slandering and defamatory ads against triple amputee Max Clelland. Chambliss was clearly out of bounds in comparing Clelland to Osama bin Laden and terrorism--he also used false data. Further, Chambliss has not supported veterans at all with his voting record. The most recent was his vote against the new GI Bill. I find it very hard to congratulate someone with a record like that who won using racist code words, as well.”
My response:
OK. Perhaps I was not explicit and expansive enough. Yet, when all that remains to be decided is the Senate composition, with the Executive and House firmly in the hands of Democrats, then it is easy to see how the last bulwark is the Senate. I am not a fan of Saxby – never have been, never will be – however, I am far less a fan of any party dominating the elected bodies, which would leave only the Judiciary as defense against abuse and oppression. You are also correct that numbers alone do not connote cohesion. So, they may not have the magic 60 seats in the Senate, but their number is far larger than I care for. I prefer 50-50, or maybe even 45-45-10 with enough independents to make it interesting.

From another contributor:
“Thanks for the ‘update.’ I read them all, although some with more scrutiny than others depending on time and subject matter. I’m particularly enthused about your crusade against Islam-Fascist terrorism and much appreciate the information on the recent Indian attack. I think all major religions have problems, to a lesser or greater degree, dealing with modernity, but with Islam it appears to be irreconcilable. Modernity represents two trends that Islam sees as unacceptable: loss of control of the masses (putting self above Islam, the ‘me-centricity’ of our own society) and focus on this life instead of the next. Western civilization may indeed be a deadly virus to Islam, probably is. And, who knows, THEY may be right in the long run. But there can be no doubt that the only way we can ‘accommodate’ the long term goal of the Islamic religion is to surrender our way of life and/or die. It is, in fact, that kind of struggle, and you are either on one side or the other. Doing nothing is always a COA [Course Of Action], as is negotiation, but time is not on our side.
“For those that would attack India for the intolerance toward their Islamic minority, when/where was the last successful, major state ruled by an Islamic majority and how tolerant was that state of its ‘minorities’? I personally do not think Western Civilization is perfect, but I do think it’s worth passing on to my grandchildren. I have very little ‘tolerance’ for those that cannot, or will not see how important our current efforts are in securing our way of life for our grandchildren. Hope is not a strategy – at least not now that the ‘silly season’ is over.
“As to Hedges, you are much too kind. It’s typical, myopic, liberal-minded, Imperialist America, ‘why can’t we all just get along’ dribble. Isn’t it funny how the same people that believe there is nothing worth fighting for and that everyone is basically good are the same people that triple lock their doors at night and buy thousand-dollar alarm systems for their cars. How far did he have to go back in history to find ONE Islamic leader that had ‘philosophers’ in his court, somewhere in the 1500’s? And if he really does not understand the difference between going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Indian terrorist attacks, he’s not worth talking to, let alone reading.
“On a much lesser note, I do not totally disagree with your other crusade against some of the more ridiculous morality issues that seem to grab center stage in our media from time to time. I am much less sympathetic to the specific drug legalization COA. Perhaps the ‘foolish, impotent’ war on drugs has not been as successful as we might have hoped, but one can only truly critique the COA selected. I have very little confidence that your COA would yield any better results and the unintended consequences could very well be devastating. It’s often very easy to prescribe COA’s based on failure of another, instead of any real analysis of chances of success of the new one. Criticism and critique and critical analysis all share approximately the same etymology, but they are far from synonymous.
“Lastly, in the semi-immortal words of Kris Kristofferson, ‘freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.’ The relationship between the citizen and the state is a balancing act through a minefield. Our society is not perfect and of course always bears watching, but neither is it the worst current or historical example. The problem with our society, as I see it, is most of us have lost the ability to distinguish between ‘needs’ and ‘wants.’ Personally, if I’m talking to a known terrorist on my cell phone, I EXPECT my government to be listening and to take appropriate action on that, while ignoring overheard references (hypothetically speaking) to any 1-900 numbers or any (hypothetical) clandestine affairs with the red head down the street. Of course the devil is always in the details.”
My reply:
Indeed, all major religions do have problems. IMHO, all those problems hang upon the megalomania of the flawed men who serve as clergy. The revealed religions tend to be far more aggressive and evangelical; each has periods of offensive projection of their beliefs to convert the infidels to the ‘true’ faith. Christianity outgrew its violent years during the Renaissance as political thinkers began the process of separating the domains of church & state. Unfortunately, we live in an era where Islam is evolving about 600 years behind Christianity; they are still in their Crusades and Inquisition phase. I do not condemn the religion, only the clerics who foster violence and intolerance for the furtherance of their control and their power. I am optimistic that Islam will eventually mature into a more tolerant and confident form.
The admixture of church & state, religion & politics, will never be a stable condition. The thinkers of the 17th & 18th Centuries understood that reality; they had multitudinous examples to help them see that reality. There is one, central, fundamental reason – there are no checks & balances with religion; clerics turn to God for their validation and justification, which is precisely why that wall of separation must be high, strong and broad.
Western civilization and specifically this Grand Republic are inherently flawed, and far from perfect; in fact, in the political domain, there is no such thing as perfect, which is exactly why the Founders / Framers constructed a system of governance with checks & balances, forcing compromise, negotiation, debate and deliberation. Hope is indeed not a strategy, just as idealism offers no protection.
I agree on Hedges, but I always like to hear as broad a spectrum of opinion as possible. I call opinions like Hedges’ the “Rodney King Syndrome” – “C-c-c-can’t we all just get along?”
BTW, I assume COA = Course Of Action, in your usage. If so, I understand and appreciate your doubt in my espousal of drug legalization. This is hardly the forum and I am but a humble, perhaps naïve, novice pragmatist. I am not proposing change for the sake of change, or simply because the contemporary policy has failed. My social model proposal is based on lay observation of addiction – alcohol, tobacco, psychotropic substances, et cetera. I think validation is easily established that addicts cannot be cured; there are only two outcomes: 1.) he reaches his bottom, and convinces himself he must change and avoid intoxicants, or 2.) he dies by his substance of choice. There is no medical, psychological, mental, emotional, legal or familial action that can alter the addict’s chosen path [and I use chosen not to ignore a genetic element in addiction, but rather to acknowledge the internal forces within the addict]. Prohibition will never, ever work; we have millennia of history & examples to prove that axiom. My objective is to:
A.) eliminate the criminal sub-culture that is the source of so much injurious crime,
B.) protect the public from collateral damage by the addict’s consumption,
C.) allow the addict the selfish, ego-centric, self-indulgent, self-destruction he seeks, and
D.) recognize the fact that some people will not be saved and that we must focus on those who truly seek salvation.
Distinguishing between wants and needs. Interesting observation that carries some weight. I have supported the USG’s surveillance initiatives, while being critical of the administration’s execution – Elliott Spitzer being the poster-child for the USG’s abuse of anti-terrorism tools for political purposes.

Another contribution:
“I believe a combatant is a combatant, whether or not he or she wears the uniform of some country, or dresses to blend in with local populations.
“So if we capture any, they are prisoners. IF they are found to be actual soldiers of some country, and are not in uniform, especially if they carry no Correct Identification, then perhaps they should be treated as spies. I think that was WW2 rules. Not sure about the Geneva Convention nowadays. If they are Not military but fighting as sympathizers to some ‘Group,’ then I feel they HAVE NO STANDING, anywhere. They took the chance, and lost. Sorry about that.
“But that is actually the position that Many Many fighters in Al-Qaeda, The Taliban, and seemingly always increasing splinter groups, small individual ‘cells,’ etc., some with actually their own agendas really, though hiding under cover of some more recognizable group. None belong to any Country at war with any other Country. They are terrorists, bent on advancing whatever cause they may have by attempting to destroy or at least put dire fear in the peoples they oppose.
“When it comes to acting against the USA, such Groups, Organizations, Cells, whoever they may be, have good reason to believe they have at Least a better than Reasonable chance of success or at least some advancement of their agenda when going against us. Look at our ‘Record’ since about 1979 or so, of acting immediately and definitively against those who have hurt us. That record is dismal!! And that blame cannot be put on just Democratic Administrations ---- I give you Reagan and the Beirut Bombing as just One Republican folly. There are others, from Administrations on Both sides.
“It does not speak well about us in MY opinion. But it speaks quite clearly to our adversaries and would be adversaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I believe passage of Prop 8 in CA was wrong. In spite of the fact that I am not enthusiastic about Gays marrying Gays and having all the rights, privileges, etc. of Man/Woman Marriages. I might be a bit more amenable to that stuff if in Divorce cases, the gay adversaries would be treated the same as any heterosexual couple divorcing in the particular State. However ----- that might prove hard to do. How do you legally determine which of the couple plays what role, and is that important anyway? What if they have adopted children? Which partner gets custody, let’s say when the reason for divorce is, as is the case a lot now, ‘Irreconcilable Differences.’
“BUT---I do believe in all of us having equal rights. The key word in my last sentence is ALL. So I disagree with Prop 8 from a legal standpoint.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------
“I have, in the last year or two have found myself becoming more closely aligned in my thoughts and convictions with the folks who say that Life begins at conception and so Abortion is wrong. Period. HOWEVER, I am a Long way from being totally aligned with them! One can put forth, and Many have, any number of arguments, both generally and by asking specific ‘What IF’ questions, whereby I think many, if not a Majority of Americans would find themselves in a quandary---in an almost unsolvable moral dilemma. A dilemma having not so much to do with the teachings of ANY particular religious faith, or secular denomination, as just plain Personal Feelings. And THOSE most often having to do with the particulars of a single particular case.
“No broad-brushing of legalities will EVER satisfy all. Never.
“I do have one not completely thought out opinion. It might be the beginning of the 3rd trimester, or some other earlier semester, or week, or anytime determined by proper medical authority, as seconded by another proper medical authority, that the fetus is viable. SO---NO abortion.
“I'd never want to be in THAT position. It is untenable. What is viable? Define that please! Legally. Aha! Can't. Again --- ‘What If’ we will lose the Mother in a possibly unsuccessful attempt to save the new life? ‘What If’ we can save the Mother, and pretty much guarantee she can have future chances at giving birth, but we will lose the fetus? I could go on and on, as HAVE the very serious advocates for Both sides of this very important, though virtually insolvable quandary.
“In times past, throughout all of humanity, and as it always has been in all of the animal world, reproduction took/takes it's course. Regardless and in spite of who survives and who does not. Various species, over eons of development, mutation and adaptation, have found ways to try and guarantee the survival of their own species. Sometimes over time successfully, though not always, with those unsuccessful species disappearing. The word we use is Extinct. It still happens, though perhaps not always due to the specie’s best efforts, but to loss of needed habitat.
“What makes Us think we can somehow LEGISLATE what is a totally natural, evolutionary, biologically imperative process? We cannot! Again, my opinion.
“It all may not be life in the ‘Fast Lane’ of today desires to influence and change life, but it is definitely in the ‘Reality Lane’ of life on This planet.”
My response:
Precisely. A combatant is a combatant in wartime. You also got it correct; the Geneva Convention does define un-uniformed combatants in the category of spies. Yet, the difficulty in the present war comes with many sub-elements:
1. None of the battlefield combatants are uniformed. Most are trans-national individuals often without identification. They fight for no state entity. And, some of these combatants carry no conventional weapons, but rather keyboards, cell phones, and single elements of binary explosives.
2. A significant portion of our society has never been convinced that we are at war. They believe the war is a fictitious construct of a rogue president. As such, they see these battlefield combatants as simple citizens, “innocent until proven guilty” with full rights to writ of habeas corpus, legal counsel, and trial by jury.
3. Since so many of these battlefield combatants operate as individuals or in small groups, thus even the label of “battlefield combatant” can be and is contested, forcing the judiciary to evaluate inherently very loose, circumstantial ‘evidence’ to establish the classification for EACH individual.
Once you make those decisions / determinations, all the rest of the arguments regarding the present war fall apart. You are precisely correct, IMHO; this legal fiasco surrounding captured battlefield combatants does not speak well of us and our ability to prosecute a war against Islamo-fascists intent upon destruction of our society, our culture, our very way of life. Conversely, we can be proud of how generous, tolerant, magnanimous and sympathetic we are toward those who would harm us.
Thank you for voicing your concern regarding non-heterosexual marriage. I assume your concerns are represented by your questions. If there are other issues, I would like to hear your arguments. To your questions, let us set aside the religious element of some marriages and define marriage as a civil recognized contract between two people. That contract bears certain rights, privileges and responsibilities. If the principal worries center upon the potential dissolution of a marriage contract, I think we can resolve the elements. To my limited, lay knowledge, modern divorce has become less and less affected by gender alone. The serious factors in most divorces are the children. Joint custody must be the baseline, unless or until one party relinquishes their rights or is proven incompetent or incapable of proper parenting. Some number of divorces today are carried out and agreed to outside of court, between the parties, and simply sanctioned by the court. Contemporary divorce is not what it was 50 years ago. I do not see any different or unusual legal procedures being needed or created as long as we recognize civil marriage as a state-sanctioned contract between two people.
Also, I might add, as I acknowledge the sensitivity, I do not see a fundamental limitation to the number of adult citizens who might seek to bond their relationship by civil marriage.
The notion of abortion is repugnant. I share your concerns regarding the medical procedure; I always have. Yet, for me, the conflict arises when We, the People, via the instruments of State attempt to impose our will upon an individual citizen, and in this particular case, invade the body of that citizen to take control of a single cell or clump of cells. I seek a solution to the abortion issue via elimination of the need (the demand). This is an area of public debate where religion continues to strong-arm and impose its will on all citizens, and specifically those who find themselves in the dilemma you note. I see the abortion debate as largely an ideological confrontation deeply rooted in religious beliefs, and yet, I can and will be able to recognize that debate when those so inclined to project their moral values into the lives of all citizens show / demonstrate as much concern for unwanted, abused, neglected children as they do for a single cell imbedded within a woman’s uterus.

One last contribution:
“The Assisted suicide scene is ‘hotting’ up over here [UK] with SKY television showing the actual death of a client of the ‘Digitas’ organization In Switzerland. Our public prosecutions seem to be making decisions depending on the situation per case, i.e., not one rule for all. There will be more on this I’m sure.”
My reply:
Yes, indeed. I just saw the notice of the latest . . . refusal to prosecute. I think citizens will begin to see the wisdom of Death with Dignity laws. As I am learning, apparently there is no requirement for a judge to write down their rulings. I’ve been hunting for several unrelated cases including one local case. I’ll keep looking. This issue is too important to be ignored. The case-by-case approach will not engender confidence in what we will all face in those moments ahead.

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

08 December 2008

Update no.364

Update from the Heartland
No.364
1.12.08 – 7.12.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Well, it was another sad day for our brethren from the “Hilton on the Hudson.”
Navy, 34 – Army, 0
Now, I am beginning to feel remorseful for my cousins, Greg & Sandy, both proud West Pointers, who must endure another year of defeat – seven (7) in a row. Sorry guys . . . good luck next year. Well, not really . . .
Go Navy, Beat Army!
A day after the lopsided football victory, we remember that particular Day of Infamy, 67 years ago.
May God bless all those who have given their last full measure for our freedom, as well as all those who have served and continue to protect this Grand Republic.
Semper Fidelis.

The follow-up news items:
-- Only one of the Islamo-fascist terrorists that attacked Mumbai [363] survived – 21-year-old, Kashmiri-born, Azam Amir Kasav, AKA Ajmal Kasab, Ajmal Kamal. Kasav and the cell leader were assigned the city railway station as their killing ground. Kasav was captured alive with minor injuries, and will now enjoy the hospitality of the Indian government as well as the opportunity to chat with lots of folks.
-- Linkages are beginning to clarify in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks [363] that point toward two, Pakistan-based, Kashmiri separatist, terrorist groups – Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad. The groups were created decades ago by the ISI as unconventional warfare units in the long-standing conflict over Kashmir between Pakistan and India.
-- Various Press reports with sources reportedly inside the Indian security services and involved with the interrogation of Azam Kasav [363] identified two Lashkar operatives -- Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, operations chief, and Yusuf Muzammil, a senior leader. Additional interest has been focused on Faheem Ansari – an Indian national, a Lashkar operative and already incarcerated in India.
-- The U.S. Treasury Department froze assets connected with Lashkar-e-Taiba and added the leaders of the terrorist group to the international terrorist watch list – Muhammad Saeed, Lashkar’s leader; Haji Muhammad Ashraf, its finance chief; and Mahmoud Mohammad Ahmed Bahaziq, a financier of the group.
[NOTE: Question: How many terrorist attacks have we witnessed with Hindus killing people in Pakistan? Answer: zero (0). Is it any wonder the Indians are rightfully angry that Islamo-fascist terrorist repeatedly operating from Pakistan continue to kill innocent domestic and international citizens in India? The government of Pakistan may or may not be directly involved, but they are certainly culpable in their inability to squash the various terrorist groups operating from Pakistan. The looming confrontation between India and Pakistan will not be pretty; but, there may be a silver-lining . . . finally focusing World attention and resources on Islamo-fascists within Pakistan. We must remember that connecting the now illegal, rogue, terrorist groups to the Pakistani government and people is comparable to connecting the Mafia to the Italian government.]
-- The Justice Department investigation into the firing of nine (9) U.S. attorneys [268] appears to be focusing and intensifying as the Federal prosecutor issued subpoenas seeking related information. While the precipitating action at the end of 2006 stank of political retribution, I suspect building a felonious criminal case will not be so easy, but the investigation is essential.
-- Wonder of wonders. Representative William Jennings Jefferson. AKA ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson. of Louisiana [233, et al] was finally defeated in a runoff election Saturday, and now will stand trial, supposedly early next year, on corruption charges. He was defeated by Vietnamese immigrant Anh ‘Joseph’ Quang Cao, a refreshing feat in itself. At least Jefferson will not have his House seat when he stands before the bar and a jury of his peers.

Senator Clarence Saxby Chambliss of Georgia won his runoff election on Tuesday, thus removing the potential of a Democratic Party, 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. As even the casual observer can ascertain from the musings of this humble journal, I have not been impressed by the performance of either major political party. The possibility of any party gaining unfettered control of instruments of State is not particularly comforting, no matter how I cut it. So, congratulations to Senator Chambliss.

An interesting counterpoint on the California Prop H8 issue that is worthy of your attention:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/cca5e8a78a

A contributor provided this link to an interesting mainstream Press survey.
“A Gay Marriage Surge – Public support grows, according to the new NEWSWEEK Poll”
by Arian Campo-Flores
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Published: Dec 5, 2008
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172399

This week, it was the national security nominations for the Obama administration:
Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton -- State
Robert Michael ‘Bob’ Gates – Defense (current)
Janet Napolitano – Homeland Security
Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. – Attorney General / Justice
James Logan ‘Jim’ Jones, Jr. – National Security Adviser
Susan Elizabeth Rice – Ambassador to the UN
William Blaine ‘Bill’ Richardson III – Commerce
Eric Ken Shinseki – Veterans Affairs

I try to offer a spectrum of opinion on a wide variety of topics. The Mumbai attack and the on-going War on Islamic Fascism took center stage for the last two weeks. A contributor pointed me to this essay:
“Confronting the Terrorist Within”
by Chris Hedges
truthdig.com
Posted on Dec 1, 2008
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081201_confronting_the_terrorist_within/
I do not agree with Hedges’ opinion, but he does make some important points that deserve contemplation and debate. If you are so inclined, please offer your opinion.

For the paucity of news from the economic front last week, we certainly did get a belly full this week.
-- The National Bureau of Economic Research, a panel of academic economists, decided that the U.S. economy entered recession in December 2007 – not that it gives us any comfort. They also reported the end of the expansion that began in November 2001 – 73 months.
-- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said further interest-rate cuts are “certainly feasible,” but there are limits to how much federal funds rate cuts can accomplish. He also said the Fed has other tools to be used.
-- If we can believe Press reports, Ford Motor Company is probably not in as bad of financial shape as the other two Big 3 automakers. Ford declared they are retooling for smaller, more fuel efficient cars. Unfortunately, the essential question is, was it too late?
-- General Electric announced their financials as well as an on-going restructuring evaluation that includes GE Capital, which has to be a serious drain on the conglomerate giant.
-- The Big 3 automakers presented their recovery plans to Congress in hopes of gaining access to the Federal treasury trough. They seek US$34B, with General Motors asking for US$18B of that total. Congress did not take the bait. Negotiations began to find a solution. I suspect the American auto industry is trying desperately to avoid reality.
-- California Governor Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger declared a fiscal emergency as he acknowledged a US$11B state budget deficit and the potential for a US$28B deficit in less than 2 years. The ‘Governator’ joined other governors in asking for quick release of Federal infrastructure funds to inject into states and release construction funds the states can use for other essential services.
-- The Federal Reserve’s ‘Beige Book’ survey of economic activity indicates nationwide weakening, which adds validation to the National Bureau of Economic Research report.
-- Telecommunication leviathan AT&T announced its intention to reduce the work force by 12,000 jobs (4%) as well as associated severance-related charges and reductions in capital spending.
-- The European Central Bank cut its benchmark rate by 0.75 points to 2.5%. The Bank of England reduced its rate by one full point to 2% – the lowest level since October 1939, and the rate has never been lower since the central bank was founded in 1694. Sweden's central bank cut its key interest rate by a record 1.75 points to 2%, while New Zealand and Indonesia also cut their benchmark rates. These statistics alone illuminate the seriousness of the economic crisis.
-- Retailers report double-digit decreases in sales, despite better than expected ‘Black Friday’ holiday sales figures.
-- The Department of Labor posted better than half a million, non-farm, job losses for November alone. When viewed on a monthly, annual time scale, we see a steady decline since December of last year, with a precipitous drop in September. We must look for this tend to turn to the positive.
-- At the end of this busy week, the Press reports that Chrysler has retained the prominent, bankruptcy, law firm Jones Day . . . probably indicative of what is to come.
-- Now we hear the Tribune Company – owner of the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, among others – is negotiating new debt terms in an effort to avoid bankruptcy. I hope they are successful.

An interesting article, worthy of our cogitation:
“Swiss voters back £14m-a-year health scheme to give addicts free heroin”
by David Charter
The Times [of London]
Published: December 1, 2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5263748.ece?&EMC-Bltn=IMYAX9
According to the Charter article, the Swiss Parliament voted to approve the controversial program in March of this year. Conservatives challenged the legislative vote, forcing the referendum to be placed before the voters, which passed by at 69-31 margin on 30.November. Addicts go to a government-licensed clinic, obtain their controlled dosage, and inject themselves with clean needles under the supervision of registered nurses. According to Swiss government statistics, crime by heroin addicts has decreased by 60% since a more restrictive program was introduced 14 years ago. Interestingly, also according to the article, the Swiss Parliament voted against legalization of private cannabis use by a vote of 106-70, reportedly because of concern about the adverse effects of a drug tourist trade. From the Times article: “Sabine Geissbuhler, of the Parents against Drugs association, said that giving patients heroin was not helping them to give up the drug. ‘It is an outrage that the State should give addicts heroin — it is poison. You do not give people poison to make them better.’” I doubt any of us would argue with Geissbuhler’s statement. The only problem with the statement rests with addict’s motivation. Our righteous indignation, moral condemnation, and legal prohibition will never stop the addict. There are only two events that will break addiction’s consumption of the addict: 1.) he reaches his bottom and commits himself to sobriety, or 2.) death. The Swiss have taken a far more realistic path; we should learn from them. Legalization of psychotropic substance use with regulation is long overdue . . . for elimination of the criminal sub-culture and to recover the freedom we have sacrificed in this foolish, impotent war on drugs.

In Update no.363, I shared my comment to the editors of the Wall Street Journal regarding their editorial opinion . . .
“Gay Marriage and the California Courts – Democracy loses if Prop. 8 is overruled.”
Editorial
Wall Street Journal
Published: 25.November.2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122757137423754669.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
I received this reply:
“Dear Cap (if I may),
“Interesting that you overlook perhaps the greatest of these cases: Dred Scott. And of course Plessy rather makes my point: leaving these decisions to judges is no guarantee of justice.
“I rather like the process that led to the Civil Rights Act. It seems to have worked.
“All the best,”
/S/
. . . to which I replied:
By all means, I prefer the familiar.
My spectrum definition was not intended to be a chronology or an exhaustive listing. We could back to the British Slave Trade Act of 1807 (25.3.1807), if we were so inclined. Dred Scott v. Sandford [60 U.S. 393 (1856)] was certainly not a high point in American jurisprudence. If you wish to use Plessy v. Ferguson [163 U.S. 537 (1896)] as an example like Dred Scott of poor judicial performance or an attempt by the Supreme Court to avoid judicial interference, then I would agree. However, my point was not focused on our governmental processes, but rather the injustice suffered by individual citizens. I am not an advocate for the popular notion of judicial activism; and, like you, I prefer the slow, cumbersome churnings of our republican democracy. What I have considerable difficulty with and objection to is the injustice suffered by a hapless minority at hands of a willful majority and sustained by that very same plodding system. Justice O’Connor struck resonance when she wrote, “A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the State's moral disapproval of that class and the conduct associated with that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, under any standard of review” – Lawrence v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003)]. While we are not discussing criminal law at the moment, the principle remains valid. California’s Proposition 8 was a popular vote opinion poll; we get it – the majority of Californians (undoubtedly of Americans as well) reject the notion of non-heterosexual marriage, presumably on moral grounds. Yet, is the majority’s “moral disapproval” of non-heterosexual marriage sufficient and proper to deny equal protection under the law to a disenfranchised minority?
In the context with which you refer to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [PL 88-352], I would agree . . . I ‘rather like the process’ as well. Yet, does our admiration of the process make us feel better about Emmett Louis Till, Central High School in Little Rock, Medgar Wiley Evers, Birmingham, Greensboro, Selma, ad infinitum? When we view the process as a Federalist, we are all grateful for that system of change. When viewed as individual citizen in We, the People, I think you would agree that the injustice inflicted upon our fellow citizens is hardly admirable. I see the Civil Rights Act of 1964 not as a magnificent testament to the legislative process, but as a dreadful embarrassment that it took 100 years and was even necessary, and even then, we still suffer the injustice of racism to this very day. So, I am all for individual citizens harboring whatever views and opinions they wish; what I am not tolerant of is the imposition of those views and opinions upon ALL citizens without a proper, legitimate, and rational, public, State interest to do so. Tradition and precedent are vital principles, and yet they must pale in the light of “equal protection under the law.”
Thank you for your reply and opinion, and for the opportunity to voice my humble opinion. Let the debate continue.
Cheers,
Cap
. . . and this follow-up:
“Amen, brother. The injustices are always real. But we are tearing our society apart by not following the process. I look at a man like Wilberforce, and how almost alone he finally, after many years of working, persuaded Parliament to outlaw slave trade. That's my kind of reformer.
“Thanks again for writing.”
. . . to which I replied:
Perhaps so, but I did not raise my voice against those injustices 50 years ago. I have regretted my blissful ignorance ever since, and I swore an oath to myself never to be so complacent or acquiescent again. A citizen’s fundamental right to privacy is the contemporary constitutional issue of our day. Non-heterosexual civil rights are one important but small element of the larger issue. We, the People, began tacitly accepting the erosion of our privacy 75 years ago (some might argue it began 135 years ago with the Comstock Act of 1873 [PL 43-257]). William Wilberforce was indeed a man to be admired for a myriad of reasons – my kind of reformer as well. However, there are major differences between his day and ours, not least of which is the pervasiveness and reach of the Federal government. I share your concern for the health and well-being of this Grand Republic, however, the most elemental foundation of our Nation is and will remain We, the People. Injustice to one is injustice to us all. The Court was established as a check upon the Legislative and Executive branches and to protect the constitutional rights of every single citizen, not just a willful majority. If the Legislature cannot rectify the injustice, then the Court must.
As Dennis Miller so eloquently said, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Thank you for listening.
Cheers,
Cap

Comments and contributions from Update no.363:
“I just finished reading ‘The Dark Side’ by Jane Mayer. It deals with the development of he U.S. detention and interrogation policies. It is a pretty grim read, and as an attorney, I can see several people getting disbarred, if not prosecuted. But it does detail the senior USG leadership involvement in the development of the abusive practices. One surprising thing was that former CIA Director Tenet used the Gestapo term "enhanced interrogation techniques"-- that is exactly the term (auf Deutsch, of course) that the geheime Staatspolizei used.
“Also check this article in Sunday's Post by a former military interrogator.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
“I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq”
by Matthew Alexander
Washington Post
Published: Sunday, November 30, 2008; Page B01
“[Alexander] underscores that torture and abuse were actually counterproductive. Below are some excerpts from the article:
“‘I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq.’
‘The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.’
‘One actually told me, “I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate.’”
My reply:
Interesting, good and valid observations. Harsh means should not be applied to everyone for the reasons cited, and yet, there are hardcore enemy operatives who will not respond to milk & cookies. I want our intelligence and military services to have as big a bag of tools as they need. Further, none of this should have been in the public domain, much like the P.O. Box 1142 unit of World War II did not reach the light of public awareness for 50 years. We shall continue to respectfully disagree and debate this issue.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Agree that it shouldn't have been in the public domain – nor in the military. If any of this is done, it should be on a case by case basis and out of sight. "It never happened." Having it migrate to the military was a disaster.”
. . . and my follow-up reply:
On this we are in absolute agreement.

A contribution from across the Great Waters:
“Most of us are absorbed with the descending financial calamity with our interest rate down to 1939 levels soon we will be paying the banks to care for our money.
“The ‘Day of Infamy’ will soon be upon us Cap. Our thoughts are with our American cousins who like us have borne the sadness and grief of war for the cause of democracy and freedom. Long may it flourish and God bless your ‘Grand Republic’.”
“I haven’t received any figures for the Poppy Appeal as yet, will pass them on when available.”
My response:
Today is indeed a Day of Infamy . . . a dastardly event 67 years ago. We remember. Thank you so very much for your kinds words of camaraderie and remembrance.
The economic front is rather ominous, and I suspect we have not seen the worst, yet. But, I remain confident that we shall overcome. The only question is, how long will it take? I am encouraged by the unprecedented collaboration and cooperation between World governments as they intervene to soften the severity and shorten the duration of this recession.

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

01 December 2008

Update no.363

Update from the Heartland
No.363
24.11.08 – 30.11.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Judge Leon’s order last week [362] released 5 of 6 Algerian terrorists, after Judge Urbina ordered the release of 17 Uighur detainees [358]. This week, we learn that Salim Ahmed Hamdan, recently convicted of providing material support to terrorists, will be released and repatriated to his native Yemen. Hamdan was the appealee in the Supreme Court’s Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [548 U.S. 557 (2006)] [238] that instigated the Military Commissions Act of 2006 [PL 109-366] [251, 254]. Do I hear any bets where this guy Hamdan will end up? Regardless, this is why battlefield combatants should have never been allowed access to the criminal judicial system, but the cows are out of the barn now.
-- A Texas jury convicted Ghassan Elashi, Shukri Abu-Baker, Mufid Abdulqader, Abdulrahman Odeh and Mohammad El-Mezain – leaders of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development – of 108 criminal counts, including support of terrorism, money laundering and tax fraud, for funneling American charitable funds to the terrorist organization Hamas.
-- The California Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments regarding the recently passed Proposition 8 – marriage amendment [360]. In the light of the court’s narrow, landmark opinion In re Marriage Cases [Six consolidated appeals] [CA SC S147999 (2008)] [336], the court’s future decision should be quite interesting. I suspect we shall soon bear witness to a major constitutional challenge that may be destined for the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

An editorial like this one could not be allowed to pass:
“Gay Marriage and the California Courts – Democracy loses if Prop. 8 is overruled.”
Editorial
Wall Street Journal
Published: 25.November.2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122757137423754669.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
So, I wrote a rebuttal:
To WSJ editors:
I read with interest your 25.November, editorial opinion regarding “Gay Marriage.”
By your logic, the suffering of American citizens with dark skin pigmentation, from Emancipation (1863) through the insult of Plessy v. Ferguson [163 U.S. 537 (1896)] to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [PL 88-352], was just an unfortunate consequence of our cumbersome political process. You rhetorically ask, “How much healthier our politics would be if those so convinced of the rightness of their views would have equal faith in the decency of their fellow Americans -- and their openness to being persuaded by clear, fair and honest argument.” Indeed! Thus and apparently, you are quite content to allow free, individual, law-abiding, productive citizens to suffer the injustice of inequality while generations of the majority struggle with the true meaning of the immoral words of our Founding – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The so-called Moral Majority has yet to articulate the proper and legitimate interests of the State to deny equal protection under the law to a portion of our citizenry whom they judge as immoral for their “private” choices, conduct and behavior. Who are we to judge the private, non-injurious choices of another citizen?
By the way, you might wish to instruct your fact-checkers to confirm the proper citation – Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey [505 U.S. 833 (1992)] – not vice versa.
Let us protect the equality and rights of ALL citizens, first and foremost, then we can resolve the proper State interests in abortion, same-gender marriage, prostitution, adoption, psychotropic substance abuse, and the myriad of other societal challenges we face. Y’all are of course quite correct in calling for societal change via the Legislature rather than the Judiciary, however, it must begin from the foundation of equality for all citizens and focus upon public conduct, not perceptions of private behavior . . . that is what the California Supreme Court endeavored to do In re Marriage Cases [Six consolidated appeals] [CA SC S147999 (2008)].
Thank you for the opportunity to voice my humble opinion.
Cheers,
Cap

Sadly, we bore witness to a well-coordinated, near simultaneous attack at 10 separate sites in Mumbai, India – the financial center of the South Asian democracy – by a previously unknown Islamo-fascist group called Deccan Mujahideen. Indian security services took nearly three days to subdue the terrorists. Tragically, 190+ were killed (with 60 of those being Americans) and 320+ wounded / injured, along with extensive property damage. The investigation has only just begun after the several day battle between Indian security forces and the terrorists. Sketchy information available so far suggests a relatively large team of well-armed, well-trained, trans-national terrorists probably landed from the sea to execute a well-planned, coordinated attack. Some connections point toward rogue elements of the Pakistani intelligence service, ISI, and a well-known Kashmiri separatist and Islamo-fascist terrorist group, Lashkar-e-Taiba – translated as Army of the Good or Army of the Righteous. The markers of al-Qaeda cannot be ignored. The obvious objective of the assault group was killing as many American, British and Jewish citizens as they could, as well as to traumatize the key Indian city. A more strategic objective had to be the destabilization of Indian-Pakistani relations, to force the Pakistani military to re-deploy forces away from the tribal areas and the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. This is our enemy. This is why the War on Islamic Fascism is much larger than the Battles for Iraq or Afghanistan, and beyond al-Qaeda.

President-Elect Obama’s formal cabinet and staff nominations have begun in earnest, and he started with the economic staff first, which is quite appropriate:
Timothy Franz Geithner – Treasury
Lawrence Henry ‘Larry’ Summers – National Economic Council
Christina D. Romer née Duckworth – Council of Economic Advisers
Peter Richard Orszag – Office of Management and Budget
Paul Adolph Volcker – Economic Recovery Advisory Board (new, independent)
Robert L. Gibbs – White House Press Secretary
Melody C. Barnes – White House Domestic Policy Council

The notable news from the economic front was rather sparse this week.
-- The Federal Reserve committed US$600B to absorb bad debt held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as US$200B to unfreeze funds for mortgages, consumer credit, and small businesses.

After last week’s congressional testimony by the CEO’s of the Big 3 American automobile companies and the embarrassment of publicly acknowledging their luxury corporate jets for transportation as they begged for Federal bail-out money, General Motors Corporation protested to FAA regulators against public display of flight plans and in-flight tracking. The protest makes the auto executives look all the more pathetic. Folks like me who routinely use the flight tracking service must urge rejection of the GM request. We are not talking about national or homeland security here; we are talking about foolish, vindictive auto executives and their petulant antics.

A Florida adoption case known as In the Matter of the Adoption of: John Doe and James Doe [case no.: [Redacted] (2008)] was decided by Circuit Court Judge Cindy S. Lederman for 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Juvenile Division. The judge declared Florida Statute §63.042(3)(2008) – originally enacted in 1977, which states, “No person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual” – was unconstitutional on equal protection and due process grounds. You have to read only the background situational facts to recognize this case as a tragic but indicative decision. Two boys, at the time 4 years and 4 months respectively, were removed by the state for cause from the biological mother, and placed with a foster parent known to us only as “Petitioner.” The boys were seriously neglected, malnourished and socially withdrawn. After four years in Petitioner’s custody and care, the boys were thriving; the biological parental rights had been terminated by the state; and, Petitioner sought to adopt the boys. The state denied the request for one reason only – Petitioner was a homosexual, a potential violate of Florida Statute §63.042(3)(2008). The dueling experts certainly do not add clarity. I find it intriguing that some ‘experts’ cited in the judge’s decision point to a higher incidence of depression among homosexuals. Gee, what a surprise! We condemn homosexuals; we beat them to death; we declared them untermenschen and deny them equal rights under a Constitution intended to protect all citizens; and then, we wonder why homosexuals have a higher than heterosexual incidence of depression. The logic defies my comprehension. We have far too many examples of failed heterosexual biological parents and heterosexual relationships to hypocritically condemn homosexual or non-heterosexual parents and relationships. This reality is not particularly different from the foolish, narrow attempt to prohibit abortion while we virtually ignore the plight of children in abusive, neglectful, unloving, pseudo-families. Fortunately, the two men known as ‘Petitioner’ and ‘Tom Roe Sr.’ had the strength of personal character and courage to stand up against the inequality and irrationality of the Florida law. Their case and Judge Lederman’s wisdom have given us rare insight. Let us deal with facts rather than imaginings and perceptions. Based on the facts in this case, there is zero doubt in my little pea-brain that the homosexual foster-parents are orders of magnitude better than the biologicals, who brought those hapless little boys into this world. If, as some fear, homosexuals as a broad class of citizens are not worthy as parents, we must focus on the individuals. Generalizations like Fla. Stat. §63.042(3)(2008) are clearly unwarranted, unrealistic, fraught with irrational, stereotypical fear of what we do not understand, and otherwise injurious of children like John and James Doe. Perhaps one day, we shall judge citizens by the content of their character rather than our perception of their relationship preferences.

In this continuing debate regarding the civil rights and equality due non-heterosexual citizens, a Canadian friend drew my attention to a preemptive Canadian Supreme Court ruling upon a set of questions presented by Parliament prior to legislative consideration – Reference re Same-Sex Marriage {[2004] 3 S.C.R. 698, 2004 SCC 79)}. The questions were presented to the Court three weeks after the United States Supreme Court issued its Lawrence v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003); no. 02-102] decision. The Court heard arguments, considered constitutional law, and rendered its opinion on 9.December.2004. They decided that the proposed law allowing same-gender marriage would not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights for either the individual citizen or for clergy and churches. We can stand to learn from our Canadian neighbors.

To help us understand the non-heterosexual civil rights issues, please allow me to be so bold to propose a little social exercise for each of us. Census estimates peg the homosexual population in the United States at 15 ± 5%. To my knowledge, this population fraction applies to any human population. I dare say that if we expanded the sampling to non-heterosexuals, thus including bisexuals, transsexuals, transgender, and anyone else who does not self-identify as a strict heterosexual, we might find the proportion is significantly larger. So, let us take the most conservative estimate – 10%. That mean if each of us has more than 10 family members or 10 friends, then chances are each of us knows a homosexual individual family member and/or friend whether we realize or recognize the reality. May I so humbly suggest that getting to know a homosexual man or woman might fundamentally alter our views of not only the present civil rights issue but also the humanity that is the object of our debate. I also respectfully suggest that if we do so in the spirit of open, free inquiry, we might actually see and feel the human face of what we are arguing about. I am not asking for anyone to accept another person’s sexual orientation or private choices, only to appreciate and tolerate his life and his pursuit of Happiness. Just a thought!

Comments and contributions from Update no.362:
“I can hardly wait to see how Obama deals with the ‘questionable’ financial arrangements of Bill [Clinton] when he appoints Hilary to the State post. Wonder if there is some complicated maneuverings and he will try to extract some promises from Bill? Yeh, right! All of his leaked appointments seem to be taken right out of Clinton's 2nd level appointees - it's change all right, but not what a lot of people wanted and what many feared.”
My reply:
We shall see with Obama. I am not so much interested in the past as I am the future. So far, he is making some pretty good moves. We shall see.

Another contribution:
“I bet whether or not Senator Stevens goes to jail, he will still get his retirement.
“I'm with You on the detainees' future.
“Agreed. The NY Times is wrong.”
My response:
I think you are precisely correct re: crusty ol’ Ted.

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