Update from the Heartland
No.363
24.11.08 – 30.11.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
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 :-)
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 :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment