Update no.399

Update from the Heartland
No.399
3.8.09 – 9.8.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- A week ago Thursday, Ms. Debbie Purdy [364-6, 375] won her appeal to the Lords of Appeal, House of Lords, in her Death with Dignity case – R (Purdy) v. Director of Public Prosecutions [(2009) UKHL 45]. As you may recall, Debbie suffers from terminal Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and intends to utilize the services of Switzerland’s Dignitas [364, 396]. She sought protection for her husband to allow him to accompany her on her final journey. The Law Lords’ decision simply directs the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Crown Prosecution Service, to define the conditions under which family or friends might face prosecution for assisting loved ones who wish to achieve their end of days with dignity in a foreign jurisdiction (namely, Switzerland), in violation of §2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961. The subtle message being there are limits to the authority of English law with respect to British citizens who seek their death with dignity. Debbie Purdy’s experience with the law intruding upon her most private decisions reinforces the wisdom and care Oregon and Washington have instilled in their Death with Dignity laws. I continue my efforts to pass similar legislation in Kansas.
-- Justice has been served. Former Representative William Jennings “Dollar Bill” Jefferson of Louisiana [233, 240, 252, 258, 287, 295, 330, 346, 360, 364], was found guilty on 11 of 16 counts of bribery and corruption. Hopefully, he will be sentenced to quite a number of years to be bubba’s love buddy.
- The Senate voted 68-31-0-1(0) to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor, 55, [389, 395] to replace Associate Justice David Souter [385]. She was sworn into office as the newest Supreme Court associate justice on Saturday, in plenty of time for her orientation and preparation for taking her seat on the bench.
-- An intriguing, thoughtful, and stimulating counter-point to David Boies’ Op-Ed column [397] of similar title:
“Gay Marriage, Democracy, and the Courts – The culture war will never end if judges invalidate the choices of voters”
by Robert P. George
Wall Street Journal
Published: August 3, 2009, 11:22 A.M. ET
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322084279548434.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
As the footnote states, Robert is a “professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and founder of the American Principles Project (http://www.americanprinciplesproject.org/).” With credentials like that and no disrespect to Bob, I find his argument surprisingly shallow – just because . . . that’s the way it has always been. Nonetheless, his opinion poked me to think beyond the immediate topic – the title alone accomplished the jab, but his reasoning gave me focus. I am also surprised by his politically biased, ideological view of the lightning rod case – Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)]. Let it suffice to say, I fundamentally disagree with and reject Bob’s logic. All that aside, why are we even debating marriage; why is marriage an issue? Bob’s presentation helped me see a brighter portion of the light. Marriage as we know it is a personal contract between individuals. Yes, traditional marriage in Western societies has been heterosexual, bilateral, mono-racial, and assumed to be monogamous . . . oh yes, with the principal exception of male-centric, polygamy practiced by early Mormons and even some sects today. We even made a bunch of laws to ostensibly enforce our traditional view of marriage, which in reality made the government a party to every marriage. My conclusion: the government should have never been a involved in marriage, except where public interest is involved, i.e., adult, disease-free, willing, et cetera. The government has absolutely not right whatsoever to be dictating what two or more people do behind the front door of their private domain, whether it is procreating, or enjoying purely hedonist sex – it is none of our business. Each of us can and should define our marriage as we mutually negotiate, choose and agree. As long as no one is injured, abused, misled (fraud), or forced, marriage should be a private matter between consenting adults (or minor children with parental approval), and the state has no place behind the front door. Procreation, parenthood, family values . . . they are specious and flawed rationale for corrosive discrimination, only slightly more sophisticated than the infamous and notorious Jim Crow or Hereditary Rights laws of past generations. Now, one last point I find quite offensive in Bob’s argument – the implied notion of majority rule, i.e., the courts invalidating the choices of voters. California residents (voters) chose to amend their state constitution to allow simple majorities to make laws and even amend the state constitution, which at my last reading of the Federal Constitution, is about as diametrically opposed to the Founding principles as can be achieved with a citizen’s vote. Lastly (I know I already used the word ‘last,’ so forgive me), in this debate, we are talking about one group imposing its will upon the private lives of other citizens. Does that really sound like freedom – Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? Let us all support every citizens’ most fundamental rights to privacy and freedom of choice. Each of us deserves and expects those rights.

Former President Bill Clinton made a surprise trip to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) to retrieve the two convicted journalists – Laura Ling and Euna Lee. He had to endure some glad-handing with Grand Dear Leader Umpa-Lumpa, and I surmise, he had to listen to the drivel emanating from the diminutive one. Nonetheless, mission accomplished; good for “Slick Willy.”

With the decision of the Lords of Appeal giving Debbie Purdy her freedom of choice and dignity to live her life as she sees fit, we have Columnist Cal Thomas render his apocalyptic opinion on the topic.
“A Right to Die?”
by Cal Thomas
Tribune Media Services
Published: August 03, 2009 2:16:45
http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?mode=print&news=2665
Published in the Wichita Eagle as:
“Assisted-suicide ‘win’ is loss for human race”
on 5.August.2009
http://www.kansas.com/950/story/918192.html
Wise ol’ Cal refers us to the biblical verse Hebrews 9:27: “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.” Well, Cal, I am at peace and content to face God’s judgment. He also asks, “If Granny has willed you her nest egg, why not convince her and the doctor to slip her a pill and end her ‘suffering’? Wouldn't she ‘want it that way’ so as not to be a ‘burden’ to her family? The executioners will not come with black masks, but in white coats and bureaucratic suits.” I certainly respect Cal’s opinion. Clearly, Cal does not worry a whit about his end of days, and does not mind the potential for a slow, painful, lingering death – when it comes to his life or his loved ones. That is his choice entirely. I shall wish him well on his journey, and I shall have empathy for his family who must also endure his suffering. On the flip side, why should Cal Thomas or any other citizen tell me how I should live my end of days, or tell my family they must endure what I lived with my mother’s end of days. This issue is one of the most personal, private, and intimate decisions in a person’s life – within a family. . . within MY family. The part Cal misses in his opinion – freedom of choice is a very special fraction of our Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.

News from the economic front:
-- The Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, two of the Federal government’s primary U.S. banking regulators, have issued more memoranda of understanding essentially putting additional struggling banks on probation and increased supervision. Some of the targeted banks are complaining that the action is too harsh and unwarranted.
-- The SEC filed and simultaneously settled civil fraud charges against Bank of America over the bank’s alleged failure to disclose to investors that it agreed to pay more than US$5B in bonuses at the time of its takeover of Merrill Lynch. Apparently, Bank of America told investors in proxy documents that Merrill agreed it would not pay bonuses or other compensation to executives. According to the SEC, Bank of America had already “contractually authorized” Merrill to pay US$5.8B in bonuses. The SEC said the bank agreed to pay US$33M to settle the suit. This is one of those news items that stinks of the “rest of the story.” The USG strong-armed the bank to acquire Merrill Lynch, then beats the crap out of them when they react to minimize the consequences. I wonder if some historian will ferret out what really happened; the Press certainly hasn’t done it, yet.
-- Personal income decreased at a seasonally adjusted rate of 1.3%, after the May increase of 1.3%. Not surprisingly, wages and salaries also fell under pressure of the unemployment level. Despite lower income, consumer spending rose 0.4% in June from the May level, though the gain was driven by rising gasoline prices. The May consumer spending level was revised downward to 0.1%, from an originally reported 0.3% gain.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro has instructed her staff to explore “an approach that can be quickly implemented to eliminate the inequity that results” from flash trading – a practice I’m still trying to figure out. From the public information so far, I do not like what I have learned – even more onerous and odiferous that credit default swaps and hedging. This is only the tip of the iceberg, and Schapiro has a very long way to go to bring law & order to the financial marketplace.
-- Some leaked reports suggest the USG is considering gathering up bad debit from mortgage-finance giants, Fanny Mae & Freddie Mac, placing the troubled assets into a new federally backed corporation. Déjà vu. Didn’t we hear this option last fall when the Bush administration was grappling with the banking crisis?
-- The Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee left its benchmark interest rate unchanged, but increased the size of its asset-purchase plan by £50B, lifting it to £175B.
-- Former AIG Chief Executive Maurice “Hank” Greenberg [372, 392] is expected to pay US$15M to settle SEC charges over past accounting issues at the insurance giant. Former AIG CFO Howard Smith will pay US$1.5M as part of the settlement. Neither settlement amount is anywhere near the level of damage those two have inflicted upon U.S. citizens and the economy.
-- The fast-growing micro-blogging service Twitter suffered a “denial-of-service” cyber-attack that some reports have suggested may have been collateral damage emanating from a spike in the confrontation between Russia and Georgia. We shall learn from this event.
-- Congress passed HR 3425 – Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program (CARS, AKA Cash for Clunkers) [PL 111-044; Senate: 60-37-0-3(0); House: 316-109-2-6(2)] – and the President signed the renewal bill into law late Thursday evening.
-- AIG reported net profit of US$1.82B ($2.30 a share) as it returned to the black after six straight quarters of losses. The 2nd Quarter was absent the major write-downs which have been pressuring the insurance giant's results. The company indicated it sees stabilization in some of its businesses, as it continues to sell off assets and plans to turn other operations into independent public companies.
-- The Labor Department reported the smallest drop in employment since last August with non-farm payrolls declining by 247,000 in July, below the expected decline of 275,000. The unemployment rate decreased 0.1% to 9.4% nationally – another sign the recession is easing.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that the European Union’s ombudsman issued a rare rebuke of the EU’s antitrust regulator – the European Commission – saying it failed to record “potentially exculpatory” evidence from Dell in its investigation of Intel, after the chip-maker agreed to pay a record fine of US$1.45B [387] in the EU’s monopoly case. The ombudsman has no authority to change the outcome, but his report shines an embarrassing light on normally opaque procedures at one of the world's most powerful and aggressive antitrust enforcers.

Comments and contributions from Update no.397:
To your readers who believe that England, Australia, or others are doing well with gun control, watching a few of these sites might show otherwise.
-- http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
-- http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/717
-- http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article15.html
-- http://famguardian.org/Subjects/GunControl/Articles/HistGunCtlEngland.htm

Comments and contributions from Update no.398:
“I'm not attorney enough to even understand what you said about the Couer Alaska case. For me, the interesting part of the Couer Alaska case is the environmental aspect. Mine tailings dumped into flowing water cause havoc, hence the effort to use the Clean Water Act. This will affect the Tongass, but will also affect the environment in Appalachia and other mining areas in the Lower 48. Of course, the water in question continues downstream, so some of the results of this decision will be felt far from any mine.”
My response:
As a general rule, I believe you are correct – mine tailings are not healthy for any living thing. Unfortunately, I barely had sufficient time to read the case, and embarrassingly insufficient time to write my opinion. Let it suffice to say, there is more to the company’s efforts to comply with the Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA), namely, they intended to re-route tributaries around the lake to permit normal flow passed the lake. Further, they intended to implement a filtration process to ensure any water released from the lake (overflow) would be cleaned to CWA / EPA standards. So, there is a proper debate regarding the threat of those tailings. The company was presented with few choices regarding operation of the mine – one of which was abandon any operations. The Court did not focus on the threat of the mine’s tailings or even compliance with CWA. The issue addressed by the Court was who had authority to issue the permit to the mine, since different sections of the CWA created a conflict in the law. The EPA & ACE thought they handled the conflict properly by issuing the joint memorandum. The lower courts sided with the environmental consortium, but the Supremes held that the USG had acted in good faith and properly under the law as written. The law aside, Coeur Alaska claims their remedy process will leave no lasting injury to the environment. As always, time shall tell the tale.

Another contribution:
“It is good to finally find closure on Captain Scott Speicher. I recall that a Norfolk, VA newspaper ran a series on his case a few years ago. One troubling thing was the fact that the search for him immediately after the mission was called off in the wake of the national press briefing on the instigation of hostilities. General Powell had given the initial part of the briefing on the attack on the first day and noted that there was one pilot missing. For whatever reason, then-Defense Secretary Cheney stepped in an unequivocally stated that there was one death, the pilot. He had no way of being certain about that, as Speicher's squadron mates had only seen an explosion in the dark and could not see whether there was a chute or not. In the wake of SecDef Cheney's comments, they refrained from making the search, thinking that the SecDef must know something we don't. Afterwards, there was concern that the search had been called off and that Speicher could have been saved, had not Cheney made the comments he did.
“Another point, is that after the war, a search was made and his plane's wreckage was found. So was the ejection seat and the canopy- away from the wreckage, indicating that Speicher had ejected. Apparently he did not survive the ejection, as his body was found near the plane. However, I held that against Cheney for butting into the press conference and asserting that the missing pilot had been killed, when he had no way of being certain.”
My reply:
The same scenario / sequence has been reported in the National Press. I have no contrarian facts or even rumors.
The operative word in your missive is “apparently.” I would rest easier if we had forensic evidence from his remains regarding the likely cause of death or incapacitation, i.e., shrapnel fragmentation of bone, penetration of the skull, or whatnot. Dead is dead. However, as you note, he may not have survived the ejection sequence, which is not often fatal, but does occur.
Also troubling in this episode, some information suggests that orders issued by General Horner might have caused critical bogey information to be withheld from the Navy strike group.
I suspect we shall know more in time. Nonetheless, (SedDef) Cheney’s public comments were detrimental but may not have been significant.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“As I read in the media, such as today's Post, a number of his Squadron mates have questions about this. There were some oddities, - as you can see from the article below. There are actually a lot of questions – i.e., what happened to the cockpit?
“Here is the link to part 4 of a 6-part series that ran in the Virginian Pilot in 2002. Below is a piece by retired Navy CDR Bob Stumpf, who flew with Speicher. From that you can link all 6. Very interesting.”
The referred series:
“Part 1: Dead or Alive? What happened to Scott Speicher?”
by Lon Wagner and Amy Yarsinske
The Virginian-Pilot
Re-Published: August 3, 2009
Originally published Dec. 30, 2001; titled: “Part 1 of a 6 part series entitled “Scott Speicher - Dead or Alive?”
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/08/part-1-dead-or-alive-what-happened-american-pilot-scott-speicer

Another comment:
“This is a good little clip, courtesy of a colleague and former student of mine – Al Priselac.
“‘Democracy’ like many words in our language has both a connotation and a denotation. When we hear things like making the world safe for ‘democracy’; or ‘democracies’ tend to not go to war with each other, ‘democracy’ translates to something like a ‘free’ government with ‘fair’ elections and a ‘free’ press (of the people, by the people, for the people). But as a system or ‘form’ of government, the actual definition of a democracy is quite different.
“That’s why the founding fathers went to such great lengths to create a ‘Republic’ (…and to the Republic for which it stands…). The essential difference is of course ‘rule of law’ not rule of the majority. That’s also why discussions on the sanctity of the Constitution can become so emotional and heated; and why so many lawyers have gotten so rich in the process. This is most definitely not a semantics argument. If people don’t know the difference between a Republic and a Democracy, they certainly will not understand the pitfalls and dangers associated with drifting away from the intent of our Founding Fathers. That is, of course, unless they subscribe to the belief that, as Americans, we had nothing of which to be proud of until the summer of 2008 anyway.
“The clip does not appear to be overtly one sided politically, but it does clarify some fuzzy thinking on forms of government, individual freedoms and power/authority of the state. It takes about 5 minutes. I wonder how many American citizens would actually take that much time to really understand their own form of Government. (Present company excluded, of course) If anyone has a different opinion, I’d be glad to hear it.”
The link if you missed last week’s Update:
Go to http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
My comment:
Yea verily! . . . one reason I like the vidclip so much. Of course, there are other dimensions to the governance and political spectra, but at the macro level . . . very well done. I just wish more citizens understood and appreciated the subtleties.

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