Update from the Heartland
No.424
25.1.10 – 31.1.10
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.424
25.1.10 – 31.1.10
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Anyone who may be concerned even remotely about the Islamic Republic of Iran and its nuclear weapons program should read:
“The Secret Nuclear Dossier – Intelligence from Tehran Elevates Concern in the West”
by Dieter Bednarz, Erich Follath and Holger Stark
Der Spiegel
Published: 25.January.2010
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,673802,00.html#ref=nlint
-- The confessed murderer of Dr. George Tiller [264, 368, 391] was convicted of first degree murder by a Wichita, Kansas jury. The jury took a mere 37 minutes to convict Scott Roeder, 51, who in turn faces a mandatory life sentence in prison – a sentence that lets him off way to easy for his crime.
-- In the face of rapidly mounting pressure, the Obama administration has abandoned plans to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other battlefield combatants [413] in the Southern District of New York (downtown Manhattan).
I recognize and acknowledge more than a few citizens railed against the McCain-Feingold campaign financing law – Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, AKA McCain–Feingold or Shays-Meehan) [PL 107-155] [322]. The law was far from perfect, but it was a bona fide attempt to lessen the obscene corrupting influence of big money both in electioneering and indirectly in governance. The Supremes decided on a narrow 5-4 margin, in an exhaustive 177-page ruling that an important section of BCRA was not acceptable in a free society – Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [558 U.S. ____ (2010); no. 08-205]. This is a classic case of conflict between perspectives in interpretation of the law, between big and small, between rich and poor, and between opposite pans on the scales of justice. Like this case, perspective must be assessed and interpreted. The Court has historically written its position including the dissenting opinions for direct comparison; so it is with this case and the comparison is enlightening. Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy wrote for the Court, “The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it.” I am certain we can all agree. Tony went on to observe, “These onerous restrictions [BCRA §203] thus function as the equivalent of prior restraint by giving the FEC power analogous to licensing laws implemented in 16th- and 17th-century England, laws and governmental practices of the sort that the First Amendment was drawn to prohibit,” and “This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech.” So, the Supremes declared BCRA §203 unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts spent more than a few words defending the Court’s abandonment of its guiding principle of stare decisis for this decision. Even Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting in part opinion, claiming the Court had not gone far enough to strike down BCRAs donor disclosure requirements. Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dominating, cogent and persuasive dissenting opinion. “In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.” Justice Stevens went onto observe, “It might also be added that corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their ‘personhood’ often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.” What I find rather odd in this whole debate is the paucity of any recognized reality. When I declare an opinion or advocate for one position or another, I am the speaker. I am a citizen. It is my efforts that speak. I am accountable for my words. I cannot afford to do otherwise. Yet, when a corporation speaks, often there is no identity and thus no accountability; corporations notoriously created façades, front or shell corporations to act in their stead and shield them from identity and thus accountability. Corporations possess vast amounts of money for their political ends . . . often driven solely by the profit motive. A corporation is NOT a citizen; it does not possess citizenship. The owner, chief executive or board are citizens; they possess the right to vote and argue their opinion on the soap box at Debater’s Corner, like all the rest of us; yet, in their role as the head of a corporation, they possess the means to significantly amplify their voice without the identity of the soap box. I am a staunch advocate for Freedom of Speech along with our other fundamental as well as constitutionally protected rights. Corporations also possess numerous other means by which to influence legislation, elections and often even subvert the democratic process. With this ruling, the Court has issued a veritable license to kill. To illustrate the issue, let us assume an extreme. What if a corporation or group of collaborative corporations bought up every available minute of advertising time on every television and radio station, such that the only message the public heard was that corporation’s intended message for its chosen candidate or issue? According to Citizens United, the corporation would have every right to dominate public dialogue. The question: Is the owner of a private corporation or the CEO of a public corporation more important or valued within our political system than John Q. Citizen? If the answer is yes, then the Court’s finding seems quite appropriate. If the answer is no, then I am gobsmacked at the myopia of the Supremes. Any material or action carried to an extreme can be injurious or even fatal, e.g., water is vital for life, and yet too much or too little can kill, just as too much oxygen, or any other material. Thus, the key is balance – consumption within tolerable limits. The same analogy can be created for campaign financing. With BCRA, Congress attempted to establish a boundary for tolerate corporate campaign spending. With Citizens United, the Supremes have said, “Nay, nay. The threshold has been set too low.” On the other side of the equation, the Internet has become a grand equalizer, allowing citizens access to virtually any news source publicly available and the ability to connect with other like minded citizens, and to place their voice before the World as is reflected in this humble Blog [Update from the Heartland]. The bottom line is, Freedom of Speech is freedom of speech. As we must tolerate offensive speech, we must tolerate the voice of obscene amounts of money and domination by large amorphous corporations. As much as I see the gross inequity of large corporations or unions overwhelming the information stream, we must find a method to filter and assess without restricting their voice. We survived Yellow Journalism a century ago; we shall survive the corrupting influence of massive money. This is not the end of the struggle of We, the People, to ensure this remains a republic of citizens, not corporations. President Obama was precisely correct in his State of the Union speech – the Court through out a century of law to constrain corporate-political corruption. As an indicator of significance, please re-read:
“Justice for Sale” [310]
by Sandra Day O'Connor
Wall Street Journal
Published: 15.November.2007
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010864
The Citizens United ruling opens the floodgates to a deluge of intentionally polarizing, confusing and otherwise divisive drivel.
News from the economic front:
-- The National Association of Realtors reported the sales of existing-homes decreased by 16.7% in December to a 5.45 million annual rate, after three straight increases. The data also indicated inventories declined and prices rose year over year for the first time in more than two years. Mixed results!
-- President Obama proposed a three-year freeze on discretionary spending unrelated to the military, veterans, homeland security, Social Security, Medicare, and international affairs, in other words only about one-sixth of the federal budget -- a move intended to dampen voter anxiety over the deficit, I’m sure.
-- The U.K. Office for National Statistics reported that the British economy grew in the 4th Quarter of 2009, emerging from a deep recession that began in the second quarter of 2008. Great Britain is the last of the major economies to emerge from the downturn created by the global credit crisis.
-- The Congressional Budget Office reported federal budget deficit decreased to US$1.35T from the US$1.4T previously projected, based on lower spending on the Treasury Department's bank bailout and stronger than expected economic growth. The deficit is expected to improve in the out-years, decreasing to US$480B in 2015, from previous projection of US$560B.
-- The Federal Reserve issued a slightly more upbeat reading of the U.S. economy's outlook and left short-term interest rates near zero to help support the slow recovery.
-- The Senate approved increasing the federal debt limit by another US$1.9T to US$14.3T. I am not really sure what such action means since a limit that is moved like this is not really a limit.
-- The Commerce Department reported that the United States Gross Domestic Product (GDP) expanded at an annual rate of 5.7% in the 4th Quarter, and grew at an annualized rate of 2.2% in the 3rd Quarter – the fastest pace since 2003. For the whole of 2009, GDP fell 2.4% – the biggest drop for an entire year since 10.9% in 1946.
Comments and contributions from Update no.423:
“Regards the FBI imbroglio, you are correct- they are law enforcement and they have to obey the law. Even more disquieting is the fact that when these laws were put into effect, you had the FBI and DOJ leadership swearing up and down they would follow the law scrupulously and to the letter. Now you have this. Somebody out to bring out videos from the past and compare to what is happening today. Whether one is conservative or liberal- or in between- this should be shocking and anger-provoking. This also brings up the question of "can these guys do anything right?" In most world government systems, people in Muller's and Holder's positions would resign.”
My reply:
Spot on! ‘Nuf said.
A comment to the Blog:
“You said ‘removed the bare, 60-seat Democratic Party majority in the Senate’ where you should have said "super majority." Democrats still have a comfortable majority; they just can't pass legislation the Republicans oppose without the threat of a filibuster.
“I have already expressed my opinion of the Senate health care bill.
“I have no difficulty finding outrage at the FBI's disregard of the law. Their mission is law enforcement, not vigilantism.
“You have read my opinion of the Supreme Court decision regarding corporate campaign contributions. I have neither the ability nor the time to perform in-depth legal analysis; besides, I find the published quotes from the various Justices illuminating enough.
“I cannot help you with anything relating to Macintosh. If and when I escape MicroSoft, I'll be headed to some version of Linux or possibly another FOSS system.”
My response to the Blog:
Touché. Spot on! You are of course precisely correct. The Democrats lost their “super majority” (needed to overcome a filibuster) and still maintain a healthy majority in both the Senate and House. Now, they must compromise.
Yes, your opinion regarding health care reform has been well stated.
There are a myriad of reasons to be angry with the FBI’s conduct in those surveillance tasks.
I am still reading the long ruling from the Supremes on campaign financing. I am fascinated by the words, concepts and interpretation of the law. I need their words directly, rather than filtered by the Press. Nonetheless, so far, the Press coverage has been accurate and appropriate, so no need to read the case unless you wish.
So far, I am glad I made the switch to Mac.
Another comment:
“BTW, I read all the comments from your update this week about other people who use Macs. Whoever said there is not a "right-click" on a Mac hasn't used one for a LONG time. Obviously on your Magic Mouse there is one and then on the portable all you do is hold Ctrl and then click.”
A different contribution:
“It was the Presidents best speech to date. If that doesn't inspire Washington to make changes then nothing will. Yes, I know talk can be cheap. He will need to do his part to backup what he talked about. Anyway, I thought it was a great speech and not one that most could have pulled off.
“BTW, did you see our new invention yesterday. The iPad. Pretty cool. It will have it's niche in the market but not for me. If you haven't seen the video it's worth watching. Watch the video, not the Keynote.”
http://www.apple.com/ipad/
My response:
I heard the whole speech from start to stop. I did not think it was one of his better speeches from a rhetorical craftsmanship perspective. His cadence was off-beat, as if he was distracted or apprehensive. I think he is trying to find the moderate middle, which is good. I also appreciate his humility. From my POV, based on his national public speeches, I think he has done better; yet, compared to his predecessor, the SOTU speech was lightyears better. He is impressive to listen to, but the reality is, words only go so far. He must deliver on importance initiatives.
BTW, as I write in this week’s Update, I wholeheartedly agree with his criticism of the Supremes for their campaign financing ruling; they got it dreadfully wrong, and I’m glad he called them out on it. Sam Alito’s smirk and mouthed “not true” showing how much the slim majority just doesn’t get it. You can read more in the Update if you wish.
I saw the replay of Job’s announcement of the iPad. Pretty impressive technology. But, I’m not likely to get one just yet. Watching Apple’s technology deployment certainly is entertaining.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The follow-up news items:
-- Anyone who may be concerned even remotely about the Islamic Republic of Iran and its nuclear weapons program should read:
“The Secret Nuclear Dossier – Intelligence from Tehran Elevates Concern in the West”
by Dieter Bednarz, Erich Follath and Holger Stark
Der Spiegel
Published: 25.January.2010
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,673802,00.html#ref=nlint
-- The confessed murderer of Dr. George Tiller [264, 368, 391] was convicted of first degree murder by a Wichita, Kansas jury. The jury took a mere 37 minutes to convict Scott Roeder, 51, who in turn faces a mandatory life sentence in prison – a sentence that lets him off way to easy for his crime.
-- In the face of rapidly mounting pressure, the Obama administration has abandoned plans to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other battlefield combatants [413] in the Southern District of New York (downtown Manhattan).
I recognize and acknowledge more than a few citizens railed against the McCain-Feingold campaign financing law – Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, AKA McCain–Feingold or Shays-Meehan) [PL 107-155] [322]. The law was far from perfect, but it was a bona fide attempt to lessen the obscene corrupting influence of big money both in electioneering and indirectly in governance. The Supremes decided on a narrow 5-4 margin, in an exhaustive 177-page ruling that an important section of BCRA was not acceptable in a free society – Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [558 U.S. ____ (2010); no. 08-205]. This is a classic case of conflict between perspectives in interpretation of the law, between big and small, between rich and poor, and between opposite pans on the scales of justice. Like this case, perspective must be assessed and interpreted. The Court has historically written its position including the dissenting opinions for direct comparison; so it is with this case and the comparison is enlightening. Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy wrote for the Court, “The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it.” I am certain we can all agree. Tony went on to observe, “These onerous restrictions [BCRA §203] thus function as the equivalent of prior restraint by giving the FEC power analogous to licensing laws implemented in 16th- and 17th-century England, laws and governmental practices of the sort that the First Amendment was drawn to prohibit,” and “This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech.” So, the Supremes declared BCRA §203 unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts spent more than a few words defending the Court’s abandonment of its guiding principle of stare decisis for this decision. Even Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting in part opinion, claiming the Court had not gone far enough to strike down BCRAs donor disclosure requirements. Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dominating, cogent and persuasive dissenting opinion. “In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.” Justice Stevens went onto observe, “It might also be added that corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their ‘personhood’ often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.” What I find rather odd in this whole debate is the paucity of any recognized reality. When I declare an opinion or advocate for one position or another, I am the speaker. I am a citizen. It is my efforts that speak. I am accountable for my words. I cannot afford to do otherwise. Yet, when a corporation speaks, often there is no identity and thus no accountability; corporations notoriously created façades, front or shell corporations to act in their stead and shield them from identity and thus accountability. Corporations possess vast amounts of money for their political ends . . . often driven solely by the profit motive. A corporation is NOT a citizen; it does not possess citizenship. The owner, chief executive or board are citizens; they possess the right to vote and argue their opinion on the soap box at Debater’s Corner, like all the rest of us; yet, in their role as the head of a corporation, they possess the means to significantly amplify their voice without the identity of the soap box. I am a staunch advocate for Freedom of Speech along with our other fundamental as well as constitutionally protected rights. Corporations also possess numerous other means by which to influence legislation, elections and often even subvert the democratic process. With this ruling, the Court has issued a veritable license to kill. To illustrate the issue, let us assume an extreme. What if a corporation or group of collaborative corporations bought up every available minute of advertising time on every television and radio station, such that the only message the public heard was that corporation’s intended message for its chosen candidate or issue? According to Citizens United, the corporation would have every right to dominate public dialogue. The question: Is the owner of a private corporation or the CEO of a public corporation more important or valued within our political system than John Q. Citizen? If the answer is yes, then the Court’s finding seems quite appropriate. If the answer is no, then I am gobsmacked at the myopia of the Supremes. Any material or action carried to an extreme can be injurious or even fatal, e.g., water is vital for life, and yet too much or too little can kill, just as too much oxygen, or any other material. Thus, the key is balance – consumption within tolerable limits. The same analogy can be created for campaign financing. With BCRA, Congress attempted to establish a boundary for tolerate corporate campaign spending. With Citizens United, the Supremes have said, “Nay, nay. The threshold has been set too low.” On the other side of the equation, the Internet has become a grand equalizer, allowing citizens access to virtually any news source publicly available and the ability to connect with other like minded citizens, and to place their voice before the World as is reflected in this humble Blog [Update from the Heartland]. The bottom line is, Freedom of Speech is freedom of speech. As we must tolerate offensive speech, we must tolerate the voice of obscene amounts of money and domination by large amorphous corporations. As much as I see the gross inequity of large corporations or unions overwhelming the information stream, we must find a method to filter and assess without restricting their voice. We survived Yellow Journalism a century ago; we shall survive the corrupting influence of massive money. This is not the end of the struggle of We, the People, to ensure this remains a republic of citizens, not corporations. President Obama was precisely correct in his State of the Union speech – the Court through out a century of law to constrain corporate-political corruption. As an indicator of significance, please re-read:
“Justice for Sale” [310]
by Sandra Day O'Connor
Wall Street Journal
Published: 15.November.2007
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010864
The Citizens United ruling opens the floodgates to a deluge of intentionally polarizing, confusing and otherwise divisive drivel.
News from the economic front:
-- The National Association of Realtors reported the sales of existing-homes decreased by 16.7% in December to a 5.45 million annual rate, after three straight increases. The data also indicated inventories declined and prices rose year over year for the first time in more than two years. Mixed results!
-- President Obama proposed a three-year freeze on discretionary spending unrelated to the military, veterans, homeland security, Social Security, Medicare, and international affairs, in other words only about one-sixth of the federal budget -- a move intended to dampen voter anxiety over the deficit, I’m sure.
-- The U.K. Office for National Statistics reported that the British economy grew in the 4th Quarter of 2009, emerging from a deep recession that began in the second quarter of 2008. Great Britain is the last of the major economies to emerge from the downturn created by the global credit crisis.
-- The Congressional Budget Office reported federal budget deficit decreased to US$1.35T from the US$1.4T previously projected, based on lower spending on the Treasury Department's bank bailout and stronger than expected economic growth. The deficit is expected to improve in the out-years, decreasing to US$480B in 2015, from previous projection of US$560B.
-- The Federal Reserve issued a slightly more upbeat reading of the U.S. economy's outlook and left short-term interest rates near zero to help support the slow recovery.
-- The Senate approved increasing the federal debt limit by another US$1.9T to US$14.3T. I am not really sure what such action means since a limit that is moved like this is not really a limit.
-- The Commerce Department reported that the United States Gross Domestic Product (GDP) expanded at an annual rate of 5.7% in the 4th Quarter, and grew at an annualized rate of 2.2% in the 3rd Quarter – the fastest pace since 2003. For the whole of 2009, GDP fell 2.4% – the biggest drop for an entire year since 10.9% in 1946.
Comments and contributions from Update no.423:
“Regards the FBI imbroglio, you are correct- they are law enforcement and they have to obey the law. Even more disquieting is the fact that when these laws were put into effect, you had the FBI and DOJ leadership swearing up and down they would follow the law scrupulously and to the letter. Now you have this. Somebody out to bring out videos from the past and compare to what is happening today. Whether one is conservative or liberal- or in between- this should be shocking and anger-provoking. This also brings up the question of "can these guys do anything right?" In most world government systems, people in Muller's and Holder's positions would resign.”
My reply:
Spot on! ‘Nuf said.
A comment to the Blog:
“You said ‘removed the bare, 60-seat Democratic Party majority in the Senate’ where you should have said "super majority." Democrats still have a comfortable majority; they just can't pass legislation the Republicans oppose without the threat of a filibuster.
“I have already expressed my opinion of the Senate health care bill.
“I have no difficulty finding outrage at the FBI's disregard of the law. Their mission is law enforcement, not vigilantism.
“You have read my opinion of the Supreme Court decision regarding corporate campaign contributions. I have neither the ability nor the time to perform in-depth legal analysis; besides, I find the published quotes from the various Justices illuminating enough.
“I cannot help you with anything relating to Macintosh. If and when I escape MicroSoft, I'll be headed to some version of Linux or possibly another FOSS system.”
My response to the Blog:
Touché. Spot on! You are of course precisely correct. The Democrats lost their “super majority” (needed to overcome a filibuster) and still maintain a healthy majority in both the Senate and House. Now, they must compromise.
Yes, your opinion regarding health care reform has been well stated.
There are a myriad of reasons to be angry with the FBI’s conduct in those surveillance tasks.
I am still reading the long ruling from the Supremes on campaign financing. I am fascinated by the words, concepts and interpretation of the law. I need their words directly, rather than filtered by the Press. Nonetheless, so far, the Press coverage has been accurate and appropriate, so no need to read the case unless you wish.
So far, I am glad I made the switch to Mac.
Another comment:
“BTW, I read all the comments from your update this week about other people who use Macs. Whoever said there is not a "right-click" on a Mac hasn't used one for a LONG time. Obviously on your Magic Mouse there is one and then on the portable all you do is hold Ctrl and then click.”
A different contribution:
“It was the Presidents best speech to date. If that doesn't inspire Washington to make changes then nothing will. Yes, I know talk can be cheap. He will need to do his part to backup what he talked about. Anyway, I thought it was a great speech and not one that most could have pulled off.
“BTW, did you see our new invention yesterday. The iPad. Pretty cool. It will have it's niche in the market but not for me. If you haven't seen the video it's worth watching. Watch the video, not the Keynote.”
http://www.apple.com/ipad/
My response:
I heard the whole speech from start to stop. I did not think it was one of his better speeches from a rhetorical craftsmanship perspective. His cadence was off-beat, as if he was distracted or apprehensive. I think he is trying to find the moderate middle, which is good. I also appreciate his humility. From my POV, based on his national public speeches, I think he has done better; yet, compared to his predecessor, the SOTU speech was lightyears better. He is impressive to listen to, but the reality is, words only go so far. He must deliver on importance initiatives.
BTW, as I write in this week’s Update, I wholeheartedly agree with his criticism of the Supremes for their campaign financing ruling; they got it dreadfully wrong, and I’m glad he called them out on it. Sam Alito’s smirk and mouthed “not true” showing how much the slim majority just doesn’t get it. You can read more in the Update if you wish.
I saw the replay of Job’s announcement of the iPad. Pretty impressive technology. But, I’m not likely to get one just yet. Watching Apple’s technology deployment certainly is entertaining.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
4 comments:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-this-corruption-in-washington-is-smothering-americas-future-1882349.html
Peter, U/K
This is an article well worth the reading.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tE_5eiYn0D0#t=109
A stunning piece of simulation.
Peter.U/K
An excellent composite animation of the US1549 Miracle on the Hudson accident.
Post a Comment