29 March 2010

Update no.432

Update from the Heartland
No.432
22.3.10 – 28.3.10
To all,
As Kurt Vonnegut so succinctly wrote, “And so it goes.” This was the week of frenetic conclusion to the year of legislative struggle for health care reform. We will be arguing about the methods, the process, and the consequences of this extraordinary year, which is actually the culmination of a century’s worth of fits and starts, back to President Teddy Roosevelt. Regardless of the contemporary debate, history was made this week when President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [PL 111-148; H.R.3590; House: 219-212-0-0(4); Senate: 60-39-0-1(0); recorded vote: 21-March-2010; 22:49 (R) EDT]. To reach that milestone, the House cleaved off their desired amendments into a separate bill to allow the Representatives to approve the parent Senate bill. The cleaved bill was passed by the Senate and sent to the President – Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 [H.R.4872, Senate: 56-43-0-1-(0); House: 220-211-0-0(4)] – after the House approved a couple of procedural errors. The President is expected to sign the companion bill into law next Tuesday, which will complete the process. Finally, it is done. Now, we shall see what Congress has wrought. As with most legislation, there are positives as well as negatives. Many more under-insured or uninsured citizens will soon have access to regular (preventative) medical care. The abortion distraction and Sarah Palin’s ill-advised, ill-informed, emotional, “death panel” nonsense depleted so much energy from the public debate. Now, we have corporations taking massive, one-time charges against the looming added costs of the new health insurance law, and several states initiated challenges to the constitutionality of the new law. Part of me wants the challenge to succeed under the 10th Amendment to begin the process of constraining the Federal government; and yet, another part of me wants to say, “Put your big girl panties on, and get on with it.” Universal health care for American citizens is a worthy objective . . . even if we disagree on the process and extent.
[See other relevant comments below.]

Last week [431], I noted the companion Establishment Clause case from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals – Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District [9CCA nos. 05-17257, 05-17344, & 06-15093 (2010)] appeal of [EDCA DC no. CV-05-00017-LKK (2005)]. This one dealt with the Pledge of Allegiance.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
The original Pledge was created in 1892, ostensibly to help reunite the nation after the deeply divisive Civil War. The Pledge was codified by a Joint Resolution of Congress in 1942, and signed into law by President Roosevelt [PL 77-623] to separate the majority of citizens from organizations like the German-American Bund – an American Nazi affinity group. Another Joint Resolution amended the Pledge to its present form, which was signed into law by President Eisenhower [PL 83-396] and added the phrase under challenge in the present case – the so-called 1954 amendment. Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority and the court, “[W]e find the Pledge is one of allegiance to our Republic, not of allegiance to the God or to any religion. Furthermore, Congress’ ostensible and predominant purpose when it enacted and amended the Pledge over time was patriotic, not religious.” Judge Stephen Roy Reinhardt wrote an exhaustive and indeed blistering 130-page dissent in an unusually personal written assault on his colleagues’ reasoning – the two-judge majority in this case. Reinhardt spent an inordinate amount of time through repetitive demonstration in his attempt to establish God as a solely and exclusive Judeo-Christian religious term, and thus a violation of the Establishment Clause. I cannot summarize or condense the dissenting opinion. I shall let Reinhardt’s conclusion suffice. “As a judge of this court, I deeply regret the majority’s decision to ignore the Pledge’s history, the clear intent and purpose of Congress in amending the Pledge, the numerous Supreme Court precedents that render the school district’s course of conduct unconstitutional as applied, and the very real constitutional injury suffered by Jan Roe and her child, and others like them throughout this nation.” Unfortunately, it was the time, circumstances and people of the day as well as the genesis of the amendment that seriously colored the dissent’s opinion of the words in question. Taken in the isolation of the contemporary basis and rationale for passage of the 1954 amendment, I think the dissent reached the correct conclusion. The decision will undoubtedly be appealed to the Supreme Court, yet none of us can predict whether the Court will agree to hear the appeal, or how they will rule. If the Supremes confine their review to the essence of the amendment only, then I suspect they will overrule the 9th Circuit and affirm the district court’s finding of unconstitutionality. Nonetheless, using the dissent’s logic, we will have no choice but to eliminate all references to God from every government document, action, facility or representation; further, that we must expunge any reference to God in our historic documents, as they are likewise violations of the Establishment Clause. As a related side note, on 29.June.1966, I stood with 1300 classmates in the courtyard of Bancroft Hall as we took the oath of office, sworn by every commissioned military officer since 1789. That oath, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, ends with the phrase “so help me God.” I have reaffirmed that oath five times in my life, and not once did I ever consider that oath to have a religious element to it. The intellectual salient in this debate is whether our reference to God is simply a religious artifact, or a historical, traditional recognition of a higher entity. Further, if we persist with the notion that God is only the form to which the majority believes, or even a sufficiently dominant minority, and nothing else, i.e., the God of my identity, not yours, then we add credence to the dissent’s view of the salient. It seems to me that if you stand back from personal religious beliefs and take a broad view of all religion, each of us will come to the realization that God is God, no matter what form or name(s) we use to describe Him. Alcoholics Anonymous espouses the concept that God is the “Higher Power of your understanding,” which seems to be a far more expansive and embracing perspective. Taking the inverse of the argument, if we believe that there is nothing beyond our conscious reality, then anarchy cannot be far behind; and, as a species, we will degenerate into the animals from which we came as well as rendered to a simple survival of the fittest, meanest, most aggressive, most ruthless. Even the true, committed atheist must believe in something beyond himself. So, I respectfully submit, whatever It is beyond ourselves that draws order and reason from the morass of chaos must be God. If we believe God is solely or wholly a Judeo-Christian entity, then perhaps the dissent presents a valid argument, i.e., Congress sought to further Judeo-Christian religious principles and practices. On the contrary, if we believe God is God and each religion recognizes God’s greatness in their unique manner, then can we say God is a universal, non-sectarian entity that can be recognized in an infinite myriad of ways from labels and names to even multi-theistic manifestations? In essence, God is what the individual believes God to be, not what someone else dictates Him to be. All too often, we confuse God’s greatness with the feeble and flawed practice of religion – the human system of beliefs and worship intended to recognize God’s greatness. The court has tried to remind us of the human destruction wrought by religion and its clerics during the crucible time prior to the formation of this Grand Republic. Perhaps it is easy for many citizens to forget the cataclysmic forces wrenching European society from whence our ancestors came; I cannot so easily discount those formative events. I absolutely do NOT agree with the dissent’s contrarian construction, i.e., “under God” is a purely religious phrase. While religion may have played a significant part in the development and passage of the 1954 amendment, ascribing purely religious trappings to the phrase would be tantamount to claiming the Declaration and Constitution were racist, sexist manifestos, or the oath of office was Christian indoctrination, as that was the backdrop upon which they were constructed. Having no direct interaction with Newdow and only the available public record, I have no choice but to conclude that Newdow seeks to impose his atheistic views upon the entire nation; he seeks removal of all references to God. If so, I can only hope he is resoundingly defeated in his quest. As a proud citizen of his Grand Republic, I cannot tolerate, condone or accept Newdow’s least common denominator approach. Further, I seriously question the alleged injury in this instance. While the court’s opinion in this case may not be as strong as it should be, I hope the Supremes hear the inevitable appeal and make a clear, unequivocal statement regarding God’s place in the history and future of this Grand Republic.

News from the economic front:
-- The Treasury Department's pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, announced plans to review executive compensation at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and 417 other firms that took government TARP bailout funds. The pay review will cover a relatively short period but will capture the 2008 end-of-year bonus season at most large firms.
-- The National Association of Realtors reported the sales of existing homes fell to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.02 million units (-0.6%) in February, the third straight month and the lowest level since last July. The median home price decreased to $165,100 (-1.8%).
-- The Commerce Department reported sales of new single-family homes fell to a 308,000 unit annual rate (-2.2%) in February and the fourth straight month, increasing worries of weakness in the housing market.

Comments and contributions from Update no.431:
“I know you didn't cover this in your blog, but I feel the need to talk about this health care debacle bill passed by the Congress. Where the hell do they get off telling us we HAVE to have health insurance or face fines? This is not health care reform. This could lead to health care rationing like they have in Canada and undermining the insurance industry. Let's face it, this is the government trying to take more control of our lives and governing against the will of a majority of the people. I have never been more disgusted with my country's government than I am today. This socialist (expletive) President and that witch Nancy Pelosi have shown their contempt for the private sector and the American people. Instead of just helping out those people who really need help with health insurance, they just decide to frack things up for everyone. I have nothing but contempt for these freedom-hating, power hungry (expletives) and I swear, if I ran into that (expletive) Obama or that (expletive) Pelosi I'd wave both my middle fingers at them. If they do not respect the people they work for, I will have no respect for those (expletives). I can't wait for November, and I pray these (expletive) socialists get booted out of their offices on their frackin' worthless butts! This Congress and this Administration can all go to hell!”
My response:
To reassure you, no one needs an invitation to raise a topic in this humble forum. You are welcome to advance any topic, anytime you wish, for whatever reason.
As they say, one man’s junk is another man’s art; so it appears to be with health care reform.
Likewise, I am not impressed with the approach taken by Congress to move the nation toward universal health care. I do not like to be told by the government or anyone else what I must do or be in what is predominately a private matter. Like most Americans, I do not want the government in my private affairs, and I think that camel’s nose has already gotten way too far inside my tent.
Further, the current version of so-called health care reform is an ugly compromise that has been collaterally painted by many diverse colors, e.g., welfare abuse, insurance corporation profits, abortion, distrust of government, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum.
This bill does not appear to address the root cause of excessive health care costs, e.g., uninsured “emergency” costs absorbed in overhead paid by all; our obscene litigious culture (i.e., someone must be to blame) and its impact on physician insurance; defensive testing; our penchant for instant cures; lack of competition; our erroneous assumption that anything can be “fixed,” and on and on.
The business equation for medical insurance companies is rather straight forward – they must PREDICT future demand and future costs, then distribute those costs across a subscriber base – the larger the base, the easier to spread costs. Terminal illness often ends life prematurely; it happens; it’s reality; spending gargantuan amounts of money will not alter the outcome. I dare say I have not used the services to the extent I have been paying for them, which in turn means someone else has benefited by the service they have received beyond what they have paid. That is the nature of insurance; it is the same for our homes, our automobiles, our very lives; medical insurance is NO different.
I shall respectfully claim that We, the People, have injected far too much emotion and political dogma in this important debate. We instinctively focus on the bad and ignore the good. We tend to color the whole picture by the abuse of a few. We also seem to have lost our magnanimity in the process.
I have worked and lived in countries with government furnished health care. I have seen and experienced the good and the bad of such systems. We missed an opportunity to make real, substantive change for the collective good of our People, but such is the nature of the beast. Something is better than nothing.
For all those clamoring for blood, there are other citizens who may now breathe a sigh of relief that help may be on the way. Helping our fellow man is not a bad thing or even a socialist notion. Let us not forget we are talking about human beings – decent, productive, contributing citizens. We can and should deal with the riff-raff separately.
As with so many topics that do or can impinge upon our fundamental right to privacy, we should focus our attention on the abusers rather than take the easy path with blanket solutions defined by the lowest common denominator. I also advocate for a far more mature, rational and reasonable treatment of societal ills that stress the medical system beyond our ability to affect it – psychotropic substance use, prostitution, mental illness, parental neglect, et cetera. I have long held the belief that putting the facts on the table and dealing with them is far better than pretending things do not exist; so it is with those fringe stressors. We rail against the symptom, but refuse to address the root cause(s).
Lastly, I am not quite so pessimistic. I truly hope we can lower your blood pressure just a smidge; I hate for you to blow a seal.
Keep the comments coming. . . about any topic that strikes your fancy. Thank you for sharing. BTW, I had a ton of material on the health care situation, but I did not have a clear view, so I chose to keep my powder dry. I’m sure we’ll be debating this topic for quite some time.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I will add I am all for helping those people who truly cannot afford health insurance. The problem when I hear the number of uninsured (30-40 million depending on who's delivering the news) is it doesn't take into account those people out of college for a few years who don't feel health insurance is important (hey, I'm 24, what can happen to me?). Frankly, they don't want it, it's their choice. Meanwhile, 260 million Americans do have some kind of health insurance. My big beef is, as you say, the blanket solution. Helping the minority by making the majority suffer is no solution, and eventually, the minority you're trying to help will suffer right along with the majority, so now all you've done is make everyone miserable.
“I could not agree with you more about the morons in Congress not doing a damn thing to address the root causes of our current health care system (litigation, high cost of malpractice insurance, fraud, etc). Basically, for the Socialist-in-Chief (Obama) and his minions in Congress, this was simply, ‘we have to have some kind of health care bill to make everyone think we're doing a good job.’ From the outcry of the people of this country, they did not do a good job. I feel the proverbial Sleeping Giant has been awaken and many U.S. Representatives will be added to the ranks of the unemployed come January . . . God willing. I know I am ready to cast my vote against Ann Kirkpatrick here in Arizona, and I can't friggin' wait to do it.
“Thanks for being a voice of reason here. I do like to try and sound rational (though with, at times, sarcastic overtones) in these arguments, but every once in a while, I get so aggravated I go into Howard Beal mode from ‘Network.’ ‘I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it any more!’”
. . . my follow-up response:
Valid points. I think most thinking Americans are against government-dictated, mandatory anything from seat-belt and helmet laws to health care insurance. Nonetheless, our societal conundrum remains – who pays for those who cannot afford health insurance? A similar comparison exists with automobile insurance. When we went to no-fault insurance, the state had to demand all drivers maintain insurance coverage to make no-fault insurance work. It is NOT reasonable for a citizen to say, I’m not going to pay for insurance, and then expect everyone else will pay when I have an accident. How is that fair or reasonable? Today, every dollar of hospital (and in most cases even individual doctor) costs contain a fraction (in some instances a significant fraction) of overhead costs that collect uninsured, unrecoverable or bad debt expenses. In essence, everyone pays for those who cannot pay, and that leaves those cost largely hidden. I can support an opt-out provision for those who do not wish to pay for health insurance as long as we preclude doctors and hospitals treating uninsured people, whether foreign visitors or opt-out citizens, i.e., demonstrate an ability to pay before treatment. Since a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath precludes denial of life-saving treatment, we face a Catch-22.
Everyone is pretty stewed over this whole exercise . . . for one reason or another. So, you are entitled to your “Howard Beal” moment. I support everyone else’s “moment” as well, that is up until they act-out and damage or injure someone else’s person or property. I strongly condemn the brick through the window, the postal white powder, the death threats, and even the innuendo of threat; such conduct is simple anti-American – passionate is fine; destructive is not.
For the record, I do not agree with your premise that Barack Obama is a socialist. That aside, he has and does espouse legislative objectives that have a socialist tint to them, which is fairly common with the more liberal among us, but that does not make him a socialist. I believe the President pushed health care reform for his (their) perception that it was in the best interests of We, the People. There is a case to be made for that premise. However, as you have so passionately noted, there is also a case to be made that bigger government, dictating health care measures seems to be contrary to our traditional ideal of “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.”
Every citizen should vote; it is our civic duty. Unfortunately, far too many citizens remain complacent and unengaged. Anyway, vote as you see fit.

Another contribution:
“With respect to ‘Privacy’ would it be fair to cite 'Roe vs. Wade' etc.? Where or how can anyone find in our constitution any right to kill a viable fetus? How immoral does something have to be to be considered criminal? Does any right to privacy provide a shield against murder? Well, anyway, to me it is encouraging to see any defense of a right to publicly acknowledge that there is a GOD. Is there any question what GOD Jefferson is referring to? Is it fair to impute the influence of that GOD on our founding fathers? I am not a student of Jefferson's writings as perhaps you are; but I do find it difficult to believe that in his insistence on 'Separation of Church and State' that he was in anyway denying the existence or 'Authority' of that GOD in the makeup and constitution of and influence on, collectively, our founding fathers of this United States of America. What say you?
“In a parallel but separate subject of 'States Rights' I do not see a States Right as a defense against the New Federal Mandate that everyone is to be compelled to Purchase/Pay For their own Health Insurance. I would insist that there is a common public interest/need that overrides any personal or states right, which mandates participation of every resident of this nation. It is, in my mind, criminally irresponsible for any individual or state not to pay for (on a means testing basis) and be included in health (insurance) coverage. I do not believe there is a better way to pay for this than with a FEDERAL SINGLE PAYER System that would include its cost if our individual FICA payment (I believe that all caps on those payments should be removed, and the rates should be progressive and sufficient to cover all cost of all care. I treat my proposal more exhaustively in my Personal Philosophy page at http://www.hermanosborne.com.)”
My reply:
You asked a number of questions. I shall take the risk they were sincere queries rather than rhetorical. So, here we go.
“With respect to 'Privacy' would it be fair to cite 'Roe vs. Wade' etc.?”
>>>>> Yes. I acknowledge the touchstone significance of Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] [319]; it was a landmark privacy case that sought balance between the autonomy of a woman’s body and the growing life within her uterus. If we want to discuss / debate a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, we should go back to Griswold v. Connecticut [381 U.S. 479 (1965)] [166, 189, 323], which first gave expansive definition to a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy. Or, historically, we could go back to Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford [141 U.S. 250 (1891)] as the first time the Supreme Court recognized a citizen’s privacy as a bulwark against the power of the State. We, the People, have quietly given up far too much of our fundamental right to privacy; most citizen do not realize that our right to privacy is our last defense against intrusion / imposition by the State. We must recover what we have lost.
“Where or how can anyone find in our constitution any right to kill a viable fetus?”
>>>>> The Constitution makes no reference to privacy as a fundamental right or otherwise, nor does it mention any right to kill anyone. As you know, Roe tried to find a balance between a woman’s autonomy and the viability of a fetus. Even after viability, the challenge then becomes the balance between the lives of the mother versus the fetus. These are never easy choices.
“How immoral does something have to be to be considered criminal?”
>>>>> In the main, any activity that causes injury to another person or another person’s property. Roe acknowledged a woman’s right to privacy and her autonomy to decide what is best for her body and her life. Roe also established extra-uterine viability at the third trimester. I would prefer abortion become a medical relic of the past, and that objective is worthy of our political energy. However, I am far more interested in protecting every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, including a woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy. I categorically reject the duplicitous efforts to deny birth control to women or men who do not wish to procreate. And, I emphatically condemn those self-anointed, self-righteous folks who demonstrate far more interest in the few cells dividing within a woman’s body than in the abused or neglected children foisted upon society by misguided, religious dogma. Yet, that said, I do believe a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy should have a limited, defined, constrained window to decide; once a fetus reaches extra-uterine viability, she progressively loses that control up to but not including her loss of life or permanent injury.
“Does any right to privacy provide a shield against murder?”
>>>>> No! Absolutely not! Privacy does not shield any injury to another.
“Well, anyway, to me it is encouraging to see any defense of a right to publicly acknowledge that there is a GOD. Is there any question what GOD Jefferson is referring to?”
>>>>> No. There is only one God. Human beings refer to God by many different names and forms, but God is God.
“Is it fair to impute the influence of that GOD on our founding fathers?”
>>>>> No.
“I am not a student of Jefferson's writings as perhaps you are; but I do find it difficult to believe that in his insistence on 'Separation of Church and State' that he was in anyway denying the existence or 'Authority' of that GOD in the makeup and constitution of and influence on, collectively, our founding fathers of this United States of America. What say you?”
>>>>> No. Emphatically not. Quite the contrary. Jefferson repeatedly and consistently referred to God’s greatness in his writing, speeches and actions. His articulation of the “wall of separation” in fact makes clear distinction – the “wall of separation” was between church and State, NOT between God and State. He recognized that churches and religion are interpretations by flawed and feeble men, who are driven by internal, selfish motives . . . as all human beings are. He recognized by the history that he was immersed in and that preceded him; they knew all too well what destruction could be wrought by flawed human clerics invoking the name of God as their power.
The Health Care Reform legislation presents numerous challenges to We, the People, and to this Grand Republic. Does the Supremacy Clause and a liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause authorize the Congress to “mandate” participation in Medical Insurance . . . or Social Security? No. I do not believe it does. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, Congress has taken a foolish and ill-informed path toward a noble objective. Congress has used the bludgeon, which largely fuels even further a broad distrust of government. I could continue and expand this line of reasoning, however, please allow me to take a different tack. If a citizen can refuse participation in the health care system, can hospitals, doctors and nurses refuse treatment for such individuals with life-threatening injuries or illnesses? If so, how does the medical establishment pre-identify non-participating citizens from covered citizens? Further, I am troubled by what this “mandated” approach does to the triage process. The new legislation removes limit caps. Does that mean a terminally ill citizen can expect or demand billions of dollars of life-sustaining treatment? How are we to decided what is reasonable and what is not? These questions have troubled me, and I do not see any effort to resolve these real world situations. What Congress has done is a small, albeit historically symbolic, move toward the objective, but it is a woefully inadequate step on what should be a long journey toward the objective. I just wonder whether this legislation will stand the inevitable test; my hunch is, it will; we have accepted Social Security for 75 years; I suspect the Court will say, we’re pregnant! We have long accepted Federally mandated programs. This one is no different from Social Security or Medicare.

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

22 March 2010

Update no.431

Update from the Heartland
No.431
15.3.10 – 21.3.10
To all,
[Letter to the editor of the Wichita Eagle:]
We can always count on Fred Phelps and his spawn for public debate. The latest dose comes in Tuesday’s Wichita Eagle.
“Protected speech”
by Margie Phelps [190]
Wichita Eagle
http://www.kansas.com/2010/03/16/1227019/letters-to-the-editor-on-david.html
Dear ol’ Margie was upset with Cal Thomas’ recent column regarding the Supreme Court’s acceptance of Albert Snyder’s appeal [430].
“Court should rule against Phelps gang”
by Cal Thomas:
Wichita Eagle
http://www.kansas.com/2010/03/14/1224577/cal-thomas-court-should-rule-against.html
Last fall, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the US$9.2M civil damages decision against the Phelps clan – Snyder v. Phelps [4CCA no. 08-1026 (2009)] [430]. Oddly and regrettably, I find myself standing with Margie in disagreement with Cal Thomas. Freedom of speech for each of us is freedom of speech for the Westboro Baptist Church homophobic fanatics; this is the price of freedom. Yet, I condemn the Phelps’ irrational, decidedly non-Christian paucity of civility and respect for the grief of families in mourning. None of us can predict how the Supreme Court will decide this case or the law. They can take a very narrow 1st Amendment ground, in which case they will affirm the 4th Circuit’s decision and possibly strike down the various laws like the Federal Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act [PL 109-228] [234] and the Kansas Funeral Privacy Act of 2007 [§ 21-4015] [327]. The reality is, we cannot legislate civility, respect, morality or propriety. The Supreme Court could also take a far wider view of the constitutional question, if they choose to delve into a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and more importantly how is privacy defined. Although not likely, if the Court takes the wider view, they may well indirectly affirm the funeral laws. While I defend freedom of speech for all citizens including the Phelps clan, we must not forget that beyond the rhetoric, the Westboro Baptist Church seeks to deny freedom of choice and impose their values on all citizens. At the end of the day, they must be denied by the power of public debate and rejection of their vitriol rather than laws that constrain freedom of speech.

A few years ago, the Kansas Board of Education jumped into a huge controversy when they amended the state public school curriculum to teach creationism, AKA intelligent design, along with the science of evolution. Now, we have the Texas Board of Education trying to slant history for their purposes, presumably to enhance the influence and impact of fundamentalist Christian views of American society. They have expunged the contributions of President Thomas Jefferson and specifically his letter to the Danbury Baptists – the “wall of separation between church and state” – a key pillar of American democracy and the history of this Grand Republic. It seems the Texas BoE believes ignoring historical facts and their effects on subsequent history will somehow alter the course of society. Ain’t it just so typical! A faction seeking to impose its will by ignorance rather than the force of vigorous public debate – a classically anti-democratic endeavor. Hopefully, the citizen-residents of Texas will regain control of the public school curriculum and return historic facts to their proper place in the open exchange of ideas and concepts.

Michael Arthur Newdow is an avowed atheist, an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church, and founder of an organization called the First Amendment Church of True Science (FACTS). Newdow has apparently made it his life mission to expunge any reference to the Deity as well as any symbols of respect for the Deity in American society. His latest effort made its way to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals – Newdow v. U.S. Congress [9CCA no. 06-16344 (2010)]. Newdow claimed the national motto “In God We Trust” violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 [PL 103-141; 42 U.S.C. §2000bb] and the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Circuit Judge Carlos Tiburcio Bea wrote the opinion of the three-judge panel and observed, “The burdens Newdow contends are imposed by the motto rest on a single premise: the motto represents a purely religious dogma and constitutes a government endorsement of religion.” The appeals court dismissed Newdow’s appeals claims and affirmed the district court’s judgment against Newdow. Based on Newdow’s behavior and conduct, I suspect he will appeal this opinion further to the Supreme Court, which I doubt will choose to hear any further appeal.

The companion case from the 9th Circuit is Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District -- a decision regarding the Pledge of Allegiance. The opinion is 193-pages long – not within my capacity this week. I hope to complete my reading and assessment for next week’s Update. According to the Press, the most notable element about this opinion was the dissent, which reportedly took 163-pages to present what some have said is a “blistering” counter-argument. Stay tuned.

Every once in a while, a court case comes along that strikes resonance so profound that it affects all our senses. This is one of those moments. Before we begin, I shall burden you with a short recitation that continues to strike a chord with me. From the television series The West Wing, a decade ago: “It’s not about abortion. It’s about the next 20 years. In the 20’s and 30’s, it was the role of government, 50’s and 60’s, it was civil rights, the next two decades are going to be privacy. I'm talkin’ about the Internet, talkin’ about cell phones, talkin’ about medical records, and who's gay and who's not. Moreover, in a country born on the will to be free, what could be more fundamental than this [privacy]?" -- Sam Seaborn (Rob Lowe), The West Wing, Season 1, Episode 9, “The Short List;” original airdate: 24.11.1999. I believe Sam Seaborn was spot on correct, and I do not think I am overstating the importance of resolving the question – what is a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy? Our legal system assumes prima facie that citizens are fundamentally good, peaceful, law-abiding, rational, tolerant and otherwise reasonable individuals. Criminal laws are enacted and enforced to deal with the occasional aberrant character who makes a mistake or (heaven forbid) decides to take the nefarious path of wrong-doing. Our system of laws has not adjusted to rapidly evolving technology and a broad, organized assault as we are facing in the War on Islamic Fascism. Drug black-marketers, Islamo-fascist terrorists, and such have shown themselves quite adept at using our general assumption of benevolence against us . . . very effectively, I might add. We have historically had to deal with the crooked sheriff, or malevolent prosecutor, or crazy judge. We also had to suffer the consequences of a self-proclaimed, well-intentioned, Federal law enforcement official like the late John Edgar Hoover, or a paranoid, imperial president like Richard Milhous Nixon. The instigating case came from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals – Rehberg v. Paulk [11CCA no. 09-11897 (2010); appeal of DC MDGA Docket No. 07-00022-CV-WLS-1]. Citizen Charles Rehberg sent a series of critical facsimile messages to the management of Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital in Dougherty County, Georgia, for reasons not specified in the court document. An unspecified member of the hospital management asked County District Attorney Kenneth Hodges for a “favor” to stop Rehberg’s annoying messages. No charges were filed. No complaint of criminal mischief was lodged. Hodges undertook a personal “investigation” to fulfill the requested favor, presumably to “scare” Rehberg into stopping his criticism of the hospital. Hodges did not engage the police, but did involve two other individuals (presumably, trusted friends, colleagues or acquaintances). Hodges prepared and issued subpoenas for Rehberg’s telephone records and eMail traffic. Hodges and his surrogate, specially appointed prosecutor Kelly Burke, three times sought grand-jury indictments against Rehberg on a variety of charges. Without taking more of your time, let it suffice to say, the case hung upon Rehberg’s claimed violation of his 4th Amendment rights against the absolute & qualified immunity of the prosecutors in the wrongful retaliatory prosecution claim. The court affirmed the immunity of the prosecutors and remanded the case back to the district court for further adjudication. Yet, my unease and concern stems not from the wrongful prosecution questions, but rather the court’s view of electronic data and a citizen’s expectation of privacy. One single sentence in the 40-page opinion brings my fear to a sharp point. Circuit Judge Frank Mays Hull (a female, I might add) observed, “Rehberg’s voluntary delivery of emails to third parties [Internet Service Providers (ISPs)] constituted a voluntary relinquishment of the right to privacy in that information;” i.e., eMail is open to any prosecutor or law enforcement official who chooses to acquire and analyze them. A myriad of conflicting reactions boiled up as I read this opinion, not least of which is the need for checks & balances. The normal process was circumvented in this instance. The available evidence strongly suggests Hodges used the instruments of States for personal, retaliatory reasons against another citizen exercising his freedom of speech. The issue of open eMail is quite concerning. Using Hull’s logic, the government could simply open any citizen’s postal mail as they choose for any reason they choose. Judge Hull confuses an ISP with any ordinary citizen rather than the U.S. Postal Service – sanctioned by the Federal government to carry the mail. Electronic mail has become more useful, utilitarian, and expansive than the conventional, traditional, postal mail. Judge Hull’s opinion reflects the stark reality that the law has such a long way to go on the journey to catch up to society. Until that day comes, We, the People, are seriously exposed and our most fundamental right to privacy threatened even further; there but for the grace of some prosecutor on a personal vendetta against another citizen, We, the People, have only happenstance to protect us. What scares me most about this opinion is what was not said.

A Blog of law professors offered their view of the 11th Circuit’s Rehberg v. Paulk opinion.
“Eleventh Circuit Decision Largely Eliminates Fourth Amendment Protection in E-Mail”
by Orin Kerr
The Volokh Conspiracy
Published: March 15, 2010; 3:11 pm
http://volokh.com/2010/03/15/eleventh-circuit-decision-largely-eliminates-fourth-amendment-protection-in-e-mail/
Oddly, they saw the ruling in the same light I did . . . far beyond the retaliatory prosecution and prosecutorial immunity conclusion that was the main focus of the court’s decision. Judge for yourself!

A final commentary note:
When we see an FBI director authorizing warrantless wiretaps of American citizens, or a president who placed himself above the law, or a county district attorney who carries out a personal, vindictive violation of a citizen’s most fundamental rights, why is any wonder at all why so many citizens are so bloody distrustful of government, and why so many citizens do not want to give government access to their medical records, or bank accounts, or telephone conversations, or electronic mail. Yet, as much as I rail against big government, I sure as hell do not want corporations outside the box either. Nonetheless, the one threat we have over corporations is taking our business elsewhere (as long as we retain intra-industry competition). The government has no competition and virtually unlimited power; so, let us keep things in perspective.

News from the economic front:
-- The Commerce Department reported the seasonally adjusted annual rate of new home and apartment construction decreased to 575,000 units (-5.9%) in February, slightly higher than the forecast 570,000 units. Homebuilders struggled against winter blizzards in the Northeast and Midwest as they tried to emerge from the worst housing slump in decades.
-- The Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee left the Federal Funds target interest rate at the 0.00 to 0.25% range, where it has been since December 2008, as job growth and other economic indicators remained weak as the United States slowly pulls itself out of recession.
-- On Thursday, the President signed into law the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act of 2010 [PL 111-147; H.R.2847; Senate: 68-29-0-3(0); House: 217-201-0-14(4)] – the so-called jobs bill. History will judge whether this US$18B worth of legislation will be successful.
-- The Labor Department reported the seasonally-adjusted Consumer Price Index (CPI) remained unchanged last month, after increasing an unrevised 0.2% in January. With energy and food items removed, the monthly CPI rose 0.1% in February, and fell by 0.1% in January.
-- The Labor Department also reported that initial unemployment claims fell by 5,000 to 457,000 for the week ending 13.March.

Comments and contributions from Update no.430:
A comment to the Blog:
“It's odd, in a way. Congressional earmarks seem to be the one issue in which neither party shows any interest in the capitalist ‘free market’ theories. They don't want anyone competing for their billions of dollars. In re the Democrats' ban on earmarks to for-profit corporations: it's nothing. A decent corporate lawyer can set up a "non-profit" in a couple of hours. It might take a few days to figure out how to abuse it, but not longer. Besides, as Republicans rightly point out, even legitimate non-profits can find ways to abuse earmarks. I'm probably as far from being a Republican as anyone who reads this, but I'll go with their ‘all or nothing’ position on earmarks.”
My response:
Re: earmarks – spot on! Earmarks have allowed Congress to spend vast amounts of money with virtually no accountability or checks & balances. Except for the rare case when the Press takes an interest, earmarks are essentially invisible to We, the People – you know, the folks who pay for it all. Watching the Republicans gorge themselves at the public trough during the first six years of “Dubs” administration, with NOT ONE veto from the Prez, expunged any remaining vestiges of respect I had for either party; they are all out-of-control, corrupt spenders. Even those who do not partake of earmarks are just as culpable; they know what is going on and they choose to condone it, say nothing, which makes them an accessory.
Yeah, I am so cynical these days regarding earmarks; I hold little hope of any substantive reform. The current Democratic move is largely symbolic, and again with my cynicism showing, intended to be pabulum for the masses . . . to dampen our clamor for blood. I’m with you . . . all earmarks must go or they get no credit. There was a day when I believed earmarks were a rapid method of funding critical programs. Today, I DO NOT CARE; the earmark process has been so irreparably abused, I advocate for slamming the door shut, locking it, barricading it, and then demolishing it forever. I would rather have a gridlocked Congress, paralyzed and unable to act, than allow another earmark for any reason. The bastards have proven they have no ethics or moral values, and certainly do not respect We, the People. For those who have benefited from and become wealthy by earmarks, shame on all of you.
I’d better stop here, or the FBI might pay me a visit.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I suspect that the only access to reform of earmarks would be through the corporations that don't receive the money. There's nothing like being denied a chance to compete for nice profits to upset a legitimate capitalist.
“The hypocrisy of awarding unbid contracts for billions of dollars and then giving speeches about the beauty of free markets astounds me. I'm pretty cynical, but that's repellent in anyone's values that I know. I'm with you; just get rid of the whole mess. If we then must find a new way to award monies rapidly, let a group of capitalists who compete with one another work on a fair way to do that, but remain deeply skeptical and cynical about accepting anything that comes of that effort. If nothing comes of the attempt, so be it.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
Good idea on the path for earmark reform. Unfortunately, I suspect their response would be, “where’s mine,” rather than “we should be doing this.”
Hypocrisy indeed!!! I’m pretty cynical right along with you. Competition and sunlight are the tools to control costs. Unfortunately, we are a long way from that state.

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

15 March 2010

Update no.430

Update from the Heartland
No.430
8.3.10 – 14.3.10
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Pakistani authorities announced their intelligence agents arrested Adam Gadahn [253, 317], the American-born spokesman for al-Qaeda, in an operation in the southern city of Karachi. I noted some very quick scrambling by the U.S. government to obfuscate, confuse and deny, which to me meant U.S. (Allied) intelligence operatives want to have a go at him before acknowledging his capture.
-- The House Democratic leadership announced a unilateral ban on earmarks [257 et al] to private contractors, which is intended to curtail under-the-table funding for the lobbying industry. While this is a very limited move, at least it is positive . . . even though it is an obvious, cheap, political trick to dampen the popular fervor associated with the obscene largesse of Congress. I am generally a positive person and I hate to be so cynical, but does anyone want to take a bet that Congress goes back to business as usual after the election this fall?

On Monday, the Supreme Court granted the petition of Albert Snyder [235] for writ of certiorari – hearing of his appeal – for the 4th Circuit ruling on appeal of Snyder v. Phelps [4CCA no. 08-1026 (2009)]. I reviewed District Judge Richard Bennett's finding after a jury found in Albert’s favor and awarded him US$9.2M in compensatory damages in his civil case against the Phelps clan and the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas – Albert Snyder v. Fred W. Phelps, Sr. [USDC MD civil action no. RDB-06-1389 (2007)] [307, 308]. The 4th Circuit reversed the district court decision and discharged the various appeal bonds. Circuit Judge Robert Bruce King wrote the opinion of the three-judge panel. The essence of the appeal decision boils down to one sentence. “[The Phelps clan does] not assert provable facts about an individual, and they clearly contain imaginative and hyperbolic rhetoric intended to spark debate about issues with which the Defendants are concerned.” From this one sentence, I think we can all see where the court headed. The court concluded, “Because the judgment attaches tort liability to constitutionally protected speech, the district court erred in declining to award judgment as a matter of law.” Interestingly, Judge King decided to quote Circuit Judge Kenneth Keller Hall from an earlier case – Kopf v. Skyrm [993 F.2d 374, 380 (4th Cir. 1993)]; judges defending the Constitution “must sometimes share [their] foxhole with scoundrels of every sort, but to abandon the post because of the poor company is to sell freedom cheaply. It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have often been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” The tension between public and private, between the citizen and the State, and between conflicting rights presents a perpetual challenge. Yet, at the end of the day, we simply cannot legislate civility, morality, respect and propriety. The 4th Circuit Court’s reasoning implies that short using “provable” false factual statement or causing physical injury, the State cannot constrain a citizen’s right to speak freely. In a normal civil society, such judgment should and would be sufficient, since propriety would temper such malicious speech as the Phelps’ clan notoriously uses. However, when citizens go to extremes without some rules to constrain aberrant conduct, anarchy cannot be far behind. The Phelps freely admit their methods have one purpose . . . to gain media attention for their homophobic vitriol; and, in a free, civil society, it works. A social blight like the Phelps clan is the consequence of a free society. We must protect their rights in toto to ensure our rights are equally protected. This is one of those thin line marginal issues. Is a funeral private or public? The 4th Circuit concluded the latter. I could argue either way. Now, the Supremes will decide in the next session; and, my guess is, the High Court will agree with the 4th Circuit . . . unfortunately.

In the shadow of the Gadahn capture and “disappearance,” we have two American women – Colleen R. LaRose, 46, AKA Fatima LaRose or Jihad Jane, and Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, a 31-year-old mother of a 6-year-old son – arrested for terrorist activities in support of Islamic fascism. I imagine the FBI’s best interrogators are very busy.

A thread from another forum grew from the tragic death of 17-year-old Chelsea King near San Diego, California, and the arrest of convicted and paroled sex offender John Albert Gardner III for her rape and murder. The following portion of the thread began with the following article.
“On the matter of privacy”
by Don Kornreich
Originally published March 07, 2010
http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_columnist.htm?StoryID=102153
The part that got me started on this thread was the first line. “Does the Constitution protect privacy not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights?” From which, I joined:
I have a long-standing, unresolved debate with a strict fundamentalist / originalist constitutional scholar over this very issue. The reality is, there is no reference whatsoever to privacy in the Constitution, which by virtue of the 9th Amendment, a citizen retains an absolute right to privacy, unless We, the People, grant the government some authority to violate a citizen's fundamental right to privacy.
Round Two:
“It seems most of the public wants a balance between optimum privacy while protecting their community and nation. Events like 9/11 and the recent local (yet national travesty occurring in all states) rapes/murders/molestations of teen girls, kids, etc., is causing the citizens to demand criminal-justice do more, which will breach the privacy of those fitting a profile. I believe this is what you are referring to as well.”
. . . to which I added:
No, I'm not advocating that we “breach the privacy of those fitting a profile.” I'm not advocating we violate anyone's privacy, for I believe the violation of anyone else's privacy is a violation of your privacy and mine.
We typically use a massive bludgeon in our retroactive desperation to find the Gardner, Couey, Dahmer, et al. We are approaching the process all wrong . . . dealing with the symptoms, rather than going after the root cause(s). We have sacrificed far too much of our fundamental rights. Punishment/treatment is a far more costly practice than prevention. I am not interested in giving up more fundamental rights to give the State more power to intrude into the private lives of citizens. We must find a better way.
Round Three:
“Thanks for the clarification. Well said and a principled approach promoting civil liberties.
“I am afraid that the public can be spooked into various scopes and scales, of reaction (versus response). The media (esp. news outlets) are powerful. Even if they are innocently sensationalizing a story for share (ratings), the public perception of the issue often is distorted while emotionalized. As tragic and evil as the recent local murders of the two young ladies, I am concerned the lawmakers and politicos will seize the moment for their popularity and legacy, by enacting more laws and potentially undermining privacy, even broadly swept over those that would never even approach the profile nor actor, in these terrible crimes.
“You recall PSA #182 (B727) in our San Diego on 25-Sept 1978. Even though the Cessna was permitted to operate in Lindbergh Field's airspace, and PSA reported they had the conflicting traffic in sight, and PSA overtook while descending the climbing Cessna (on an extended downwind, RW27, for KSAN), and PSA's flight crew was named at fault (which I actually thought it was a 'system breakdown and not as much the cockpit crew of PSA)...the public outcry after that midair, was desiring to ban all general aviation airplanes from any airport where airliners operated too. Luckily since that tragic day, we got a TCA here and more vital, TCAS. I suspect had the lobbyist groups for general aviation (AOPA, NBAA, etc.) not been as politically savvy, the public could have gotten their way with Congress (or FAA could have bowed to them too). I cringe when I think of the new laws and systems coming out soon over Chelsea King and Amber Dubois, although all of us would have invited a mechanism to keep what happened to them, from occurring then and in our future.”
. . . my response to Round Three:
Man oh man . . . you got that right! Spot on! We seem to have a penchant for sensationalizing everything . . . partly for the titillation, partly for self-validation, partly for the moral projectionist that seems to be all-too-prevalent in far too many of us. Play that against our seemingly insatiable need to blame anyone and everyone other than ourselves along with our persistent requirement for instant gratification, and ouila, we yield these incessant convulsions to pass more laws in a vain effort to stop bad things from happening. If something bad happens, it must be someone’s fault; let’s pass a law.
PSA182 is an excellent example. I would also offer TWA800 as another worthy example. There are many others.
Returning to the original topic, my point was, animals like Gardner do not fear the law (if that); they have little to no morality or respect for anyone other than themselves; and, as such, they give off multitudinous precursor signals that we choose to ignore. I do not see more laws as being the answer. We need a paradigm shift in our approach to aberrant behavior as well as our caring enough about our communities to see the “signs” and intervene before a 17yo girl suffers mercilessly at the hands of such predators. Further, with our prudish need to classify anyone outside our “norm” as a sex offender, we wind up seeking changes to the law to incarcerate “sex offenders” for life. While such actions may make us feel better and may well have stopped Gardner from his dastardly deed(s), they also destroy many lives of good citizens who simply chose to live their lives outside the “norm.” I risk others thinking that I am defending Gardner; all I can do is assure you and anyone else who reads these words that I want Gardner punished to the fullest extent of the law; I simply do not want other citizens punished for his crimes.

Chancellor of Britain’s High Court Sir (Robert) Andrew Morritt, CVO, ordered record company EMI to stop selling downloads of Pink Floyd’s music as individual tracks rather than as part of the band's original albums in toto, to protect “the artistic integrity of the albums.” This little news item may be buried deep in the bowels of this week’s edition of the Update from the Heartland, but the potential impact on the music business could be profound. We should watch how this ruling reverberates within the industry.

News from the economic front:
-- China's National Bureau of Statistics reported the country’s inflation rate rose 2.7% in February, up from January's 1.5% rate, raising the chances that Beijing might need to cool the recovery in the world's third-largest economy, just as the rest of the World struggles with legs under the economic recovery.
-- The U.S. Commerce Department reported the trade deficit narrowed to US$37B in January, with a 1.7% decrease in imports against a 0.3% decline in exports as the volume of oil imports hit its lowest level in more than a decade.
-- The Labor Department reported the number of U.S. citizens applying for jobless benefits decreased by 6,000 to 462,000 last week, while the total claims lasting more than one week rose and the four-week moving average of new claims also climbed. It seems we have a long way to go before we can claim to have recovered from the Great Recession.

-- The Commerce Department said retail sales rose slightly better than expected by 0.3% in February, as consumers apparently defied major snowstorms. The overall gain was held back by a 2% decrease in auto sales, due in part to Toyota’s recall problems. Excluding automobiles, retail sales rose 0.8%, far better than the 0.1% increase that economists had forecast outside of the auto industry.

Comments and contributions from Update no.429:
Comment to the Blog:
“Health care ‘reform’ has become a political point rather than a potential benefit to uninsured Americans. As far as I know, the current bill lacks two necessary things. The obvious one is a public option. The closest thing I've heard is an expansion of Medicaid. I know some people who are on Medicaid. Many doctors don't accept Medicaid at all and it doesn't cover much. Beyond that, Medicaid is administered by the states, which makes for uneven quality at best. Not good.
“The other shortcoming is that the current bill does not remove the health insurance companies' antitrust exemption. If any group has ever proven unworthy of such an exemption, surely health insurance companies are that group, yet the exemption continues. How could that be?
“How that could be, most likely, is that it's not about worthiness but about campaign financing. Whatever position one takes on term limits will not matter much so long as corporations and a few very wealthy individuals fund political campaigns. In the case of health insurance reform, even the ‘maverick’ Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has taken over $100,000 from the health insurance industry; many others got much more. The campaign financing issue demands grassroots pressure more than any other. Left to their own devices, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will change the system, regardless of rhetoric. They are the beneficiaries. One party in, one party out, no change. Third and fourth parties can present good ideas until they are blue in the face, but with no large-scale funding they will not compete with Democrats or Republicans. It's all very cozy for those already in power and those they choose to bring along for the future. Nobody else gets a voice. The cost to the nation is that we live in a plutocracy. Those who pay, play.”
My reply to the Blog:
Health care reform is truly a sticky wicket. I do not have experience with Medicaid, and only Medicare indirectly with my Mom; she had supplemental insurance that she paid for, and I must say the combination served her fairly well. My retired military friends are on Tricare (Jeanne and I will transition to Tricare once I decide to retire). They seem fairly content with the service they receive. There simply must be a better way than what is being proposed, but we definitely have not found the way as yet.
Re: health insurance company, anti-trust exemptions. Spot on! If there is one thing that would improve service, it would have to be competition. Unfortunately, as we learned to regret with the banking industry, we must now guard against insurance companies becoming “too large to fail,” and we must have provisions for protection of patrons of “failed” insurance companies, if we are going to achieve anything close to universal protection.
Ethically, morally, and intellectually, I want every American citizen and especially every child to have the best health care we can provide. Yet, on the flip side, if we did such a thing, where would the incentive be to improve one’s lot in life, to seek jobs that provide good health care coverage? In the larger ideological sense, this is classic confrontation between capitalism and communism, between incentive and protection, between freedom and regulation. Neither extreme seems particularly attractive in the real-world, practical sense. If so, then where do we draw the line?
We will be debating the corrosive consequences of money for a very long time, and the topic is certainly not new. The Founders and Framers of this Grand Republic eloquently articulated their fears regarding the deleterious effects of money and wealth 230+ years ago. Yet, here we are . . . still struggling with trying to find balance, equality, tolerance, acceptance and stability.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I'll pick out one piece of your response and comment on it. If we provided at least adequate health care to every American, productivity would increase due to the decrease in sick days and the reduction in preventable disability. Do you (or does anyone) really think that poor health leads to more or better work? Poor health makes it less likely that they will work hard because it reduces the ability to work. Motivation comes in a distant second to ability in most jobs, particularly in better-paid fields.”
. . . and my follow-up reply:
I cannot argue with your point. Yet, as always, the challenge is balance. Sure, we can help many folks who deserve assistance, then what do we do with those who choose to abuse the system. We have discussed this before, perhaps we should implement a quid pro quo system, e.g., to use an extreme example, perhaps the meth abuser could have government-provided health care in return for submitting to a controlled environment where he cannot hurt anyone else other than himself. One of many difficulties in such circumstances . . . in my example, I suspect the meth abuser could care less about health care. So, we return to definitions, thresholds, conditions and expectations. I want to help those who seek help and will benefit from help, however redistributing wealth without conditions or controls is simply a recipe for destruction, in my most humble opinion.

Another contribution:
“Is it any wonder why I have absolutely no respect for the idiot who currently sits in the Oval Office. Obama and his minions are just determined to shove this health care bill down our throats even though the majority of Americans don't want it. This guy just doesn't get it. You work for us! And if he will not respect the people he serves, then I refuse to show any respect for him, and the jackasses in Congress who I wouldn't trust to run a checkers tournament.”
My response:
Barack is no more an idiot than George “Dubs.” We can disagree without being uncivil. We can argue on various aspects of any topic and still seek a stable compromise. In the President’s defense, throwing the whole lot out and starting over is simply a political recalcitrance rather than any semblance of an attempt to find compromise. Barack & the Dems are pushing their agenda just as Dubs & the Repubs pushed theirs when they were in the majority. Let us recognize reality and seek the compromises we deserve.
. . . with a follow-up comment:
“I dig what you're saying about disagreeing without being uncivil. Unfortunately, I am so hacked off right now with the behavior of Obama and the Congressional leadership and their blatant disregard for the will of the majority of the people they work for (a concept which doesn't seem to penetrate their heads) that I couldn't care less if I hurl insults their way. Respect is a 2-way street. If they won't give the American people any respect, why should I give them any? I wish it wasn't so, but that's the point I'm at right now. I so can't wait for the next round of elections here in Arizona to give John ‘I Can't Run A Presidential Campaign To Save My Life’ McCain his walking papers, then we can get rid of our useless Representative Anne Kirkpatrick.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
Yeah, you are entitled and welcome to be angry. I am not a happy camper, either. I tried not to be angry with the last administration, and I am trying not to be angry with this one. At the moment, I give Barack more credit than other folks and perhaps more than I should, but I want him to be successful.

A different comment:
“I like your comments on the various genocide condemnations. Well spoken!
I agree with your reader on the term limits conundrum. Had not thought of the staffers influence bit.”

A different contribution:
“Hope all is well sorry we haven't seem to hang out for awhile, I hope we can change that. In the interim I thought, what the heck let's engage in some verbal judo regarding how I read your interpretation of the Miranda cases. Or maybe I should say the theme I felt from your words. So with that said, let us begin...
“While I have not read the full opinions on either Powell or Shatzer, I believe I got the broad strokes of the opinions. That being said, as I read Powell the case hinged on Florida police stating something to the effect of you have the right to contact a lawyer prior to questioning (instead of the common ...contact a lawyer at any time) and you may stop answering questions at any time. Defense believed this was not an informative enough statement that citizens needed to hear they have the right to their lawyer at any time. With that I say shame on them for assuming the population consists of the lowest common denominator. I find it interesting that citizens are required to know every other law in this republic, as ignorance of a law is no defense against it. That being said it is strange to me that these are the only laws that are laid out for our suspects. In addition to this, popular culture has solidified 'cop culture' and every John on the street knows exactly what I am supposed to say to them, probably better than I do. They know their rights and have for some time, I see Miranda as more of a loophole device these days for the overturning of an otherwise solid case. I believe this was an important ruling and was impressed by the Supremes reluctance to spell out what needed to be said or censure the L.E. community. I have found the break in tempo given my suspects, by reading Miranda, is sometimes all the time they need to realize keeping their mouth shut is typically in their best interests. Tempo is King when looking for a confession, if they are on the ropes so to speak breaking their tempo will typically slaughter my case. I know this is a slippery slope as where is the protection for the less intelligent among us, i.e. individuals w/ disability or mental retardation, and who is their advocate? In short, I do not know how to solve that. I will say that I am reluctant to build laws for the land based on a person that may not even understand the sentence. While I tend to believe Miranda is nearing the end of its run, I do not think the high court will overturn it any time soon.
Regarding Shatzer, in brief I cannot believe this one made it as far as it did. While he remained in custody (Department of Corrections) during the break, there was a significant break between the first and second reading of Miranda. This should be plainly obvious to have allowed the defendant ample time to consider his position, as the court rightly decided that his return to general population constituted the sufficient break in custody required by prior cases. Also, I was always given the standard of approximately two weeks for the period constituting a break. Lest we forget this citizen was given a SECOND reading of the warning and had he felt his needs were best served by silence this warning provided him the time to consider that.
“As I stated earlier, while I have not read the dissenting opinions on either Powell or Shatzer I thought I remember seeing several liberal justices voting in favor of these rulings. I do not view these as the further empowerment of the State, which is how I felt the theme of your paragraph implied, instead I felt this was the continued balancing of the scales of justice. While there are many recent rulings and trends under the Roberts court, which have me nervous if not outright scared, this is not one of them. Either way, that is just my opinion and I could be wrong.”
My reply:
Thx for taking the time to express your view of Powell and Shatzer. You have the facts correct as well as the essence of the two rulings. However, my meager attempt at succinct alternative perspective appears to have been insufficient for the purpose of this debate.
My point in Powell grew from the Court’s criticism of the Tampa Police version of the Miranda warning, and yet they stopped short of declaring it insufficient. I think the Court accurately represented the way most of us common folk would take the Tampa version, i.e., there was no mention of having a lawyer “present” during questioning. Personally, Justice Stevens offered a compelling and persuasive argument in dissent, but the essence of his position was deference to the state in judging the subtlety of the Miranda interpretation. The Court even drew specific comparison between the FBI Miranda warning and that used by the Tampa Police.
In Shatzer, prima facie, the Court argued over the arbitrariness of the 14-day break in custody guideline establish by the ruling and the interpretation as to whether incarceration qualified as a break in custody. Shatzer was indeed a very fine line, while Powell was much clearer to me.
In both cases, the state courts ruled in favor of the defendants and a stricter interpretation of the 5th Amendment and Miranda, and the Supremes chose to reject the states’ more restrictive interpretation. In both cases, I disagree with the decisions, and in fact, I see both rulings as lessen the protections afforded us lowly citizens against the awesome power of the State – that is my point – thus, tipping the scales slightly more out of balance.
I am truly curious as to why you feel Miranda “is nearing the end of its run?” If so, what will replace it? You are undoubtedly correct and in a far better position to judge than me regarding the knowledge of criminals in the custody of law enforcement. However, the definitions of our rights are not there to protect the criminals, but to protect ALL citizens and especially those falsely accused by over-zealous law enforcement. I continue to believe that Miranda is vital as well as viable, and I see little value in giving the State even more power. A confession is and must be the informed choice of the individual, not an objective of the State.

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

08 March 2010

Update no.429

Update from the Heartland
No.429
1.3.10 – 7.3.10
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The Supremes have been very busy. The Court dismissed the appeal of the Uighurs [342/3, 357/8] regarding their release / deportation / resettlement agreement [391], so it would appear they are on their way to Palau. However, given the enthusiasm of lawyers, who can predict what lies ahead? The Supremes also rejected and remanded another battlefield combatant detainee case as the potential release / resettlement agreement was rejected by the detainees. This whole detainee situation and political drive to close the Guantanamo detention facility is degenerating from the bizarre to the ridiculous.
-- The Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer, QC, issued revised / refined guidelines regarding the potential prosecution of cases involving citizens who encourage or assist suicide. The British are moving much faster than the rest of the civilized world toward a humane and respectful, balanced position regarding the moment each and everyone of us will face one way or another – death. The British “death with dignity” guidelines [399/400] return freedom of choice to its citizens.
-- The President has asked for an “up or down” vote on the health care reform bill [396 & sub], implicitly seeking a “reconciliation” vote to bypass the Senate’s super-majority tradition. He has also asked for the congressional passage before he departs on 18.March for his planned Pacific trip to Indonesia, Guam and Australia. It would appear we are approaching the terminus of the first phase of health care reform.

Once again, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution condemning the genocide of Armenian’s in Turkey circa 1915. The Committee voted 23-22 on H.Res. 252 – the so-called “Armenian Genocide Resolution.” This is simply, ridiculous foolishness, full stop! Since the bleeding hearts in Congress seem hell-bent on condemnation of senseless killing from nearly a century ago, let us pass an equal condemnation on ourselves for the slaughter of Native American tribes when they resisted our self-proclaimed manifest destiny, or the British for their slaughter of the Irish because they were staunch Catholics, or the French for the slaughter of the Huguenots because they dared believe something different. Oh heck, let us also condemn the Inquisition, the Romans, the Greeks . . . oh hell, let just condemned all of humanity that ever lived or ever will live. This senseless gesture serves no practical purpose in today’s world other than making some folks feel momentarily a little better, angering a long-time, important ally in a sensitive part of the world, and accomplishing nothing. My advise to Congress . . . tend to the present, consider the future, and put the past behind us in history books.

On two adjacent days a few weeks back, the Supremes issued decisions to clarify the Miranda warning, intended to protect the 5th Amendment rights of citizens being arrested or interrogated by the police – Florida v. Powell [558 U.S. ___ (2010); no. 08-1175] and Maryland v. Shatzer [558 U.S. ___ (2010); no. 08-680]. The former case dealt with the right of a citizen to have a lawyer present during his interrogation. The latter case addressed the validity of a Miranda warning across a break in custody. While the reasoning is illuminating and informative, both cases gave liberal latitude to the State and hesitated to proscribe how states should execute and operate the Miranda warning. The Supremes chose not to constrain the State during interrogation of citizens.

News from the economic front:
-- The Commerce Department reported personal spending rose by 0.5% in January, slightly more than economists expected; however personal incomes rose only 0.1%, significantly lower than the forecast 0.4%. The personal consumption expenditures price index, a key inflation gauge, rose 0.2% in January compared to December.

Comments and contributions from Update no.428:
“Under the heading of be careful of what you wish for, the perennial call for term limits has always seemed somewhat bizarre. First, it should be noted that the Constitution already imposes term limits--2 years for members of the house and 6 years for members of the Senate. Just because voters choose not to exercise their power to "throw the bastards out," does not mean the power does not exist. The problem is that voters tend to like their own "bastard," just not the next guy's "bastard." Second, limiting terms in the way suggested by the anonymous author would reify the already unseemly influence of Congressional staffers who very often have lifetime appointments on the Hill (they just shift from one office to another when their current Congress member retires or is voted out), or of lobbyists. Institutional memory and experience are valuable assets under the arcane rules and regulations of Congress, and when a member of Congress does not have this asset, he or she necessarily turns to a staff member or a trusted lobbyist. Does anyone think shifting power to staffers or lobbyists would be good thing?”
My reply:
Point well taken. The difficulty in such circumstances is the vicious circle between freedom and regulation, public and private. On one hand, you are precisely correct . . . it is the people who persist in re-electing corrupt politicians, and thus they are only to blame. The unstated factor in all this is money – the money of influential citizens who benefit from the largesse of the corrupt politicians as well as corporations with vast treasures with which they influence citizens to vote for their “man” in Congress. We, the People, are not likely to break the influence of money, especially in the aftermath and shadow of Citizens United [558 U.S. ____ (2010); no. 08-205] [424]. Concomitantly, the “hidden” influence of perpetual staffers cannot be overstated, but they are not accountable to us – We, the People. Breaking the cycle, forcing “reconnections” seems like an acceptable consequence of enforcing term limits. The status quo, or even the status quo ante, are simply not stable.

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

01 March 2010

Update no.428

Update from the Heartland
No.428
22.2.10 – 28.2.10
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Najibullah Zazi [406] – an airport-shuttle driver in Aurora, Colorado, who was arrested last fall on suspicion of terrorist activities – pled guilty to various counts of conspiracy to commit mass murder and providing material support to a terrorist organization. He admitted to being an activated sleeper, al-Qaeda suicide bomber. Hopefully, he will become a guest of the United States for the rest of his life.
-- As many will recall, Air France flight 447 [391, 394, 411] disappeared over the Atlantic Ocean last spring on a scheduled, revenue mission from Rio de Janeiro to Paris. The investigation continues. The most descriptive rendition of the aircraft’s final minutes was published this week in a German newspaper.
“Death in the Atlantic – The Last Four Minutes of Air France Flight 447”
Der Spiegel
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,679980,00.html - ref=nlint
Many aviation professionals continue to worry about an emerging phenomenon called “ice crystal impaction,” a compromise of the pitot-static system (airspeed & altitude) commonly seen well-above conventional icing conditions and usually in the vicinity of cumulonimbus cells. With the significant automation of modern jet aircraft, pilots seem to be less aware or prepared to deal with the compromise of the airspeed determination and the cascading effects on the aircraft systems. To my knowledge, Air France 447 is the first aircraft loss due to such a phenomenon (if it is proven). A growing number of other similar events have focused the attention of the aviation engineering and regulatory communities on illumination of the phenomenon and application of corrective action. The Air France 447 circumstances must have been compounded by their penetration of an area of thunderstorms common to the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) with its serious turbulence, and in this case at night.

I noticed the pronouncement from an Italian court. Three Google executives in Italy were convicted of privacy violations for allowing a video of an autistic boy being abused to be posted online. Beyond the sensitivity regarding Internet freedom, my interest came from the judge who convicted the executives – Judge Oscar Magi [412]. You may recall the judge’s name, the one who convicted CIA agents in absentia for the judge’s belief that they were instrumental in the rendition of Egyptian Islamist cleric Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr [412]. Me thinkst this judge may not look kindly on things American; we shall need to remain attentive to the name.

A separate thread from a different forum that I will not include here due to its length sparked some protracted rumination on my part. The catalyst was the Joe Stack crime in Austin, Texas, last week. More than a few chose the event to voice their resentment over the performance of our government and specifically the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). One citizen praised Stack for taking action against a malevolent governmental agency. The whole exchange, to which I contributed in part, left me thinking about many aspects of the Tea Bag movement, the aggravation of a growing number of citizens with government, and the almost mindless chat of some politicos for “lower taxes.” Members of Congress leave me with only one conclusion – they are deeply and perhaps irreparably infected with “get re-elected” disease. Further, they are wedded to the dogma of their political party to feed the infection. If the two main political parties are so polarized, calcified and dogmatic that they see any attempt at compromise as weakness, then I can derive only one conclusion – we must abandon those political parties and leave them to a slow death. I can find no rational justification for violence to achieve political ends within this Grand Republic (perhaps someday, but I cannot see that very distant boundary). Consequently, as a former warrior, I consider myself bound by the oath I took all those years ago to defend this country against “all enemies, foreign or domestic.” My advice in the aforementioned thread was to channel our anger and frustration at the root cause, not at the symptoms. The IRS is simply a symptom. The root cause is our representatives that have failed us. They have been seduced by and become addicted to the power of money, while they have become infected by “get re-elected” disease. It is our representatives in toto who make the laws that the IRS enforces. This government works for us – We, the People. If it is not performing properly, then we must change the flawed men that make the laws.

Readers of this humble Blog recognize my consistent and relentless criticism of Congress and the now becoming perpetual polarization, calcification, corruption and general dysfunction. A friend and contributor forwarded a list of eight proposed changes intended to improve Congress; the author of this particular version was not provided. Some of the elements are certainly not new; a few are. The anonymous author offered this skeleton for a Congressional Reform Act of 2010:
1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
2. No Tenure / No Pension – A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security – All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people.
8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1.January.2011 – The American people did not make this contract with congressmen; congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
Works for me! The author repeatedly reminded us that “Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serv[ing their] term(s), then go[ing] home and back to work [real work].” How true! The model for public service was established by Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus (519 BC – 430 BC) – a renown, Roman citizen-soldier-leader – and refreshed by George Washington during the infancy of this Grand Republic. The above reforms will not cure the greed and megalomania of those who make it to Congress. Congressmen have proven once again that human beings are flawed and not able to resist the seduction of greed and power. Congress has few checks on their ability to spend the Treasury, especially when we have presidents unwilling to perform their duties and check the foolish, unwarranted, unreasonable and unsupported largesse of Congress. Nonetheless, I am not naïve enough to believe passing such congressional reforms would be easy or quick. We have a mid-term election approaching this fall. Let us put our shoulders to the task.

News from the economic front:
-- The Conference Board, a private research group, reported that U.S. consumer confidence plunged 10.5 points in February to a reading of 46, the lowest since April 2009 and far below economists’ expectations, raising concerns about the outlook for consumer spending and the strength of the recovery.
-- The Commerce Department reported that new home sales dropped 11.2% to a seasonally adjusted annual sales pace of 309,000 units in January, the lowest level on records going back to 1963, and yet another negative surprise to economists, accentuating the significant challenges in front of the housing industry as it tries to recover from the worst slump in decades.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in his semiannual monetary policy testimony to Congress said the U.S. economy still needs record-low interest rates for at least several months. He also said the jobs market is expected to remain weak and inflation subdued over the next couple of years.
-- The Commerce Department reported the biggest gain in durable goods orders since July, growing 3.0%, after an upwardly revised 1.9% in December, as civilian aircraft bookings soared but slipped excluding transportation. We like increasing aircraft orders – send more.
-- On Thursday, the Wall Street Journal reported, “Some heavyweight hedge funds have launched large bearish bets against the euro in moves that are reminiscent of the trading action at the height of the U.S. financial crisis.” Now, don’t we all feel better? This simply must stop. In a different forum, I wrote, “Bankers are human, like politicians, clergy and such. They are just as flawed and corruptible as any human being is. Greed is just another form of power, which is precisely why we must have the appropriate level of regulation, i.e., there must be laws for injurious behavior, or we will return to jungle rules of the Wild Wild West, fastest gun wins, and survival of the fittest . . . not my idea of a civilized society. To my knowledge, Greece was like the proverbial kid in the candy store who has no idea that the bill will come due and all that candy would make him very sick.” So far, Congress appears to not have the stomach to take on the bankers. Unless something changes, we are destined for much more punishment.
-- The Commerce Department also reported U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose 5.9% at a seasonally adjusted annual rate in the fourth quarter, compared to an initial reading of 5.7% growth, the strongest growth in more than six years. Another positive sign!
-- The National Association of Realtors reported sales of previously occupied homes decreased 7.2% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.05M from a downwardly revised pace of 5.44M in December – the second straight month, another sign the housing market's recovery is faltering.

L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
Federal agents arrested and charge Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC director of operations Daniel Bonventre, 63, on fraud and conspiracy charges for his alleged assistance to Bernie, overseeing the back-office record-keeping staff since at least 1978. I trust he will join his boss for a long stay of incarceration.

Comments and contributions from Update no.427:
“I am replying to make a suggestion. Instead of ‘predominately social conservatives’ you adopt a term I 1st heard in Dan Strange's column (he's a gay Ann Landers) the term is ‘American Taliban.’ I feel it is an appropriate term for the religious right that is attempting to insert their political view into our lives and bedroom. We both know what they are trying to do to gays. However, mention needs to be made of what they are trying to do to str8s. Forcing rape victims to carry the child to term. Denying people the morning after medication to prevent that unwanted child etc etc.”
My response:
I understand the sentiment, and I would agree some are approaching that level; yet, to my knowledge, the fundamentalist Christians have not stoned a woman to death for talking to a man or for being raped. In the context of trying to impose their beliefs on other citizens, yes, they are very much similar and could be called the “American Taliban.”

Another contribution:
“Frank Rich has a point. Whether cunning or just plain clever, Sarah Palin is no fool. Anybody with knowledge of the military knows that being Governor of Alaska put her close to some of our most potent weapons and forces placed in Alaska, a strategic location for defense. She clearly knows how to keep a secret as well as fool her detractors into thinking she's not the brightest bulb in the box. I find her folksy style refreshing for a change since I originally hail from Missouri (pronounced Mizzourah by my crowd). Ironically, she listened to the idiots who control candidates in a losing election, thereby causing her enemies to underestimate her. It will work in her favor over time as will all the hate sent her way by the crowd not admired by most Americans. Folks can disagree with some of her positions, but to underestimate her only makes her stronger. Let us hope her enemies continue their folly.
“Here's a WSJ article that reminds us that objective science is far superior to agendas. Unfortunately, under the umbrella of "a sucker is born every minute," former VP Al Gore became a billionaire anyway.”
“Climate Change and Open Science – In the Internet age, transparency is the foundation of trust.”
by L. Gordon Crovitz
Wall Street Journal
Published: February 22, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704757904575077741687226602.html
My reply:
I don’t like her message, but I do appreciate her style – a much more personal touch. Unfortunately, I can never subscribe to her socially conservative agenda. I would also agree that many seriously underestimate Sarah. Yet, bottom line, I just cannot imagine her being electable nationally.
As I have said many times, weaning ourselves off of fossil fuel consumption and being more respectful of our precious environment must be our clear, focused, unwavering objective. Whatever reason gains support for transitioning to clean energy works for me. Resisting for the sake of the status quo is simply not acceptable or even tolerable.
. . . round two:
“As a lifelong conservationist, I follow the objective evidence, not the status quo.
“Palin is an unlikely national candidate who probably is not electable. Regardless, trashing her and her family as well as taking her lightly is foolhardy.”
. . . my reply to round two:
I am with you as a conservationist, and I will add as an environmentalist, based on objective, scientific, unemotional evidence.
I also agree . . . those who discount Sarah Palin do so at their peril.
. . . round three:
“Clean energy is right no matter which side of the climate debate you are on. We are way behind in nuclear energy compared to the Europeans. Time we catch up.
“On a different note, Sen. Jim Webb is attempting to get a Blue Ribbon Commission together to address the failed drug war. A short clip from him is available at www.leap.cc and the more big name people we can get on board, the sooner we will come to our senses and legalize drugs and send our law enforcement people out to catch criminals, not users.”
. . . my reply to round three:
Nuclear energy is a necessary transition step, but fuel supply is not boundless either. We must move beyond the consumable energy sources. At least nuclear is comparatively clean.
I was not aware of Webb’s Blue Ribbon Commission. I am an advocate for legalized / regulated use of whatever substance an adult citizen chooses, like alcohol and tobacco . . . and I will throw prostitution in the mix, just because . . .
. . . along with a concluding comment:
“Agreed on the legalization of prostitution and drugs. Enough nonsense. It is time for common sense.”

A different contribution:
“That ruling by Obama's Justice Department doesn't surprise me in the least. Just another example of how these people don't take the war on terror seriously. They probably think yelling at people is torture. If denying someone sleep or throwing a bug in their room can break up an impending terrorist attack, I'm for it. Obama and his minions need to realize you're not going to defeat terrorists by being nice to them.
“As for the killing of that Hamas scumbag in Dubai, all I have to say is go Israel. They know how to really handle stuff like this.
My response:
As much as I have advocated for an aggressive intelligence apparatus to wage war successfully in the War on Islamic Fascism, there are limits – a delicate balance between freedom and security, between privacy and surveillance, between the citizen and the State. Sadly, flawed human beings have proven themselves unworthy of unchecked power and the skewing of the balance. The same holds for interrogation of captured battlefield captives. I remain an advocate for the retention of enhanced interrogation techniques in the tool kit for our intelligence operatives, if they should prove necessary. I am not interested in treating our enemies with love & kisses, but a respectful enemy deserves respect; conversely, this enemy is the antithesis of respect; they do not fight with honor, but rather the most disgusting of tactics – terrorism.
Re: al-Mabhouh. I do not know how the decision was vetted, but from what I do know of the Israelis’ decision process in such cases, they carefully weighed the cost / benefit balance. Assassinations are a very thin line, i.e., preemptive action by the State. I do not know the details. He was one of the bad guys; I loose no sleep over his death. I just hope the Israelis did not step into the gutter to get him.

Another contribution:
“You are right on wrt the Smith ordeal. I too think there is more to this story than we are reading. I also want to have the 'right to fly with the arm rest down" which is the only defense to having a large person ‘seep and ooze’ into my seat space.”
My reply:
Spot on, brother. We all have a right to the space that we paid for. I have no objection to fat people; it is their choice. However, their size does not entitle them to half of MY seat. Another element of the Smith case, he apparently paid for two seats on his scheduled flight, but chose to take an earlier standby seat on a full flight. I would say Southwest’s actions were laudable and appropriate.

A different contribution:
“I’ve never heard of your Kevin Smith but your comment did remind me of an ‘escape artist’ during my days in the RAF.
“The aircraft was a Handley Page Hastings, a four piston engined work horse carrying freight/passengers/ paratroopers/ Dangerous air cargo.
“We had a Flight Engineer who was a large man, broadly built. The Engineer’s station was on the starboard side behind the pilots. There was an escape hatch in the fuselage at his left elbow.
“While landing at an RAF unit in Libya the undercarriage collapsed.
He escaped through the escape hatch described. When he returned to our base in Cyprus we could not under any circumstances get him through that same escape hatch! There’s a word for this…’lucky’.
My response:
Kevin Smith is a movie director of limited and questionable success. I’ve not seen any of his movies, and I do not find any particular interest or curiosity to do so.
Re: your RAF colleague’s evacuation experience . . . indeed, quite lucky.

A contribution from the Blog:
Unfortunately, corporations are in fact citizens in too many legal senses. They have many of the rights of citizens without most of the responsibilities. I will state my disagreement with this outrageous situation; that is, however, the situation.
Other than that, I will state that I didn't watch the Palin video. I do not have the patience to watch such a spectacle. I can take ten seconds of Palin, maximum. I will, however, draw your attention to the venue for this. The Tea Party is dramatically unorganized and incoherent. Probably it will remain so due to the fact that so many of its members resist any form of authority or governance to the logical extreme that they will not allow themselves to be organized even for the causes they advance so fervently.
My reply to the Blog:
Re: corporation = citizen . . . yes, thanks in large measure to the Supreme Court . . . with Citizens United [424] being just the latest truss support for that foolish notion. We are in agreement. We must find a way to return corporations to their proper place within our society. I’m afraid it will take another constitutional amendment, which in itself is a very tall order.
We are each entitled to interpret people and events as we wish. Yes, there are some in the Tea Party movement who are far closer to anarchists than they are Libertarians, but at least they are out in the open. What I see in the Tea Party movement is an attempt to coalesce the anger and resentment of a growing number of citizens toward the obscenity that Congress has become and indeed the whole of the Federal government, and to a lesser degree state and local government (the closer they get to us, the more accountable they tend to be – there are exceptions of course). Hopefully, the Internet will enable more of us to collect into a common force against the corruption of the political parties and their minions. We need independents that feel directly the will of We, the People, and are held directly accountable by us.

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