Update no.434

Update from the Heartland

No.434

5.4.10 – 11.4.10

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Opinions continue to flow in the wake of the Appeals Court’s order for Albert Snyder to pay the court costs as a consequence of Snyder v. Phelps [4CCA no. 08-1026 (2009)][430]. This opinion is worth your time.
“Order to pay Phelpses is sickening”
by Leonard Pitts
Wichita Eagle
Posted on Mon, Apr. 05, 2010
http://www.kansas.com/2010/04/05/1255309/leonard-pitts-order-to-pay-phelpses.html
-- Finally! Someone other than me has focused upon the contribution of parents to the conduct of delinquent children [citations too numerous]. This is the truly sad tale of the suicide of 15-year-old, Irish transplant, Phoebe Prince, along with her tormentors – “a coterie of aspiring fascists” – and South Hadley High School (Massachusetts).
“Kids gone wild, parents gone missing”
by Richard Cohen
Washington Post
Published: Tuesday, April 6, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/05/AR2010040503549.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
Richard observed, “You will notice that in all the finger-pointing -- the students, the teachers, the administrators -- not a digit is aimed at the parents” (emphasis added). Why on God’s Little Green Earth do we seek to blame everyone else except the real, bona fide, root cause for the injurious conduct of children? Children are taught by example, abuse, neglect, complacency, or any combination thereof, to act out in violent ways as well as a paucity of such traits as respect, integrity, honor, dignity, humility and accountability. It is the parents (or lack of same) who set the stage in infancy and teach the conduct in toddler-dom. When are we going to wake up and recognize reality? We must hold parents accountable for the conduct of their children. These parents should be criminally liable and just as culpable as the monsters who perpetrate such crimes – ‘should be’ . . . as the law is not written that way today. Events such as these make my case for what I call the “social police” – an organization between law enforcement and social workers.
Then, the next day, Ruth Marcus weighed in:
“Should we be criminalizing bullies?”
by Ruth Marcus
Washington Post
Published: Wednesday, April 7, 2010
http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/PSLW3N/4G14M/C5WJLL/05S1Q1/8DP4H/GX/h
Ruth said, “I'm doubtful, though, that criminal prosecution is the best way to punish or prevent it.” Perhaps so. She conceded that the bullies, children included, should be punished – detention, expulsion and such. She mentions nothing about the parents. Prosecution of children hardly seems like the correct way to deal with the true root cause of such behavior. When will we hold parents accountable for the destruction and injury they wrought upon society via their spawn?

One more launch closer to the end, NASA successfully launched Space Shuttle Discovery on-time at 06:21 [R] EDT on the STS-131 mission to the International Space Station. The pre-dawn launch was amazing to watch the flight across the day-night terminus, with on-board cameras looking back into the night and then daylight near booster burn-out . . . really cool. Only three more shuttle flights remain.

President Medvedev and President Obama met in Prague, Czech Republic, to sign what has been dubbed the New START Treaty, to reduce the remaining nuclear warheads of both countries by a third. In what appears to be a coordinated, orchestrated set of events, President Obama announced a restructuring of American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons, even in self-defense. For the first time, the United States has announced to the world it will not used its weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons, or launched a crippling cyberattack. This coming week, the United States hosts a nuclear proliferation conference after which the Americans hope to issue a joint communiqué calling for leaders from more than 40 countries to endorse a global crackdown on the illicit trade of nuclear material, including tougher criminal prosecution of traffickers, better accounting for weapons-grade nuclear materials and more international collaboration in such cases. All this activity seems to be the diplomacy of hope. I truly, genuinely want the President to be successful. Yet, I am haunted by the last time the diplomacy of hope was tried . . . 50M people died.

Prime Minister James Gordon Brown went to Buckingham Palace and asked Queen Elizabeth II to dissolve Parliament in order to hold a national election. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister announced that Great Britain will go to the polls on May 6, amid a battered economy and soaring deficit. The election promises to be dramatic and could end the 13-year, Labour Party run in power.

Wednesday night, United Flight 663 carried passengers from Washington, DC, to Denver. A disturbance caused the captain to request assistance, which scrambled two, armed, F-16 fighter jets. The crew caught a man smoking in the first class lavatory. When confronted, he apparently made a joke about lighting his shoes on fire. The crew, not seeing any humor in the situation, requested the assistance of two air marshals, who subdued the man. The FBI scrambled its local counter-terror team and met the aircraft on landing at Denver. The perpetrator of the in-flight incident turned out to be 27-year-old, Qatari diplomat, Mohammed al-Madadi, who happened to be enroute to the Federal Supermax prison near Florence, Colorado, for a consular visit to convicted and imprisoned, Qatari al-Qaeda member, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri [288, 346] – the focus of considerable legal wrangling in this country. The young, foolish, disrespectful man, protected by diplomatic immunity, has been recalled to Qatar for reassignment and probably will not set foot in this Grand Republic again – good riddance. I truly despise any person who places himself above other human beings no matter what their title, what language they speak, or who the hell they are. Al-Madadi is one of those men who warrant my scorn – you are no longer welcome.

President Lech Kaczynski of Poland and wife Maria died in the crash of the government’s Tupolev Tu-154 airplane on approach to the air base at Smolensk, Russia, along with 95 other government leaders, dignitaries, guests and crew. Early reports strongly suggest this tragic accident was yet another Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) event. The airfield and surrounding area were reportedly shrouded in heavy fog, and the air base apparently did not have a conventional Instrument Landing System (ILS). The aircraft was also an aging, Soviet built and configured airliner, and probably not equipped with a state-of-the-art Flight Management System (FMS) or Global Position System (GPS) navigation equipment. Further, air traffic controllers also reportedly warned the captain multiple times that the airfield was below weather minimums and he should divert to his alternate airport. The airplane flew into trees on the captain’s fourth attempt to land and everyone perished.

“Network Neutrality” has become a big topic these days. The term has been bandied about by the Press with respect to a recent ruling from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia – Comcast v. FCC [USDC DC no. 08-1291 (2010)]. Unfortunately, the court mentioned not a word about net neutrality. Nonetheless, the court focused on interpretation of the applicable law relative to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and its enforcement authority regarding the Internet. In this particular case, the FCC intervened when Comcast restricted bandwidth for some of its bigger consumers. The FCC ordered Comcast to provide open access, i.e., no restrictions. Comcast confronted the FCC’s authority to issue such an order. The FCC utilized an extension of what law refers to as “ancillary authority” – derived or implied authority from policy intent statements by Congress. The laws in question here are: the Communications Act of 1934 [PL 73-416], the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 [PL 98-549], and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [PL 104-104]; none of which explicitly delegate authority to the FCC for the actions they took against Comcast. Circuit Judge David S. Tatel concluded for the unanimous court panel, “Because the Commission has failed to tie its assertion of ancillary authority over Comcast’s Internet service to any “statutorily mandated responsibility” [Am. Library, 406 F.3d at 692], we grant the petition for review and vacate the Order.” In essence, the court declared the FCC had gone too far beyond established law. We never know whether the Supremes will hear a case, but the public sensitivity may convince the Court to either validate the DC Circuit’s interpretation of the law, or they could overturn the appeals court ruling on something as simple as their expansive use of the Commerce Clause; I suspect the former, if they hear it at all. The Comcast ruling substantially ups the ante in the net neutrality debate and places far more pressure on Congress to update the law. The current version before Congress is the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 [H.R.3458], which is stuck in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, where it has remained since the middle of last year. The court is telling us . . . enough already . . . we’ve stretched existing law too far; and, they are precisely correct. As a theoretical or even ideological objective, net neutrality is a worthy goal – everyone having equal access and freedom without interference by the State or corporations. Unfortunately, the Comcast ruling pushed control of Internet access back to the Internet Service Provider(s) (ISP), which does not sound all that bad. Yet, what happens when an ISP “chooses” to restrict one content provider, when that entity is a direct competitor with another part of the company serving as the ISP? The Comcast ruling had one sentence in the 36-page ruling to at least acknowledge the conundrum, but they chose to ignore that direct, real, tangible conflict. The Internet has become essential infrastructure like roads, bridges, waterways, airspace, electricity transmission lines, telephone lines, et cetera. Thus, the challenge we face, comes in the tension between open use and regulation, between the profit of entrepreneurial ingenuity and the general public good. To the contrary, the State has not engendered trust with respect to protecting our freedoms in a wide variety of well-intentioned laws grotesquely extended far beyond their original legislative intent. The State seems quite comfortable ignoring our rights when it suits their perception of need or the greater good. Despite the inadequacies of the current law and my inherent suspicion of the State, the Comcast ruling serves notice that the law must change and adapt, but I fear what we may face in the aftermath of more well-intentioned, miss-applied legislation.

“Hands off the Internet”
by Robert M. McDowell
Washington Post
Published: Friday, April 9, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/08/AR2010040803375.html
On balance, I must admit to the same opinion. The risk of government abuse is simply too great. That aside, I have not faced an obstructive or vengeful ISP as the non-profit advocacy organizations, Free Press and Public Knowledge, did with Comcast. Based on the publicly available information, Comcast should have had its knuckles rapped. Unfortunately, the FCC exceeded its authority when it tried to do just that. Until we can sort out this conundrum, I shall endorse and support McDowell’s “Hands off the Internet” admonishment.

News from the economic front:
-- The 10-year Treasury yield rose to 4% for the first time since last June. The 10-year yield is a key benchmark for mortgage rates as well as other consumer and corporate lending.

Comments and contributions from Update no.433:
Comment from the Blog:
“What I noted this time: your cheerful suggestion of setting up a ‘killing ground’ versus your deep concern about Constance attending the prom.”
My response to the Blog:
Yes, quite a contrast ay.
Big difference . . . we are talking about enemies in the former, and a fellow citizen who deserved equal rights in the latter.
Was there something more you wanted to say?

Another comment:
“I like this idea [of moving Guantánamo to Afghanistan]. Have you sent this to Obama? Or should we start a FaceBook page?”
My reply:
Glad you liked it. I said it somewhat tongue in cheek, but it does have merit I think. I do send the Update to Congress & Legislature, but not to the Prez. I guess I should, huh. I do have a Facebook page, but I haven’t yet featured the Update.

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