Update from the Heartland
No.464
1.11.10 – 7.11.10
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, USMC (1881-1940)
Every United States Marine knows the name and his story. Smedley was awarded two Medals of Honor for courage in combat in Mexico (1914) and Haiti (1915). He retired from active duty in 1931, and became a favorite of the America Firsters during the inter-war years. Smedley gave a speech in 1933, which was published and expanded into a booklet in 1935, titled: “War is a Racket.” The following YouTube video clip is a reenactment of his speech. Clearly, he was very popular with the isolationists of the era.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0
While I do not endorse the tone and tenor of Smedley’s words, there are elements of fact that deserve our calm consideration. War is very serious business and absolutely must be the choice of last resort. Unfortunately, it has not always been so in our history.
The follow-up news items:
-- Pundits and spindoctors will be cogitating, ruminating and prognosticating for weeks over the results of the 2010 mid-term elections [463]. My take is simple. We, the People, elected 106 new members of Congress – essentially, 20% of the entire Congress are new members, or 23% of those seats open for election. Republicans gained control of the House, but Democrats retained a slim majority in the Senate. Yet, in my not-so-cynical opinion, nothing has changed; we traded one set of big-spenders for a different set of big-spenders . . . when what we really need is not tax cuts but spending cuts. I don’t want to hear anything about tax cuts – not a peep. I want spending cuts. Eliminate all the fat, pork, pet-projects, and localized programs. Stop paying for bridges to nowhere, museums for tiddlywinks, and all other myriad of nonsense. When revenue exceeds expenses, then I would eagerly and enthusiastically discuss and support tax cuts. Until then, knock off the meaningless, emotional, political tripe about tax cuts; it is penultimate foolishness in our current circumstances. Everyone wonders whether the President and the Democrats learned the lesson of this election. Quite frankly, I am far less concerned about Barack & the Dems than I am sanctimonious Republicans who failed miserably 10 years ago and may be sporting the arrogance necessary to ignore the real message in this election – CUT THE FREAKIN’ SPENDING. I truly hope this lot is different; however, history tells us the only difference between Democrats and Republicans is what they choose to spend money on. Republicans like to talk about tax cuts because it is emotionally appealing to the masses, but in reality, tax cuts are just another form of spending and they heap on their pet projects and largesse. While I am on a roll, both parties want BIG government; one side wants the government to decide what you can watch, read and think, and the other side wants the government to decide what you can eat, drive, and earn. The election is done. Now, we hope again that this new crew will be different; history is not on the side of hope. I already hear the rumblings that sound suspiciously like the opening of the campaign for the 2012 elections – God help us.
-- In additional election news, Governor “Moonbeam” returned to the capital in Sacramento, California. Also, the expected but still disappointing rejection of California Proposition 19 [463] leaves the legalization and regulation of marijuana unresolved -- 7,124,077 voted; No = 53.8%; Yes = 46.2%. Progress often and usually comes in jerks and spurts.
-- In other very ominous election news [463] . . . this from Iowa . . .
“Ouster of Iowa Judges Sends Signal to Bench”
by A. G. Sulzberger
New York Times
Published: November 3, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/us/politics/04judges.html?nl=&emc=a23
. . . along with another opinion:
“Putting a halt to judicial elections”
Editorial
Washington Post
Thursday, November 4, 2010; 9:09 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/04/AR2010110407139.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
In a highly unusual, if not unprecedented, demonstration of mobilized voter ire, Iowa residents removed three (3) state supreme court justices as a direct result of their support in the unanimous ruling on marriage rights – Varnum v. Brien [SC IA no. 07–1499 (2009)] [381/2] – from my perspective, the episode amounts to a mob-rule, public lynching. This is one of a myriad of reasons the Framers constructed a governmental system of checks and balances, and NOT a simple democracy of majority rule. We bear witness to what can happen when a willful minority, or even a majority, becomes emotionally charged. This event is a different version of the same tune we saw with California’s Prop H8 [360]. The Iowa vote does not bode well for equal rights or freedom, and while it applies to Iowa only, the implications are national.
On 12.January.2009, U.S. District Judge John Thomas Marten of Kansas issued his memorandum and order for the record in the case of Silva v. St. Anne Catholic School [USDC KS case no. 08-1143-JTM (2009)]. Plaintiffs were three minor children – Adam Silva, Dalia Fernandez, and Cesar Cruz – who attended St. Anne Catholic School in Wichita, Kansas. They alleged the school discriminated against them, based on race, color, or national origin, because of the school’s English-only rule, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 [PL 102-166], which amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [PL 88-352]. The plaintiffs were offended when the school expelled the students and suggested they transfer to another Catholic school, because of their repeated and consistent defiance of school rules – one of which was the English-only requirement. Judge Marten decided the case in favor of the defendants in that the plaintiffs could not substantiate their claim under the law. He did not dwell on the background facts, so we do not know the precise factual details of the student exchanges; however, based on available facts, this appears to be a good example of a failure to assimilate. I can easily see a scenario of Spanish-language machismo that was resented by other students. Rather than trying to join the community, the plaintiffs sought separation and isolation, and quite conceivably domination of their peers. The challenges of multiculturalism [462] come in many forms – a school’s language of communication appears at or near the very root. To my knowledge, the case was not appealed. I doubt anyone outside Wichita was aware of the case or the ruling; however, it does serve to remind us that assimilation and integration are crucial to the viability of this Grand Republic. Political correctness can only be a distant, tertiary consideration.
An on-line journal article (two plus years ago) peaked my normally voracious curiosity, partly from the source but also by the content – The Patriot Post: volume 08 number 24; published: 13 June 2008 – the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a pornography trial, and accusations against the 9th Circuit’s Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. The Patriot Post snippet pointed me toward a Los Angeles Times article.
“Trial to gauge what L.A. sees as obscene – Jurors will watch hours of sex fetish videos to decide whether they have any artistic value”
by Scott Glover
Los Angeles Times
Published: June 09, 2008
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/09/local/me-obscene9
My interest in the story was not the prurient aspect of this case, rather an odd stench that permeated the story. Piecing the odiferous pile together has taken a rather long time as reliable facts trickled out in dreadfully slow dribbles. So the story goes as I have constructed so far . . . in 2005, shortly after he was appointed by President Bush (43), confirmed by the Senate, and under pressure from socially conservative groups, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales created the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force (OPTF) ostensibly and exclusively dedicated to “the protection of America's children and families through the enforcement of our Nation's obscenity laws.” When a few among us don their sanctimonious robes of self-righteous superiority, bad things happen to the freedom we cherish so much, and far too many of us smile and say, “Yea verily!” The OPTF filed criminal charges against Ira Issacs, a self-proclaimed “shock artist,” for transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution in violation of 18 USC §1465, created by the Act of June 28, 1955. United States v. Isaacs [USDC CA(CD) no. cr 07-732 GHK] As the legal documents have acknowledged so far, the controlling precedent is Miller v. California [413 U.S. 15 (1973); no. 70-73] [308], which defines a set of criteria by which to judge obscene material. This essay is not about obscenity. I have not seen Issacs’ videos, but based the very sparse Press reports, let it suffice to say, Issacs videos probably exceed the threshold of parts 1 and 2 of the Miller test, and his guilt or innocence rests on a jury’s interpretation of “artistic value.” That aside . . . the element of this situation focuses my attention on abuse of power. The OPTF was not created by an act of Congress; the self-appointed guardians of our moral values – the moral projectionists in my parlance – created it. The OPTF filed this criminal action outside the normal U.S. Attorney’s office. Presumably under the direction of the OPTF, the FBI visited Issacs’ Los Angeles office on 17.January.2007, to collect evidence. Issacs’ trial began in June 2008, then was promptly suspended when dubious (at best) information, anonymously disclosed to the Press, led Kozinski to recuse himself and declare a mistrial. Smearing a sitting judge was not enough for the OPTF; several disparate sources indicate the OPTF sought the recusal of the entire 9th Circuit Court of Appeals bench. From my collection of material on this case, I offer another relevant and important perspective from across the pond, no less.
“Justice needs to be blind to a judge's lawful sexual interests”
by David Pannick, QC
The Times [of London]
Published: September 11, 2009
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/columnists/article4724137.ece?&EMC-Bltn=GGOCJ9
There is insufficient public information to corroborate all these disgusting, destructive, and I will say nefarious actions by a small, sanctimonious, moral projectionist, overzealous group of lawyers bent upon imposing their will upon a group of Federal appeals court judges they deemed too liberal and not morally pure enough. The more I have looked into and tried to understand the OPTF, the greater the impression that we are dreadfully close to the realization of George Orwell’s Big Brother. To the best of my knowledge, I can find no evidence or even a hint of a suggestion that Ira Issacs injured anyone, forced anyone to do something they did not want to do, or impose his products upon anyone who did want to see them. Like virtually all obscenity prosecutions, this case and the surrounding drama is about a small group of citizens using the instruments of State to impose their standards, their values, their beliefs, on every citizen in this Grand Republic. Simply put, freedom is choices. As envisioned by the Founders / Framers, We, the People, are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights “that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” They saw government as a necessary evil with limited authority and power, to minimize the imposition upon or intrusion into our private affairs. They believed we had a most fundamental right to make choices relevant to our individual “pursuit of Happiness.” I fully understand why so many of us are offended by the kind of material that Ira Issacs produces, but obscenity laws, the OPTF, and this prosecution are not the way to express our offense. We should all be deeply offended and downright angry over the government’s abuse of power in more ways than I can count. What the OPTF did and continues to do is precisely what the Framers sought to preclude. This is not how it is supposed to work. FYI: the trial of Ira Issacs is set to begin (again) on 8.February.2011. Sadly, the Obama administration Justice Department has not yet found the courage to man-up, defy the moral projectionists among us, and dismiss the charges against Ira Issacs. Lastly, if the standard for public service is excoriation of our private lives, then we are destined to mediocrity, as we demand all public servants genuflect to the idol of moral purity as defined by the socially conservative Christian Right. When we demand access to and imposition upon the private lives of citizens as the price of public service, we will get the least common denominator and no leadership.
News from the economic front:
-- Consumer spending rose 0.2% after increasing 0.5% the previous two months. Incomes fell by 0.1% after a 0.4% rise in August – the first income decline since July 2009.
-- The Federal Reserve decided to proceed with the controversial US$600B buy-back of U.S. government debt over the next eight months, and they are prepared to purchase more bonds, if inflation remains low and unemployment continues to be high.
-- The Labor Department reported the country added 151,000 jobs in October, after four months of job losses, but not enough to put a dent in the overall 9.6% rate. The private sector has been slowly expanding their payrolls throughout 2010, but not enough to overcome the decline in government jobs during the summer and early fall.
Comments and contributions from Update no.463:
Comment to the Blog:
“I share your belief in voting as a moral obligation of citizenship, perhaps the only consistent obligation.
“In respect to laws protecting public safety from people using marijuana, at least one of those laws is already in place. At least in Ohio, and I would expect in most states, ‘drunk’ driving laws are more correctly ‘impaired’ driving laws, covering at least all illicit drugs. I expect that other such laws either already cover marijuana or could easily be amended to do so.”
My response to the Blog:
Now, if we can only get all citizens to feel the same moral obligation to vote, this Grand Republic would be better served.
Well said & spot on! Yes indeed, while Driving Under the Influence (DUI) laws were originally intended to apply to alcohol intoxication, they do appropriately apply to all forms of intoxication, legal or otherwise. DUI is precisely an impairment that threatens the safety of other citizens. Further, DUI laws are not sufficient to address all related forms of THC intoxication, thus current laws must be amended and new laws enacted to enforce the public’s right to a safe environment.
Another contribution:
“I voted by mail also. As did [my wife].
“Marijuana does need to be legalized in my opinion. But it's use must then be regulated, just------as you say---------by laws detailing where it can be sold, when, by whom, to whom. Then a whole raft of new State laws must be enacted detailing what constitutes being under the influence, and in what situations and/or levels of intoxication that is illegal. That might be hard to do unless it is the subjective opinion of an officer of the law. THAT is Not good in my opinion, or at least not good enough from a legal standpoint. Do we have any devices capable of measuring that kind of intoxication? Subjectivity could be easily abused since it would merely be an opinion. Anyway, a problem. Then a range of punishments must be set for those convicted once, twice, more times.
“So it would have to be much more like our alcohol laws than tobacco ones.”
My reply:
Thank you both for voting. Someday, I would like to see us vote on-line as well. Heck, if we can bank on-line securely, certainly we can secure on-line voting.
I’m not so sure we need a “whole raft of new State laws.” The Driving Under the Influence (DUI) laws, ostensibly for alcohol intoxication, should suffice in the near-term. The field sobriety test should identify drivers with impairment from any source. The only way I know to rapidly test for THC intoxication is with blood, which is a lot slower than the “breath-alyzer” commonly in use today for alcohol intoxication. The laws will need amendment, even if just in language, to expand their applicability beyond alcohol to include THC & other intoxicants. Personally, I believe we are far too lenient on alcohol offenders, so I continue to advocate for stricter alcohol laws, which should also apply to THC or any other impairment intoxication. Nine DUI convictions are ridiculous – an embarrassment to our sense of justice – and should be stopped long before that level of transgression. The control of sale should be similar to alcohol. Further, I would like to see quality control standards applied to commercially available material like we currently have with alcoholic beverages, so that consumers can ascertain dosage tolerance.
Regardless of the outcome of the CA Prop 19 vote, we are a long way from marijuana enjoying general public acceptance as with alcohol and tobacco. Even if approved, I suspect the Federales will not pass on the opportunity to impose their will via the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which in turn will lead to another Federal-state confrontation similar to the AZ SB1070 immigration conflict currently under judicial review. We are a very long way from a rational approach to private use of psychotropic substances, but at least CA Prop 19 is an attempt to move forward.
A query:
“May I use this on my FB page?”
My answer:
Absolutely . . . as you wish. You can also invite others to comment as they may be inclined.
[PS: The Update from the Heartland is an open forum. Anyone and everyone is welcome to contribute.]
Another contribution:
“I am all set to vote tomorrow. I must tell you I am appalled by the number of Americans who cannot pick themselves up off their couch and take five minutes out of their lives to pick who they want determining the policy and the direction of their city, state and nation. People in Iraq and many other countries have dodged bullets and bombs just to cast a vote. Voting in the U.S. is much easier and a heck of a lot safer, unless you're in Philadelphia and there's a New Black Panther Party member intimidating voters . . . oh wait, the U.S. Department of Non-Justice doesn't see anything wrong with that. My dad has a great philosophy when it comes to voting. ‘If you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain.’ That is a philosophy I whole-heartedly embrace.
“Granted I was in diapers when the Craziness of the 1960s was winding down and only have history as a guide to it. But I feel the chasm between the civilian population and the military is nowhere near as bad as it was in those turbulent times. Again, that's just my perception. Writing action/adventure stories has turned me into a military history buff, and seeing what those people go through I have the utmost respect for them. This is one civilian who appreciates everything people like you have done in the service of this country.
“Good job by the intel community in stopping those bombs. I'm glad that Obama's interference in the prosecution of the War on Terror did not prevent us and our allies from halting this planned attack. Hopefully that trend will continue in the future.”
My response:
Enjoy your vote tomorrow. This election portends some interesting results.
Your Dad was not the only one who ascribes that philosophy. Now, if more folks would heed the counsel.
The Vietnam years were extraordinarily divisive. More than a few of us were spat upon. I tell the story of one of my mentors who was a 6’-5” strapping Captain of Marines and an infantry officer with one combat tour under his belt at the time. He had been invited by the University of Maryland ROTC unit to speak about his experience. He was dressed in his blues with full regalia. While walking across campus to his appointment, a female student doused him with a jar of blood (presumed to be pig’s blood from the biology lab) and called him a baby killer. Jim did not skip a beat. The girl continued to taunt him for a distance and eventually gave up. He gave his speech and waited until the end to apologize for the state of his uniform. There are many stories like that; some far worse. We were instructed not to wear our uniforms when traveling and especially not within the DC Beltway. Then, of course, you had movie’s like “Platoon,” “Born on the Fourth of July,” “The Deerhunter,” et cetera, that did not portray the military in a positive light. Add in the embarrassment of being hobbled, handcuffed and prevented from fighting the war properly by our civilian masters in Washington, and you had a very sour brew. So, yes, I do not see the current tensions in the same light as the experience of my service.
As we say in the flying biz, “Better lucky than good.” So it is with intelligence and counter-terrorism. We do not know the full story, and may not know for many years; but, I suspect there was a fair amount of good fortune sprinkled upon this latest success. I also understand we owe no small measure of gratitude to the Saudi Al Mukhabarat Al A'amah (General Intelligence Directorate).
One last contribution:
“Please pass along to Taylor a very stout word of praise for his exceedingly thoughtful post. We need more people like him. It is thinking precisely such as his that gives me hope for our future beyond my years.”
My reply:
Thank you for your kind words, and I will pass them along to Taylor.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
An on-line journal article (two plus years ago) peaked my normally voracious curiosity, partly from the source but also by the content – The Patriot Post: volume 08 number 24; published: 13 June 2008 – the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a pornography trial, and accusations against the 9th Circuit’s Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. The Patriot Post snippet pointed me toward a Los Angeles Times article.
“Trial to gauge what L.A. sees as obscene – Jurors will watch hours of sex fetish videos to decide whether they have any artistic value”
by Scott Glover
Los Angeles Times
Published: June 09, 2008
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/09/local/me-obscene9
My interest in the story was not the prurient aspect of this case, rather an odd stench that permeated the story. Piecing the odiferous pile together has taken a rather long time as reliable facts trickled out in dreadfully slow dribbles. So the story goes as I have constructed so far . . . in 2005, shortly after he was appointed by President Bush (43), confirmed by the Senate, and under pressure from socially conservative groups, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales created the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force (OPTF) ostensibly and exclusively dedicated to “the protection of America's children and families through the enforcement of our Nation's obscenity laws.” When a few among us don their sanctimonious robes of self-righteous superiority, bad things happen to the freedom we cherish so much, and far too many of us smile and say, “Yea verily!” The OPTF filed criminal charges against Ira Issacs, a self-proclaimed “shock artist,” for transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution in violation of 18 USC §1465, created by the Act of June 28, 1955. United States v. Isaacs [USDC CA(CD) no. cr 07-732 GHK] As the legal documents have acknowledged so far, the controlling precedent is Miller v. California [413 U.S. 15 (1973); no. 70-73] [308], which defines a set of criteria by which to judge obscene material. This essay is not about obscenity. I have not seen Issacs’ videos, but based the very sparse Press reports, let it suffice to say, Issacs videos probably exceed the threshold of parts 1 and 2 of the Miller test, and his guilt or innocence rests on a jury’s interpretation of “artistic value.” That aside . . . the element of this situation focuses my attention on abuse of power. The OPTF was not created by an act of Congress; the self-appointed guardians of our moral values – the moral projectionists in my parlance – created it. The OPTF filed this criminal action outside the normal U.S. Attorney’s office. Presumably under the direction of the OPTF, the FBI visited Issacs’ Los Angeles office on 17.January.2007, to collect evidence. Issacs’ trial began in June 2008, then was promptly suspended when dubious (at best) information, anonymously disclosed to the Press, led Kozinski to recuse himself and declare a mistrial. Smearing a sitting judge was not enough for the OPTF; several disparate sources indicate the OPTF sought the recusal of the entire 9th Circuit Court of Appeals bench. From my collection of material on this case, I offer another relevant and important perspective from across the pond, no less.
“Justice needs to be blind to a judge's lawful sexual interests”
by David Pannick, QC
The Times [of London]
Published: September 11, 2009
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/columnists/article4724137.ece?&EMC-Bltn=GGOCJ9
There is insufficient public information to corroborate all these disgusting, destructive, and I will say nefarious actions by a small, sanctimonious, moral projectionist, overzealous group of lawyers bent upon imposing their will upon a group of Federal appeals court judges they deemed too liberal and not morally pure enough. The more I have looked into and tried to understand the OPTF, the greater the impression that we are dreadfully close to the realization of George Orwell’s Big Brother. To the best of my knowledge, I can find no evidence or even a hint of a suggestion that Ira Issacs injured anyone, forced anyone to do something they did not want to do, or impose his products upon anyone who did want to see them. Like virtually all obscenity prosecutions, this case and the surrounding drama is about a small group of citizens using the instruments of State to impose their standards, their values, their beliefs, on every citizen in this Grand Republic. Simply put, freedom is choices. As envisioned by the Founders / Framers, We, the People, are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights “that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” They saw government as a necessary evil with limited authority and power, to minimize the imposition upon or intrusion into our private affairs. They believed we had a most fundamental right to make choices relevant to our individual “pursuit of Happiness.” I fully understand why so many of us are offended by the kind of material that Ira Issacs produces, but obscenity laws, the OPTF, and this prosecution are not the way to express our offense. We should all be deeply offended and downright angry over the government’s abuse of power in more ways than I can count. What the OPTF did and continues to do is precisely what the Framers sought to preclude. This is not how it is supposed to work. FYI: the trial of Ira Issacs is set to begin (again) on 8.February.2011. Sadly, the Obama administration Justice Department has not yet found the courage to man-up, defy the moral projectionists among us, and dismiss the charges against Ira Issacs. Lastly, if the standard for public service is excoriation of our private lives, then we are destined to mediocrity, as we demand all public servants genuflect to the idol of moral purity as defined by the socially conservative Christian Right. When we demand access to and imposition upon the private lives of citizens as the price of public service, we will get the least common denominator and no leadership.
News from the economic front:
-- Consumer spending rose 0.2% after increasing 0.5% the previous two months. Incomes fell by 0.1% after a 0.4% rise in August – the first income decline since July 2009.
-- The Federal Reserve decided to proceed with the controversial US$600B buy-back of U.S. government debt over the next eight months, and they are prepared to purchase more bonds, if inflation remains low and unemployment continues to be high.
-- The Labor Department reported the country added 151,000 jobs in October, after four months of job losses, but not enough to put a dent in the overall 9.6% rate. The private sector has been slowly expanding their payrolls throughout 2010, but not enough to overcome the decline in government jobs during the summer and early fall.
Comments and contributions from Update no.463:
Comment to the Blog:
“I share your belief in voting as a moral obligation of citizenship, perhaps the only consistent obligation.
“In respect to laws protecting public safety from people using marijuana, at least one of those laws is already in place. At least in Ohio, and I would expect in most states, ‘drunk’ driving laws are more correctly ‘impaired’ driving laws, covering at least all illicit drugs. I expect that other such laws either already cover marijuana or could easily be amended to do so.”
My response to the Blog:
Now, if we can only get all citizens to feel the same moral obligation to vote, this Grand Republic would be better served.
Well said & spot on! Yes indeed, while Driving Under the Influence (DUI) laws were originally intended to apply to alcohol intoxication, they do appropriately apply to all forms of intoxication, legal or otherwise. DUI is precisely an impairment that threatens the safety of other citizens. Further, DUI laws are not sufficient to address all related forms of THC intoxication, thus current laws must be amended and new laws enacted to enforce the public’s right to a safe environment.
Another contribution:
“I voted by mail also. As did [my wife].
“Marijuana does need to be legalized in my opinion. But it's use must then be regulated, just------as you say---------by laws detailing where it can be sold, when, by whom, to whom. Then a whole raft of new State laws must be enacted detailing what constitutes being under the influence, and in what situations and/or levels of intoxication that is illegal. That might be hard to do unless it is the subjective opinion of an officer of the law. THAT is Not good in my opinion, or at least not good enough from a legal standpoint. Do we have any devices capable of measuring that kind of intoxication? Subjectivity could be easily abused since it would merely be an opinion. Anyway, a problem. Then a range of punishments must be set for those convicted once, twice, more times.
“So it would have to be much more like our alcohol laws than tobacco ones.”
My reply:
Thank you both for voting. Someday, I would like to see us vote on-line as well. Heck, if we can bank on-line securely, certainly we can secure on-line voting.
I’m not so sure we need a “whole raft of new State laws.” The Driving Under the Influence (DUI) laws, ostensibly for alcohol intoxication, should suffice in the near-term. The field sobriety test should identify drivers with impairment from any source. The only way I know to rapidly test for THC intoxication is with blood, which is a lot slower than the “breath-alyzer” commonly in use today for alcohol intoxication. The laws will need amendment, even if just in language, to expand their applicability beyond alcohol to include THC & other intoxicants. Personally, I believe we are far too lenient on alcohol offenders, so I continue to advocate for stricter alcohol laws, which should also apply to THC or any other impairment intoxication. Nine DUI convictions are ridiculous – an embarrassment to our sense of justice – and should be stopped long before that level of transgression. The control of sale should be similar to alcohol. Further, I would like to see quality control standards applied to commercially available material like we currently have with alcoholic beverages, so that consumers can ascertain dosage tolerance.
Regardless of the outcome of the CA Prop 19 vote, we are a long way from marijuana enjoying general public acceptance as with alcohol and tobacco. Even if approved, I suspect the Federales will not pass on the opportunity to impose their will via the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which in turn will lead to another Federal-state confrontation similar to the AZ SB1070 immigration conflict currently under judicial review. We are a very long way from a rational approach to private use of psychotropic substances, but at least CA Prop 19 is an attempt to move forward.
A query:
“May I use this on my FB page?”
My answer:
Absolutely . . . as you wish. You can also invite others to comment as they may be inclined.
[PS: The Update from the Heartland is an open forum. Anyone and everyone is welcome to contribute.]
Another contribution:
“I am all set to vote tomorrow. I must tell you I am appalled by the number of Americans who cannot pick themselves up off their couch and take five minutes out of their lives to pick who they want determining the policy and the direction of their city, state and nation. People in Iraq and many other countries have dodged bullets and bombs just to cast a vote. Voting in the U.S. is much easier and a heck of a lot safer, unless you're in Philadelphia and there's a New Black Panther Party member intimidating voters . . . oh wait, the U.S. Department of Non-Justice doesn't see anything wrong with that. My dad has a great philosophy when it comes to voting. ‘If you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain.’ That is a philosophy I whole-heartedly embrace.
“Granted I was in diapers when the Craziness of the 1960s was winding down and only have history as a guide to it. But I feel the chasm between the civilian population and the military is nowhere near as bad as it was in those turbulent times. Again, that's just my perception. Writing action/adventure stories has turned me into a military history buff, and seeing what those people go through I have the utmost respect for them. This is one civilian who appreciates everything people like you have done in the service of this country.
“Good job by the intel community in stopping those bombs. I'm glad that Obama's interference in the prosecution of the War on Terror did not prevent us and our allies from halting this planned attack. Hopefully that trend will continue in the future.”
My response:
Enjoy your vote tomorrow. This election portends some interesting results.
Your Dad was not the only one who ascribes that philosophy. Now, if more folks would heed the counsel.
The Vietnam years were extraordinarily divisive. More than a few of us were spat upon. I tell the story of one of my mentors who was a 6’-5” strapping Captain of Marines and an infantry officer with one combat tour under his belt at the time. He had been invited by the University of Maryland ROTC unit to speak about his experience. He was dressed in his blues with full regalia. While walking across campus to his appointment, a female student doused him with a jar of blood (presumed to be pig’s blood from the biology lab) and called him a baby killer. Jim did not skip a beat. The girl continued to taunt him for a distance and eventually gave up. He gave his speech and waited until the end to apologize for the state of his uniform. There are many stories like that; some far worse. We were instructed not to wear our uniforms when traveling and especially not within the DC Beltway. Then, of course, you had movie’s like “Platoon,” “Born on the Fourth of July,” “The Deerhunter,” et cetera, that did not portray the military in a positive light. Add in the embarrassment of being hobbled, handcuffed and prevented from fighting the war properly by our civilian masters in Washington, and you had a very sour brew. So, yes, I do not see the current tensions in the same light as the experience of my service.
As we say in the flying biz, “Better lucky than good.” So it is with intelligence and counter-terrorism. We do not know the full story, and may not know for many years; but, I suspect there was a fair amount of good fortune sprinkled upon this latest success. I also understand we owe no small measure of gratitude to the Saudi Al Mukhabarat Al A'amah (General Intelligence Directorate).
One last contribution:
“Please pass along to Taylor a very stout word of praise for his exceedingly thoughtful post. We need more people like him. It is thinking precisely such as his that gives me hope for our future beyond my years.”
My reply:
Thank you for your kind words, and I will pass them along to Taylor.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
I apologize for the lateness of this contribution.
I seriously doubt that anything in Wichita is in any danger of being "dominated" by Latinos.
I share the sentiment "If you don't vote, don't complain." I like to express myself, positive or negative, so I do my little duty by voting.
Speaking of voting, the voters here in Ohio have elected a governor who has told people to "get on the bus or get run over." Even here, we rarely elect anyone that crude. I'll go ahead and complain before we get to the substantive issues. I didn't like him even before he spent time working for Lehman Brothers.
Calvin,
Everyone is always welcome to comment on any edition at any time. So, thank you for taking the time to offer your comment on Update no.464.
In my review of the Silva ruling, we were discussing children in school, who were most likely bullies. We are not talking about adults in an active society. To my knowledge, Wichita has very little racial strife or even discord. The point of my opinion was the importance of assimilation, not separation or isolation. What we know from the court documents that children were doing was not assimilation.
Kansans elected Sam Brownback as our next governor. He is a good and decent man, should be a good governor, but he has a penchant to be a moral projectionist. Governor-elect John Kasich appears to be cut from the same cloth, although perhaps a little more crass that Brownback. Unfortunately, we are in for another period of government telling us how we are to live our lives.
Take care and enjoy.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment