Update no.470

Update from the Heartland

No.470

13.12.10 – 19.12.10

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

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- On Monday, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson of Virginia issued his ruling in the case of Virginia v. Sebelius [USDC VA ED(RD) civil action no.3: 10CV188-HEH (2010)], which declared a key portion of the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) [PL 111-148] [432] unconstitutional. The Minimum Essential Coverage Provision (PPACA §1501) and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution were at issue. As the judge noted, “The Secretary [Sebelius] characterizes the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision as the vital kinetic link that animates Congress's overall regulatory reform of interstate health care and insurance markets.” Judge Hudson observed, “A thorough survey of pertinent constitutional case law has yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme. The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.” [emphasis added]. The judge rejected the request for an injunction to prevent implementation. Other states have challenged PPACA. This issue is destined for the Supreme Court, as the implications to constitutional law are profound.
-- After a positive bail hearing for Julian Assange [453 & sub] and a subsequent appeal by Sweden, Queen’s Bench judge, the Honourable Mister Justice Sir Duncan Brian Walter Ouseley, KT, QC, granted the WikiLeaks founder £240,000 bail. Assange must suffer his conditional bail at Ellingham Hall on the 650-acre estate of journalist Vaughan Smith in Suffolk, England, about 100 miles northeast of London. Now, we wait for the legal system to grind through the extradition process. Of course, Assange could not resist yammering on about all the State agencies conspiring to smear his “good” name.
-- After several failed attempts as part of the annual Defense appropriations bill debate, the Senate finally cleaved off a separate bill to repeal the controversial “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) law [PL 103-160] [312, 408]. On Saturday, the Senate passed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 . As a consequence of Senate amendments, the bill must go back to the House for affirmation before being presented to the President for signature. We are approaching the end of the beginning. Secretary of Defense Gates issued a statement proclaiming the military will faithfully execute the new law once signed by the President in a careful, methodical manner; I trust he is correct.
[Please see the DADT discussion in the Comment section below.]

This particular lame-duck Congress seems unusually vigorous, feverish and productive, and it is not done yet.

President Obama signed into law the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010 [PL 111-312; H.R.4853; House: 277-148-0-8(2); Senate: 81-19-0-0(0)] – the US$858B, two-year extension of the Bush tax cut as well as an extension of the employment benefits.

The Obama administration moved to create a Privacy Policy Office, charged with developing an Internet “privacy bill of rights” for U.S citizens and coordinate privacy issues globally. The action came in trail of a U.S. Commerce Department report regarding the burgeoning personal data-mining industry and fragmented U.S. privacy laws that cover certain types of data but not others. This is all well and good. I appreciate the efforts of the Obama administration to protect our privacy. However, who will protect us from the Government?

News from the economic front:
-- The Commerce Department reported U.S. retail sales increased by 0.8% last month as in-store and on-line, holiday shoppers exceeded expectations. October sales were revised up to 1.7%, from a previously estimated 1.2% increase.
-- The Federal Reserve determined that the pace of economic recovery is “insufficient to bring down unemployment,” and the central bank will move ahead with its plan to buy US$600B in government securities through next June as well as keep its short-term interest rates near zero. The Fed statement suggested that it remained preoccupied with the high unemployment rate (9.8%) and with employers' apprehensions about hiring, while they saw little threat of accelerating inflation.
-- The so-called core inflation rate, which excludes energy and food prices and is closely watched by the Fed, rose by a slight 0.1% from the prior month – the first move after three flat months. Energy prices saw their smallest increase in five months. The annual underlying inflation rate was 0.8%, well below the Fed's informal target of between 1.7% and 2%.

L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- Federal prosecutors and the Madoff recovery trustee, Irving Picard, announced a settlement with the estate of Jeffry Picower, a major investor and reportedly the biggest benefiter in Bernie's Ponzi scheme. The Press has portrayed Picower’s widow, Barbara, as a wise and generous woman for doing the right thing, returning the US$7.2B of ill-gotten gains of her late husband. The settlement is reportedly the largest civil forfeiture in American history and the largest related to the Madoff affair, and would quadruple the amount of money recovered for victims to date. The cynic in me suspects Barbara was given a choice between dignity and money. She wisely chose the former. Even with this unprecedented settlement, only a fraction of estimate US$50B+ losses have been recovered.

Comments and contributions from Update no.469:
“I'm interested in your comments. Some, maybe not all, of the general's questions seem to need answers, not dismissal as if motivated by bigotry.”
[The forwarded subject thread:]
“This article brings up some interesting points I hadn't thought of ~~~; the decision as to implementing any policy like this should be left up to the chiefs of staff of each military service ~~ not to political 'touchy-feely' liberals.
“Written by a retired Marine officer with excellent command credentials.”
[The article cited in the thread . . . origin and authenticity unknown.]
“I was skeptical of DADT also. But, it worked because the objective was to permit individuals to serve. Not once did I ask a Marine if he or she was a homosexual or a heterosexual. It was not an issue for me, and the Marines with whom I served never made it an issue.
“Unlike DADT, the current agenda in not about individual service. It is a political agenda focused on total integration and acceptance not of individuals but of the homosexual lifestyle.
“I think ending DADT suddenly is a major distraction to combat readiness and good order and discipline. Special interest groups whose primary intent is fostering total acceptance not only of homosexuals but the homosexual lifestyle are using the Armed Forces as a judicial lab rat.
“I am suspect of any person who puts any personal issue above devotion to duty and accomplishment of mission. Are we Marines 24/7? What is more important one's sexuality, one's religion, one political party, or the imperatives of duty?
“On a practical level:
“I am not sure what serving "Openly" as a homosexual means. I would like to see a definition Is all homosexual conduct permitted? Such as, cross dressing and going to the PX? What conduct is not permitted? From a command and leadership perspective these questions need to be addressed, and the Congress needs to make the necessary adjustments to the UCMJ.
When someone joins the Armed Forces must he/she declare their sexuality? i.e. male or female; homo/hetro?
“I want to know how Federal hate speech laws apply to the Armed Forces. For example, “If a non-homosexual Marine calls a homosexual Marine a ‘faggot’ is that hate speech? Will company commanders be required to take judicial action? If no judicial action is taken, will commanders be subject to civil or criminal suit by various homosexual political groups and their elected sponsors.
“Will a career Marine's personal opinion on homosexuality become an impediment to promotion or assignment to key billets?
“Specifically, is the belief that homosexuality is a choice and homosexual acts immoral not compatible with military service?
“Do the Senate and the House Armed Services committees intend to demand sexuality statistics to make certain that homosexuals are being promoted at the same rate as non-homosexuals? Will homosexuals be promoted at a faster rate to "compensate" for previous years of discrimination?
“Since same sex marriage is not authorized by Federal Law is a married homosexual from MA authorized to enlist? Does the spouse of a married homosexual rate a dependent's ID card? Will "partners" of homosexuals be given dependent status?
“If yes, what is the definition of a "partner", one night stand, one year relationship. How often may a homosexual change partners and the partner still rate dependent benefits? Will partners of homosexuals be assigned to on-base housing? Do former "partners" of active duty homosexuals retain dependent benefits (like a divorced spouse) when divorce is not a legal option?
“Will homosexual Marines be permitted to date each other? Live with each other as ‘partners’ in theBOQ/BEQ"? How does this affect fraternization regulations?
“Will homosexuals be deployed to countries where there is no SOFA in place in which homosexuality is a crime? If no, who picks up the slack?
“Are there any assignments to which homosexuals must be or may not be assigned? For example, may an elected official demand a homosexual officer as a military aide?
“Will homosexuals who become HIV positive still be discharged? Is being HIV positive now a "service connected" injury which rates disability?
“These are just the tip of the ice berg. I have no doubt that right now there are active duty colonels who are just now discovering their real sexuality and can't wait to be the FIRST OPENLY HOMOSEXUAL GENERAL [emphasis as written].
“To sum it up, it is approaching FUBAR status!! I fear for the future of our Corps.
“Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps, Retired.
“It should keep the “supreme court” busy for the next 15 years. Congress= pass it to find out what’s in it.”
My response to the query:
First, as with the author, I am a retired, field-grade, Marine officer, but I do not have “excellent command credentials,” so I suppose my opinion should be appropriately discounted.
I do agree with Myles, as was done during the days of racial integration, the implementation process must be in the hands of the service chiefs – policy is defined by the politicians, execution must be controlled by the professional military.
Second, as the author notes, service should be about performance and conduct, NOT about perceptions, rumors, and innuendos. I fundamentally disagree with his assessment that this question is about acceptance of some mystical “homosexual lifestyle.” This is solely about equal rights under the law. I also agree that sudden integration by court order is an unwarranted and unneeded distraction to combat readiness; however, if you were included in that discriminated segment of our population, how would you feel as you continued to wait for equal rights? Further, like the author, I would not look kindly upon any soldier who put personal issues before devotion to duty & mission accomplishment; homosexuals have served honorably in the militaries of all nations for millennia, including the entire history of the United States. It is all about performance.
I’m not sure what “serving openly” means either, but I would interpret it to mean that non-heterosexual soldiers would not have to hide their private lives anymore, that sexual orientation would not and could not be used for disciplinary or service purposes.
Permitted conduct would be the arena of allowable conduct. IMHO FWIW, conduct in uniform or under the aegis of military service would be no different from today. As a side note, I think ultimately there should be unisex (or omnisex) facilities as there are in many other countries, but I digress. On duty conduct is defined, established and understood; there is no need or reason to amend those standards. Private behavior should remain private. Where the real challenge will be faced rests in the gray area between public & private, e.g., leaving barracks/ship on pass/liberty, or social functions, et cetera.
To some of the colonel’s questions . . .
1. “When someone joins the Armed Forces must he/she declare their sexuality?” No! Sexual orientation / preference should not be a criterion for military service.
2. “If a non-homosexual Marine calls a homosexual Marine a ‘faggot’ is that hate speech?” It should be dealt with in the same manner as a Marine using the term “nigger” to refer to another Marine with dark skin pigmentation, or any other derogatory term.
3. “Will a career Marine's personal opinion on homosexuality become an impediment to promotion or assignment to key billets?” No! Personal opinions are not at issue; performance and conduct are. This is no different from a Marine who adamantly believed in racial segregation in the 1960’s; it did not matter what his personal opinion was; what mattered was his conduct and behavior regarding Marines with dark skin pigmentation, or lack of same.
4. “Specifically, is the belief that homosexuality is a choice and homosexual acts immoral not compatible with military service?” See response directly above . . . beliefs, opinions, or personal preference are NOT at issue; only conduct and performance are relevant.
5. “Do the Senate and the House Armed Services committees intend to demand sexuality statistics to make certain that homosexuals are being promoted at the same rate as non-homosexuals?” Oh my Lord, no! Again, I do not see homosexual integration as any different from racial integration – same process applies.
6. “Will homosexuals be promoted at a faster rate to ‘compensate’ for previous years of discrimination?” There was some of that in the 60’s & 70’s. I thought it was wrong then, and I still believe it would be wrong today.
7. “Since same sex marriage is not authorized by Federal Law, is a married homosexual from MA authorized to enlist?” The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA) [PL 104-199] remains Federal law. Given the repeal of DADT and the existence of DOMA, the answer would be yes, he can enlist, but he could not declare his partner as a spouse. Clearly, the ambiguity under the law must be properly remedied.
8. “Does the spouse of a married homosexual rate a dependent's ID card?” No; see no.7 above.
9. “Will ‘partners’ of homosexuals be given dependent status?” No; again, see no.7 above.
10. In the series of question re: “the definition of a ‘partner’,” any answer would be irrelevant given the existence of DOMA. However, IMHO, what should be . . . the rules for heterosexuals would apply to homosexuals, or rather non-heterosexuals. A heterosexual Marine does not get to designate a one-night stand sex partner as a spouse; only the State can sanction such recognition. Given only half-dozen states so far that recognize non-heterosexual monogamous marriage, then only those service members from those states would have spousal privileges. Bottom line: same rules should apply to both heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals equally.
11. “Will homosexuals be deployed to countries where there is no SOFA in place in which homosexuality is a crime?” Yes, absolutely. There must be no distinction based on sexual preference. Just as Marines with dark skin pigmentation were cautioned about expectations and conduct when posted to South Africa during Apartheid, so non-heterosexuals should be cautioned on liberty conduct in countries where homosexuality is criminal. Our position should be . . . a Marine is a Marine, full-stop.
12. “Are there any assignments to which homosexuals must be or may not be assigned?” I sure as hell hope not; see no.11 directly above.
13. “Will homosexuals who become HIV positive still be discharged?” I do not know the current policy for HIV+ heterosexual service members. Nonetheless, whatever the criteria applicable to the continued service of HIV+ service members should apply equally to non-heterosexual service members.
“Tip of the iceberg” perhaps, but the issue of homosexual integration is not as difficult as some would have us believe. I do NOT fear for the future of our Corps; I have far deeper faith in the leadership than is implied by the colonel-author, but then again, I only reached the rank of lieutenant colonel and never commanded a regiment or even a squadron, so perhaps I am just not wise enough, or experienced enough, to recognize the problems.
. . . round two:
“Well, Cap, I must respectfully point out that you did not, because none of us can with certainty yet, answer the questions! You merely gave your opinions in terms of "should" this and "hope" that. I am not surprised at your opinions, and I actually have some of your same hopes of better treatment for all service members, including the very short, the very thin, the very shy, the very effeminate males, the masculine females, etc. However, the unanswered questions still bother me and, I dare say, should at least give you pause.
“Not only do I suspect you may have the wrong impression of the author because he dared pose such fair but controversial questions, but I suspect one of the fundamental differences between our views could be summarized in our very likely different answers to these questions (not posed by the author): is the push for ‘equal rights’ in the military for this particular minority part of the homosexual agenda that is gaining strength nationwide as they seek to normalize abnormality, rather than teach tolerance and simply forbid mistreatment, and if not, would the establishment of such ‘rights" serve that agenda, making the services federal accomplices in that agenda and undermining military efforts to simply enforce civil and respectful treatment among all troops? (strong words, I know). I predict that you will pooh-pooh both questions and possibly may even assume that anyone asking the same must be another homophobic bigot. I am not, and I am tired of asserting my claim of respect and tolerance for others every time I try to exam such sensitive questions. I hope you will forgive me if I am off=base by suggesting that possibility, for it is probably beneath you.
“Before DADT, as you point out, homosexuals and others with abnormal sexual preferences served honorably and often admirably, but sometimes they suffered abuse akin to that suffered by anyone with differences from the norm (see above partial list) at the hands of bullies, racists, and homophobes. I wish we could concentrate on minimizing that very old problem and quit trying to single out certain minorities for the special granting of ‘rights’ that already exist and just need to be uniformly and aggressively preserved by good leadership.
“BTW, as I may have opined before, I feel the same way about homosexual ‘rights’ as I do about the folly of the recently proposed constitutional amendment to give females rights they already have.
“As my brother often says when he runs out of words temporarily, enough.
“Oh, on a completely different subject, I highly recommend ‘Liberty’ magazine, an excellent publication of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, containing every month good articles on every angle of the matter of separation of religion and government, with very little proselytizing.
. . . my response to round two:
I am not the law. I am not even someone who is important, influential or even relevant. I am not an authority or even expert on any topic. I am just a citizen who cares about my family and this Grand Republic.
You asked for my comment on the author’s statement. I offered my comments, my opinions, my whatever you want to call my thoughts. They are mine only, no one else’s.
The colonel-author’s questions are all relevant and important. I tried to answer them to the best of my ability – limited as it is. Perhaps I do have the wrong impression of the colonel-author; I have no idea who s/he is. I simply responded to the words as written. His opinion is no better, no worse, than mine.
I am not trying to dominate the public debate; quite the contrary. I seek wider / deeper debate on these important issues. I try not to use labels, as they are rarely accurate; yet, I do fall victim to the practice at moments of weakness.
“Homosexual agenda” . . . I’m not sure what that is. Is freedom and equal rights under the law an agenda?
“Abnormal sexual preferences” . . . according to whom? Anyone can define anything as abnormal. Each of us is entitled to think anything anyone else chooses to do is abnormal. Thinking and acting upon those beliefs are two entirely different things. The issue is this debate is you imposing your definition of abnormal upon me or vice versa; it is about actions, not thoughts.
Interesting perspective on “equal rights.” Until 1920, the doctrine of coverture maintained women (wives) as the property of the husband/father. I suspect many women did not feel very equal. In 1868, the 14th Amendment guaranteed equal treatment under the law for all citizens, including those with dark skin pigmentation. I suspect Emmett Louis Till did not feel very equal before he was lynched in 1955. Let us not kid ourselves. The Constitution proclaimed equal rights for all citizens, but federal, state and local laws took those rights away from citizens that the “powers that be” did not approve of their choices. To be blunt, thinking homosexual soldiers have enjoyed equal treatment under the law either before or after DADT ignores the reality felt by homosexual soldiers. Let’s call a spade a spade here.
. . . round three:
“Thanks, Cap. Let's keep up the chatter and look closely at each other's words. I try hard to understand opinions, but I probably take everything too literally, because I think my own words should be taken literally. Sometimes I read my brother's response to an email of mine and wonder if he read what I wrote. Age old problem of communication.
“BTW, I'm reading Creighton's ‘The Great Train Robbery’ (1974). Really good.”
. . . my response to round three:
To be candid, I am not quite sure what to take from your reply. Literal interpretation of words is usually a good starting point, but context, mood and such (usually picked up in the eyes, meter, or tone of voice, and such). Perhaps I misinterpreted your words; if so, my most humble apologies.
Most unfortunate that we lost Michael Creighton; always enjoyed his work. I don’t think I’ve read all his work, but all the books I’ve read of his are really good. I’ve always listed him as one of my favorites.

Comment to the Blog:
“It's ‘Lady Bird Johnson.’ Another nice thing about Austin: the temperature is 31 degrees warmer in Austin than here in Columbus, Ohio, as I write this. I envy them.
“With respect to the Wikileaks issues, I am not certain how you determined that Wikileaks (and, presumably, its allies) is smaller than Al-Qaeda. Certainly they have made a strong, immediate response to the attack on them. Regardless of membership, which is probably not known, the Wikileaks community certainly has powerful resources. The National Affairs article that you linked in an unrelated item discusses the importance of information; this is an example. Meanwhile, the Al-Qaeda that the US attacked so long ago was decimated, but is probably much stronger by now due to enhanced recruiting as a result of the attack. How do you compare the two groups?
“An additional question has not been addressed here. All ethical and legal questions aside, is it still possible to maintain secrecy? We may assume that someone somewhere will seek to reveal almost any information. Can they still be stopped?
“On the Continental Airlines verdict: the courts ideally make their determinations based upon law, not upon the opinions of people representing the industries that fear they will be affected. This is as it should be.
“Whether or not you see US power as constituting an ‘empire’ may be a matter of semantics. Among other considerations, we make nearly half of the world's total military expenditures. If that money is not supporting an empire, what is the purpose of those expenditures? Altruism is not a believable answer. We might spend a few millions or even a few dozen millions to benefit others, but not the kind of money we put into the military. Added to that is money we spend in various foreign aid and other uses designed to control other nations.
“The future of that power is certainly in question. The Foreign Affairs article you linked to states, "Many observers have interpreted the 2008 global financial crisis as the beginning of American decline. The National Intelligence Council, for example, has projected that in 2025, 'the U.S. will remain the preeminent power, but that American dominance will be much diminished.'" I myself see the decline as beginning not later than the disputed 2000 Presidential election. That kind of national embarrassment damages the entire world's perception of us and thereby diminishes our power.
“The lengthy thread on legalizing drugs reveals attitudes (not including yours) based on blind hostility and ignorance. The only new-to-me constructive idea that I saw was providing a choice of whether the use of alcohol and other drugs would be insured, with added premiums. This seems at first a reasonable attempt to require responsibility for using. The result, however, would greatly increase the bankruptcy rate. Medical care is very expensive, and addicts of any stripe rarely foresee the consequences of their usage. Thus, astronomical medical bills would bankrupt more people than they already do, with ensuing economic damage to everyone, not just the bankrupt users. Considering that addicts (including alcoholics) number in the millions or tens of millions, that could become very serious. Also, the person who proposed that revealed his or her attitude toward human rights with the phrase "freedom filth" and his or her ignorance of history by proposing a ban on alcohol, which has been tried in the USA with disastrous consequences.
“One of my historical points about use of drugs is that various levels and types of punishment have been imposed for usage throughout history, with negligible results. I understand that you don't see your "isolation camps" as punishment, but users will. Perception trumps intention in the real world. We need to try something really different about substances that do damage.”
My reply to the Blog:
Oh my, yes; what was I thinking? I stand corrected and edited the Blog. Thank you for the catch . . . again.
Not a determination, just an assumptive estimate based on the expanse of al-Qaeda. It would appear both groups have common objective elements with dissimilar primary objectives. They both seek diminishment of the United States and our Allies. They both seek to blunt U.S. power. I do not think WikiLeaks seeks domination, while that is clearly the primary objective of al-Qaeda. WikiLeaks is more anarchistic, while al-Qaeda seeks to replace U.S. power and influence with their brand of fundamentalist Islam; they believe everyone should live the pure life as they define or perish.
I should hope to shout it is possible to maintain secrecy. The leakers can be stopped, although it does not appear the USG thought through the crosstalk accessibility issue very well when they removed firewalls & filters in the aftermath of the 9/11 Commission.
The issue with aviation accident investigations hangs upon the reality that human judgment remains the central vital element of aircraft control. Remove the human being and I would endorse your perspective. As long as humans control aircraft, we must get into the mind of the pilot. In the legal framework, the 5th Amendment dominates. The genesis of the aviation accident investigation process has evolved around insulating the pilot from prosecution in trade for access to his thinking. That trade has been a critical factor in improving aircraft safety. Once we force a pilot to seek 5th Amendment protection, we will degrade aircraft safety. The rule in aviation has long been safety trumps prosecution. These court decisions threaten to alter that equation, if they have not already done so.
Empire is control of other regions, countries, territories and such, e.g., the British Empire. By my understanding of history, the United States has not sought control of other territory since 1898, and even that was a consequence of war. Military expenditures are not a measure of empire. We can certainly argue whether the military budget/expenditure should be as high as it is and that is a valid argument. Personally, I think the military has had difficulty with transformation from the Cold War to the War on Islamic Fascism initiated by Rummie and Bob Gates is trying to push home.
I do not share the opinion of those who see the demise of the United States as an influential player on the world stage.
I interpreted the discussion regarding insurance relative to the drug abuse as a reflective indicator of the larger problem elements. Yes, I agree, the isolation camps may be seen as punishment, and depending upon one’s definition of punishment, it may well be so. My point was the voluntary isolation camps are for those who cannot or choose not to meter their consumption, i.e., abide the public usage rules. The inducement (not punishment) would be free access to the substances of choice as long as they follow the rules of the camps. If not, then they move on to the criminal camps which are not voluntary and no substances. If they continue to offend, then it is on to prison and eventually the Black Hole prison. An ancillary objective in a more gradual gradation of “isolation” would be to give the user ample opportunity to decide his fate – either comply with the rules of civilized society or choose your mode of self-destruction. Please remember, my proposal’s number one objective is to eliminate the collateral damage caused by individual substance abuse. The medical coverage / insurance question is vital to this system, i.e., part of using responsibly is paying the premium for the personal damage consumption causes. For example, alcohol consumption up to a threshold might not cause any deleterious physical effects; above a higher threshold, cirrhosis of the liver is more likely in 20 years, so you pay a higher premium for the inevitable liver transplant or hospice care you will need; above an even higher threshold, toxicity and death are close with a concomitant cost. I have no empathy for someone who seeks the oblivion of psychotropic substances, and yet I am comfortably tolerant of an individual’s freedom of choice as long as they cause no collateral damage.
There are contributors to this forum who condemn all sinful pursuits, including but not limited to tobacco, gambling, alcohol, prostitution, drugs, and advocate for denial of those sinful activities for everyone else. The public debate is essential. By examining the spectrum of opinions, hopefully we will find solutions. At its most basic, fundamental, distilled down level, freedom is about choices. Citizens should be able to make their choices for their pursuit of Happiness. Our objective should be to tolerate the choices of citizens as long as those choices cause no collateral damage / injury and abide the rules of public conduct.

Another contribution:
“I do not know how you manage to stay abreast of so much going on in the world. When do you have time to work at your job? I am assuming you still have a job, which must take up some time. But maybe you are now retired totally and can do all this, which you do. If so, I’d think that if nothing else it would interfere with your Science-Fiction writing. That is something which at least once was a priority for you and something you wished very much to pursue.
“I will not burden you with comments on this latest blog, though I do have things I might chat about there, since I too tend to at least try to keep up with what is going on.
“However, as I get older I find that no matter the significance of events, world or local, I become less inclined to get involved. Maybe because I feel I have less to offer in rebuttal or in support of, or even in offering my thoughts on issues.
“I know my only real way to speak is through trying to keep up and then by my votes. I still do that religiously, but other than that I just find myself more tired of it all, and so less willing to actively step out into the fray.”
My response:
The short answer to “how I manage” is, I make time. My inherent curiosity about all things human, events in our lifetime, and the science around us drives me to read. I’ve developed quite an array of sources that enable me to keep track on a broad spectrum of history and political thought. The reality is, the Update consumes my available capacity. I am rarely without access to a computer and the Internet. I am fortunate that Jeanne tolerates (to a degree) my passion for political debate. The one major sacrifice has been my book writing. I went to Italy in 2001 with all my notes and the intention of writing the next few books lodged in my brain. The Update began in Italy and supplanted that intention for now. The urge to write the next chapter in the lives of Anod (my sci-fi heroine) or Brian Drummond (the young Kansas boy who flew Spitfires in the Battle of Britain) remains strong and unfulfilled; but, I’m afraid they must wait until I do retire. I will return to those characters (too much of their story left untold) and well as develop new stories. We’re trying to figure out electronic publish now.
Yes, I continue to work . . . still in the aviation industry, which does keep me close to flying machines. I am in the retirement window. I have survived a handful of layoffs since the recession began in December 2007. I will probably continue to work as long as I can remain in the position I have; the job is stimulating and rewarding – kinda like a forensic problem solver. I figure another 1-4 years . . . maybe more depending upon circumstances.
I appreciate your reluctance to voice your political opinions. I accept that. However, I always enjoy reading your opinions.

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