Update no.481

Update from the Heartland

No.481

28.2.11 – 6.3.11

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

To all,
Saturday night, I did a ride-along with Deputy Sheriff Taylor Parlier. I only lasted a few hours on patrol through the county. We made two traffic stops: one for a broken brake light, and the other for bad registration (neither the plate, the automobile, the driver’s license, nor the insurance coverage matched). Yet, it was an early neighbor dispute in a rural area that instigated and amplified my sense of vulnerability – what if? As instructed, I remained in the patrol car as Taylor disappeared into the woods surrounding the barn/house and entry drive, to find the other half of the problem. My head was on a swivel, and I kept eyeing the emergency communications button and the gunlock for the shotgun. Situation handled. Most importantly, a proud father got to talk to his youngest son and observe him serving the community.

On Thursday, 24.February.2011, at 16:53:24 [R] EST (21:53:24 [Z]), the Space Shuttle Discovery launched on the STS-133 mission to the International Space Station and its last flight. SS Discovery will likely be retired to a museum or display somewhere – a sad day for me, but one we all knew was coming. While most folks do not seem to care, I must note an amazing video taken by various cameras mounted on both Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs), pointed forward and aft during the entire launch sequence from activation of the deluge system to SRB separation and splash down in the Atlantic Ocean. For those who may be interested in the majesty of engineering, the URL is:
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?collection_id=14554&media_id=68551231

“As Regimes Fall in Arab World, Al Qaeda Sees History Fly By”
by Scott Shane
New York Times
Published: February 27, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/world/middleeast/28qaeda.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha22
The public signs have affirmed this assessment, so far. I truly hope the not-so-public signs seen by the Intelligence Community (IC) also confirm the observation. If so, we may be witnessing the marginalization of the radical fundamentalist terrorist group, which in turn will lead to its demise.

“U.S. and Allies Weigh Libya No-Fly Zone”
by John M. Broder
New York Times
Published: February 27, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/world/europe/28military.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha22
While this action seems like a good idea to level the battlefield in Libya, I agree with Secretary of Defense Gates. Such an intervention would be tantamount to declaring war on Libya and would involve direct combat attacks on the country’s air defense system before a no-fly zone could be invoked and enforced. As much as I would like to help the rebels seeking freedom from an oppressive, dictatorial, corrupt regime, we cannot intercede in a civil war. Libya abandoned its weapons of mass destruction and its position on the list of state-sponsors of terrorism. In essence, Libya does not pose a threat to the United States.

Last week, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made a speech at the Military Academy, West Point, New York. The Press reported on his speech, but the content was overshadowed by events in Libya. Bob invoked the spirit of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur when he said, “Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined.” An informed perspective:
“Never Fight a Land War in Asia”
by George Friedman
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Posted: March 1, 2011 | 0947 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110228-never-fight-land-war-asia?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=110301&utm_content=readmore&elq=6efe5f8599d949f88aa1335f0b8a2eb2
While I laud and broadly support George’s assessment, I would modify the dictum. If we must fight a war in Asia, then the President must mobilize the nation to commit the proper resources to winning such a fight. Three presidents failed to do just that in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq – stalemate, defeat, open, and jury is still out. Perhaps we have forgotten how to fight a war. In that comment, I do not refer to the military’s ability to engage and defeat an enemy; I specifically point to the far more important political and economic aspects of waging war successfully. Perhaps one day we will relearn what we once knew quite well. If we do not relearn the art of nation-state warfighting, then perhaps humanity will find a way to make wars obsolete – relics of mankind’s barbaric past.

Congress passed and the President signed the two-week FY2011 appropriations extension – Further Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011 [PL 112-004; H.J.RES.44; Senate: 91-9-0-0(0); House: 335-91-0-6(3)]. I understand the point that government operations must be funded, yet I am not sure what two weeks will accomplish in passing an appropriations bill that should have been passed last summer. We shall see what Congress can do over the two weeks. Unfortunately, I have not yet discovered whether earmarks were attached – TBD.

An interesting and stimulating opinion:
“In Defense of the Defense of Marriage Act – DOMA leaves the issue of gay marriage to the states, which is exactly where it belongs”
by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey - OPINION
Wall Street Journal
Published: March 2, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704615504576172790625101046.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h
Rivkin and Casey are both lawyers who served in the Justice Department of the Reagan and Bush administrations and currently represent 26 states opposing PPACA. As they note, they are offended that the Obama administration has chosen not to defend DOMA in court. They stated, “. . . marriage is an affirmative statement of societal approval.” Indeed! Many of our laws, as in the case of marriage laws, are society’s effort to control private conduct. From the Rivkin/Casey argument, we see precisely the very essence of this debate. Two lawyers who are presumably schooled in the Constitution and common law see their societal approval, and their moral demonstration and enforcement, as far more important than the “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness’” of other citizens with whom they disapprove. The public debate over DOMA, DADT, and all those other laws that oppress a small segment of our society simply because guys like Rivkin & Casey disapprove of what they perceive those citizens may do in private hardly seems like attainment of those ideals upon which this Grand Republic was founded. So, I ask you, what is wrong with this picture?

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case of FCC v. AT&T Inc. [563 U.S. ___ (2011); no. 09-1279]. Without getting into the legal mumbo-jumbo, let it suffice to say the Supremes finally stood back from extending the rights & privileges of citizenship to corporations as it did in Citizens United v. FEC [558 U.S. ____ (2010); no. 08-205] [424]. The unanimous Court declared that corporations did NOT have a right to “personal privacy,” but chose to confine the finding to only Exemption 7(C) of 5 U.S.C. §552(b) – the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [PL 93-502] [416]. Perhaps there is hope after all.

The Supremes passed judgment {Snyder v. Phelps [563 U.S. ___ (2011); no. 09-751]} on Albert Snyder’s appeal of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against him {Snyder v. Phelps [4CCA no. 08-1026 (2009)] [430]} from the original district court decision in his civil damages suit against the Phelps clan {Snyder v. Phelps [USDC MD no. RDB-06-1389 (2007)] [308]}. Of course, the Phelps fanatics were publicly gloating and threatening to quadruple their disgusting activities to attract attention for their hateful, despicable message. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion of the nearly unanimous Court and concluded, “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and – as it did here – inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course – to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.” Associate Justice Alito was the lone dissenter as he observed, “Exploitation of a funeral for the purpose of attracting public attention ‘intrud[es] upon their ... grief,’ and may permanently stain their memories of the final moments before a loved one is laid to rest. Allowing family members to have a few hours of peace without harassment does not undermine public debate. I would therefore hold that, in this setting, the First Amendment permits a private figure to recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by speech on a matter of private concern.” Alito went on to say, “[Phelps’] outrageous conduct caused petitioner great injury, and the Court now compounds that injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered.” He concluded, “In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner. I therefore respectfully dissent.”
While I am reticent to repeat these words, I believe Margie Phelps’ gloating retort provides relevant contrast to the struggle represented in Sam Alito’s dissent. After the Court’s decision, she said, “Let me tell you what [the Westboro Baptist Church] does. Shut up all that talk about infliction of emotional distress. When y’re standin’ there with your young child . . . body bits . . . in pieces, in a coffin, you’ve been dealt some emotional distress by the Lord your God. . . . I do very much appreciate the fact that I get to be the mouth of God in this matter, so if that’s fun, we’ll call it fun.” These are the people who enjoy the fruits born of the sacrifices of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, USMC, and his brethren.
All of our freedoms have limits and boundaries, i.e., the exercise of my freedom cannot cause injury to another citizen. In this case, the Supreme Court decided that Albert Snyder’s “injury” was not serious or grievous enough to invoke or impose a limitation on Fred Phelps’ freedom of speech and assembly. We can argue the severity. Is emotional injury as significant as physical injury? If Fred Phelps had shot Albert Snyder, we would not be in this discussion. Yet, to Albert Snyder, who tried to bury and honor his combat Marine son on 10.March.2006, I imagine he felt like he had been shot . . . I know I would have, if I had been in Albert’s unfortunate position.
As Justice Alito so concisely observed, the Phelps clan uses the grief of military funerals or other finite quasi-public events to garner Press and public attention. They want to make us uncomfortable, to cause us to question our values and beliefs, and most importantly to fear them . . . that even by some sliver of chance, they might actually be correct, that God is a vengeful, intolerant, hateful entity. Nonetheless, it is my humble opinion, the best thing we could do is, ignore the Phelps clan. While the passive response does not lessen the insult for the local families involved, it would deny to the Phelps fanatics what they seek the most – publicity and public outrage. Yet, at the end of the day, the Phelps clan vitriol and mindless hatred in the name of God is yet one more example of the terrible price of freedom. In these nauseous moments of disgust, let us never forget the beauty and magnificence of all those freedoms we cherish and enjoy.

News from the economic front:
-- The Labor Department reported that the country’s employers added a net 192,000 jobs in February, and revised the January hiring number up to 63,000 from an initially reported 36,000. By a separate household survey, the unemployment rate decreased to 8.9 % from 9 %. The process of economic recovery appears to be taking a few more positive steps.

No comments or contributions from Update no.480 were received.

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