Update no.501

Update from the Heartland

No.501

18.7.11 – 24.7.11

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

To all,

At 05:57 [R] CDT, Thursday, 21.July.2011, Space Shuttle Atlantis landed at Kennedy Space Center for the last time, completing a successful STS-135 mission and ending the incredible space shuttle program. This moment is historic and quite similar to 19.December.1972, when the Apollo manned missions to the Moon ended. Now, we move on to the next era of human exploration of space beyond our beautiful blue orb.

“One Big, Happy Polygamous Family”
by Jonathan Turley – Op-Ed Contributor
New York Times
Published: July 20, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/opinion/21turley.html?nl=opinion&emc=tya3
The opinion article notes a legal challenge to the Utah criminal code by the patriarch of a public polygamous family featured in TLC’s “Sister Wives.” Professor Turley drew specific attention to Antonin the Impaler’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003] [082, 188]. If you choose to read the article, I thought I would offer the specific quote: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision [Lawrence]; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.” Once again, I ask, why should the State be involved in any of the moral choices listed in Antonin’s dissent (or even others not listed)? We need to talk about these topics, overcome our learned sensitivity and discomfort, and find solutions . . . after all, there is at least one of those choices with the potential for injury. Let the intercourse begin.

Earlier this month, Human Rights Watch (HRW) published a report titled: “Getting Away with Torture – The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees.” The title aptly and solely offers a good clue of the report’s content. Nonetheless, I took the time to carefully read the 108-page screed. The tone of the report at the outset did not convey objectivity – only predisposed political bias. I suppose we could stop here, but I have more to say. If an individual reader does not care about a scholarly, balanced assessment of intelligence interrogation processes or detention of illegal battlefield combatants, then the HRW report offers a convincing treatise to feed his presumptions. If on the other hand, you seek to understand the challenges of intelligence interrogation and to place such activities in the proper context of a worldwide War on Islamic Fascism, then the HRW report is woefully and sorely lacking. Amply inundated, impressive looking citations of U.S. law and related documents help wrap such work in the cloak of authenticity and legitimacy. They got a number of key facts wrong, which detracts from their credibility to be objective regarding a sensitive topic like wartime detainees, e.g., footnote 9 is completely wrong, and on pg.49 – the Anti-Torture Act does not exist. The report makes no attempt to even acknowledge or recognize any proper intelligence value beyond simple detention of an unlawful battlefield combatant. If you are convinced Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Tenet were criminals, then the HRW report will be a highly supportive and reinforcing essay; you will find abundant ammunition for your continued disdain of the prior administration. I do not see this issue in the same light; and thus, I reject the attempted indictment of President Bush and his lieutenants for “war crimes.” It is as if HRW seeks to humanize war, which in turn will only get good men killed.
Beyond the overall rejection of the HRW report, I will acknowledge disturbing conduct in the handling of some detainees in the War on Islamic Fascism as illuminated in the report. Were their detainee abuses even by my rather broad definitions? Yes, absolutely and without equivocation. Rather than indict the whole process and seriously hobble our intelligence apparatus, let us prosecute the offenders rather than those leaders charged with waging war successfully and defending this Grand Republic.
Now, if I have not already lost your attention and if you will permit me, I would like to offer some constructive criticism. To avoid this divisive debate in future wars, we need a dedicated, professional, strategic interrogation unit like the MIS-Y group of the P.O. Box 1142 unit [246] created on 15.May.1942, and operated secretly and effectively throughout World War II, only a few miles from Washington, DC. We need to search for, train and encourage professional interrogators like Major Sherwood Ford Moran, USMCR [491]. The various laws, conventions, guidelines and protocols, including 18 U.S.C. §2340A, do not recognize the status of the captive person, i.e., all captives are to be treated the same. I shall respectfully submit that battlefield captives are NOT the same, and should not be subject to common treatment. More realistic stratification might be: 1.) Proper POWs, 2.) Individuals subject to prosecution under civil code, 3.) Proper POWs subject to field combat interrogation, 4.) Captives subject to strategic intelligence interrogation, and 5.) Illegal battlefield combatants or other irregulars. Each category of captive should be exposed to different potential treatment and techniques commensurate to their strategic value to the United States and our allies. Failure to recognize the intelligence value of certain captives will be yet one more hobble on our ability to wage war successfully. I understand quite well that discussions of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs) make normal citizens uncomfortable and that the majority of citizens would prefer EITs were never used on another human being. Likewise, I think those same citizens would not want to watch an eight-year-old girl explode or a sharpshooter decapitate an unlawful battlefield combatant with a well-aimed, two-kilometer shot. This is precisely why war needs to be fought by professional warriors and intelligence agents beyond the awareness of the public.
Lastly, I join HRW regarding the need for an independent investigation to understand the facts. However, as long as the War on Islamic Fascism continues, such an investigation must be highly classified, beyond public view, on the basis of legislative enhancement of controlling law. If evidence of criminal abuse is detected during such a secret investigation, then specific consideration by the CID or FBI should be initiated. The Supreme Court’s recent Davis “good faith” ruling [500] appears to apply; we do NOT need our intelligence operatives looking over their shoulder during wartime. If we want a public examination of intelligence interrogation processes and techniques, then we must wait until the War on Islamic Fascism is won and concluded. We must not forget that we remain in an active, serious war.

Imagine, if you will, being an aspiring, committed candidate seeking to serve We, the People, in high political office. You are not a wealthy person and do not possess sufficient, personal resources to finance your campaign. You only have two choices: 1.) solicit substantial contributions from your supporters, or 2.) submit to the political agenda of one of the two major political parties; either choices means you will are beholding to those who have the resources to support you. Nearly one-third of states have adopted various forms of public financing of election campaigns with one purpose – reduce or end political corruption. In 1991, a major political scandal known as AZSCAM rocked the Arizona legislature; ten members of the State House and Senate resigned or were removed. In 1997, the Arizona governor was forced to resign due to a felony conviction. In the election of 1998, the People of Arizona passed two important referenda: Proposition 200, also known as An Act Relating to a Campaign Finance Funding and Reporting System or the Citizens Clean Elections Act, the subject of a recent Supreme Court ruling, and Proposition 105 that limits the ability of legislature or governor to alter laws passed by the People. The Clean Elections Act created a scheme of public financing and rules in an effort to “level the playing field” for all qualified candidates to counter those candidates with massive campaign treasuries of corporate and private contributions. The purpose of the law was to reduce the corruption in government. The Arizona Free Enterprise Club challenged the constitutionality of the Clean Election Act on behalf of the organization’s Freedom Club PAC, claiming the law violated their First Amendment freedom of speech. Last month, the Supremes decided that case – Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett [564 U.S. ___ (2011); no. 10–238]. The direct, succinct, summarized conclusion of this latest ruling . . . another Citizens United [424], we have. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the sharply divided 5-4 Court. The narrow majority was quite transparent and not worthy of more words. Associate Justice Elena Kagan offered an articulate, scholarly, passionate dissent. She noted, “So the majority has no evidence--zero, none--that the objective of the Act is anything other than the interest that the State asserts, the Act proclaims, and the history of public financing supports: fighting corruption.” Kagan concluded for the dissent, “No fundamental principle of our Constitution backs the Court's ruling [Freedom Club PAC]; to the contrary, it is the law struck down today that fostered both the vigorous competition of ideas and its ultimate object--a government responsive to the will of the people. Arizonans deserve better. Like citizens across this country, Arizonans deserve a government that represents and serves them all. And no less, Arizonans deserve the chance to reform their electoral system so as to attain that most American of goals.”
I ask, have we traded the oppression of the “divine right of kings” as royal birthright, for the tyranny of the royalty of money? Why is it so hard for the Supremes to recognize or acknowledge the vast corrupting influence of money? Oh wait . . . could it be they have a vested interest? Now, please allow me to emphatically state, I am NOT against the wealthy among us using their money to seek advantage, or the program, expenditures, or tax breaks that enhance their wealth and privilege. What I am adamantly against is the implication that money makes an individual citizen any more important than another, or that their wealth entitles them to pay less tax than me, or any of the rest of us. The established political parties do not want competition, which is precisely why they work so hard to make it virtually impossible for independents or even third party candidates to successfully compete. Even the vast wealth of Ross Perot was not enough. Lastly, again I ask, what is wrong with “leveling the playing field” with respect to campaign funding? The Supremes did not help me understand their objection.

Comments and contributions from Update no.500:
“Certainly a heart-breaking loss for the US Women. But on the flip side, Japan certainly needed something to lift their spirits after the earthquake and meltdown that devastated their country. Congrats to Japan on a hard-fought victory.
“Good for the Danes! Though they better be prepared. If the EU is anything like the Obama Administration in regards to Arizona, they'll do a full-court legal press on them and treat them like an enemy state. Hey, if the so-called leaders at the top don't want to do squat on illegal immigration, states have to take matters into their own hands . . . if federal officials and incompetent judges will let us.”
My response:
Thank you for your comments. Well said!
I have nothing to add.

Another contribution:
“Just a note regarding the financial problems of Greece and Italy- in particular. One huge problem those countries have is the inability to collect taxes. It is a game people play, and the government does not have a viable IRS-type entity to collect. Greece is the worst, with billions of taxes not paid- which is why they are in such trouble.”
My reply:
Italy seemed to be pretty effective at collecting my tax contributions when I worked there. I do not have any experience working in Greece. I would wholeheartedly agree that ineffective tax collection is injurious . . . I would go so far as to say far worse than no tax at all. It creates an environment of inequity and corruption.
If wealthy Americans paid the same fraction of their income as I pay of mine, I would be far more supportive of the Republican “no new taxes” mantra. They do not! In fact, not only do many not pay a comparable percentage of their income, they often feed bountifully at the Treasury teat with bogus farm subsidies, development exemptions, off-shore income, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum. Big contributors expect and receive big breaks and benefits.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I heartily concur with you....the same Tea Party crowd that yells about taxes is actually funded in large part by the wealthy Americans who pay little or no taxes...and that is why.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
Not the least of our social and political hypocrisies.

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

Update no.500

Update from the Heartland

No.500

11.7.11 – 17.7.11

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

To all,
For those into numbers, a bit of a milestone, I do presume – 500th edition, spread over nearly ten years. I have enjoyed this process. I hope others have found some smidgen of usefulness in this Blog. I look forward to the next 500 editions.

As disappointing as it is for a proud American, congratulations must go the national team of Japan for their victory in the Women’s World Cup championship in Frankfurt, Germany. The U.S. women did extraordinarily well, but two defensive lapses along with lackluster penalty kicks did them in, but that is the nature of the game.

In the category of “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore,” we have the Danish government’s defiance of European Union (EU) edicts regarding immigration control. When I look at the Danish situation, they are faced with virtually unchecked immigration into other EU countries; and then, the open borders agreement as part of the EU has allowed too many undesirables into their small country, which in turn seriously burdens their social support structure without compensation from the EU or the countries that let the individuals into the EU in the first place. Denmark felt it had no choice but to institute border controls to regulate entry into their country. Does this sound familiar? This is where we are headed, if the Federal government does not control the borders and implement comprehensive immigration reform.

Now, we add Italy to the list of EU countries at risk in the on-going debt crisis. Does anyone else find it odd that all of the EU countries in trouble – Greece, Ireland, Portugal and now Italy (with Spain looming) – are all heavily socialist states? Could it be that socialism is a fair-weather friend, easily abused?

On Tuesday, on behalf of We, the People, President Barack Obama awarded the Medal of Honor to Sergeant First Class Leroy Arthur Petry, USA, 31, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty on 26.May.2008, as a Weapons Squad Leader with D Company, 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, in the vicinity of Paktya Province, Afghanistan.

I lifted this comment from our daughter-in-law’s Facebook page:
“Don’t like gay marriages? Don’t get one!
“Don’t like cigarettes? Don’t smoke them!
“Don’t like abortions? Don’t get one!
“Don’t like sex? Don’t have it!
“Don’t like drugs? Don’t do them!
“Don’t like porn? Don’t watch it!
“Don’t like alcohol? Don’t drink it!
“Don’t like guns? Don’t buy one!
“Don’t like your rights taken away??? Don’t take away someone else’s!!!”
I could keep going on a list like this. Distilled down to its basic elements, the equation is quite simple – let us all respect the choices of each individual citizen and their choices for “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.” We can object, be offended, or consider such activities sinful, morally reprehensible and flat wrong; but, that does not give us the right to intrude upon another citizen’s choices (as no one else’s person or property is injured or harmed). We have acquiesced to our representatives for generations and tolerated those damnable moral-projection laws; it is long past time for We, the People, to reassert our fundamental, unalienable rights. Freedom is freedom for all of us, or none of us are truly free.

“There is so much good in the worst of us,
and so much bad in the best of us,
that it ill behooves any of us to find fault with the rest of us.”
-- James Truslow Adams (American Historian, 1878-1949)

A continuation from a separate thread:
This is part of a reply sent by my Republican U.S. Representative, Steve Stivers [of Ohio], to one of my emails. Coming from a Republican, this looks hopeful.

[see below]

I'm not sure whether you would want to use this in your blog or not, but it seems to be an indicator of "which way the wind blows." I was particularly interested in the figure on people needing but not receiving rehabilitation annually. That surely exceeds any court-ordered programs for our state.
[Constituent response letter from Representative Stivers:]
“Thank you for your recent email regarding legalizing marijuana and for sharing your perspective. I appreciate hearing from you.
“There are several factors to consider when debating the issue of legalizing marijuana and the war on drugs. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) conducts an anonymous annual survey of 8th, 10th, and 12th-graders in the United States regarding their personal use of illicit drugs. Their findings from 2010 indicate that more 14-year-olds report using marijuana on a daily basis than at any point in the past ten years of the study.
“There are also issues to consider regarding the sentencing guidelines for non-violent drug offenses. The current U.S. punishment model for non-violent drug users contributes to overcrowded prisons in Ohio and across the country. The costs of incarcerating so many people vary from prison to prison, but a large portion of taxpayer dollars are consumed by locking up non-violent criminals. Other issues to consider in this discussion of legalizing marijuana include the treatment and prevention of addiction to illicit drugs. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, more than 200,000 Ohioans report needing but not receiving rehabilitation services for illicit drug use each year.
As you mentioned, Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced H.R. 2306 on June 23, 2011. This legislation seeks to limit the application of federal laws to the distribution and consumption of marijuana. It was referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee and House Judiciary Committee. I am not a member of those committees, but be assured I have noted your comments and should H.R. 2306 reach the House floor for a vote, I will keep your support in mind.”
. . . to which I replied:
I have no idea whether the data are correct, and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of Stivers’ comments / opinion. Now, we simply need to convince 434 other representatives and 100 senators to join Stivers.
As we discussed many times before, I have been in favor of helping those who truly seek to rid themselves of the shackles of addictive intoxication. I do not think incarceration is appropriate or effective for non-violent, non-injury-inflicting, substance abusers; in essence, they are only harming themselves. Likewise, I am not interested in contributing to an individual’s cycle of abuse . . . too much risk to others.
I hold no illusions that unraveling the obscene web of laws and consequences created by the foolish “war on drugs” will be easy or quick, but we must start somewhere, just like a huge knot of yarn . . . we start with one strand and work our way to conclusion.
. . . with this follow-up comment:
“I would not publish a private communication, but I don't see this one as private. It's a response by a public official to a constituent not known to him personally or via any business association, so I see it as essentially a public position.”
. . . and my follow-up reply:
No need to verify numbers, unless you want to; they are an interesting curiosity, but not really relevant to the discussion, i.e., need is present, magnitude irrelevant. I don't want that to sound harsh, just honest.
. . . along with this secondary follow-up comment:
“I fail to see how the magnitude could be irrelevant. The urgency of the issue, the money saved or spent, and the ultimate results of changing or failing to change all depend upon the magnitude of the need. If 20 people in a given state are turned away from treatment for lack of funding, that's sad for all of us and tragic for the 20 people. If 200,000 people are turned away, that's a major issue for law enforcement, prisons, victims of accidents and crimes, and the entire state budget as well as the 200,000 people whose lives might or might not be saved.”
. . . and my secondary follow-up reply:
My point was, whether 20 or 200,000, no one who seeks help should be denied the assistance they seek. I recognize it is easier said than done, but nonetheless, that is how I feel. Yes, the quantity does directly affect funding and infrastructure for such treatment. Like you, I want the huge amount of public treasury being spent on enforcement, prosecution and incarceration of non-violent users to be used for the treatment of those consumers who truly seek help. The number does not change my opinion.

Dozens of law-enforcement agencies from Massachusetts to Arizona are preparing to deploy controversial hand-held facial-recognition devices, raising more significant questions about privacy and civil liberties. Given the recent 4th Amendment exceptions ruling from SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) {see Davis [below]; King [495]}, does this little news tidbit make anyone else really uneasy? If the police can search your body, belongings, automobile or even your house, based on probable cause (even if that cause stems from a wrong address or an erroneous hit from a facial-recognition device), do we have any practical protection against search & seizure by the State? This sense of vulnerability and subservience is precisely what the Founders / Framers sought so strongly to avoid. Freedom is precious . . . and oh so fragile.

On an April evening in 2007, Willie Gene Davis was a passenger in an automobile being driven by Stella Owens in Greenville, Alabama. Police Sergeant Curtis Miller stopped the car for erratic driving. When Owens failed her field sobriety test, Miller asked Davis for his name. After a pause, Davis identified himself as “Ernest Harris.” Miller noticed Davis fidgeting with his jacket pockets and asked Davis to get out of the car. As Davis exited the vehicle, he started to take off his jacket. Officer Miller told him to leave it on, but Davis removed the jacket anyway and left it behind on the seat. Miller checked Davis for weapons and took him to the rear of the vehicle, where he asked a crowd of bystanders whether Davis’s name was really Ernest Harris. The bystanders gave Davis’s true name, which Miller verified with the police dispatcher, using Davis’s birth date. The police handcuffed both Owens (for driving under the influence) and Davis (for providing false name), and then placed the arrestees in the back of separate patrol cars. The police then searched the passenger compartment of Owens’s vehicle and found a revolver inside Davis’s jacket pocket. Davis was indicted and convicted in 2008, on one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Davis’s appeal and upheld his conviction. On 21.April.2009, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Arizona v. Gant [556 U.S. ___ (2009); no. 07-542] [385], which declared unconstitutional, violations of a citizen’s 4th Amendment rights against unwarranted search and seizure, searches by police after an individual is secured in custody, as was the case for Willie Davis. The Supreme Court chose to review the case – Davis v. United States [564 U.S. ___ (2011); no. 09-11328]. Davis sought to exclude the discovery of the pistol based on retrospective application of the Gant ruling. Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court. “Real deterrent value is a ‘necessary condition for exclusion,’ but it is not ‘a sufficient’ one. The analysis must also account for the ‘substantial social costs’ generated by the rule. Exclusion exacts a heavy toll on both the judicial system and society at large” (citations omitted). The Supremes decided that police acted in “good faith” to existing common law during the arrest and search, and affirmed the 11th Circuit’s ruling. Associate Justice Stephen Breyer dissented. “While conceding that, like the search in Gant, this search violated the Fourth Amendment; it holds that, unlike Gant, this defendant is not entitled to a remedy. That is because the Court finds a new ‘good faith’ exception which prevents application of the normal remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation, namely, suppression of the illegally seized evidence. Leaving Davis with a right but not a remedy, the Court ‘keep[s] the word of promise to our ear’ but ‘break[s] it to our hope.’” (Citations omitted.) I understand the Court’s reasoning, but I do not concur with their conclusion; Breyer saw it correctly. This so-called “good-faith exception” to the “exclusionary rule” is not respectful of the Fourth Amendment. I wonder, if Willie Davis had not been a convicted felon, would the opinion of the Court been different? I suspect so, which is probably why Alito raised the “substantial social costs” dimension. We can look at cases like Davis and simply discount the ruling; after all, most of us are not convicted felons, and beyond that, most of us do not carry firearms; so, how do cases like this apply to us? There is a fine line between proper State authority for the common good and abuse of power that reduces our rights and freedom to simple words on paper.

News from the economic front:
-- The People’s Republic of China's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth slowed to 9.5% year-to-year in the second quarter, from 9.7% growth in the first quarter.
-- Moody's Investors Service issued a warning notice that the Aaa credit rating of the U.S. Government (USG) is being reviewed for a possible downgrade. The next day, Standard & Poor’s announced a comparable warning for its AAA credit rating of the USG. The uncertainty stems from the continuing political nonsense going on inside the Beltway . . . politicians far more interested in parochial gain than the welfare of this Grand Republic.
-- The European Banking Authority examined the abilities of 90 top lenders across Europe to endure a deteriorating economy and strained financial system. The EU regulator said that eight banks flunked the “stress tests,” with a combined shortfall of €2.5B in capital under a simulated worst-case economic scenario, and another 16 banks narrowly passed. Last year, seven lenders failed with a combined capital deficit of €3.5B, but those tests were widely discredited for being overly lax and inconsistently enforced.

Comments and contributions from Update no.499:
“Well dang.
“Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen any recent comment of yours concerning the subject I will share with you now by sending you a copy of my most recent letter to the editor of the largest (but widely disparaged, highly liberal and Gannett owned) newspaper in Mississippi, The Clarion Ledger:
“Mike McCommell's oft-repeated and unfortunately by-partisan statement (Nobody is talking about not raising the debt ceiling.) is the problem! He's wrong, but then what can you expect from a Repandercrat! Many of us indeed are talking about not raising the national debt limit again and again and again. Although it has always been the simplest solution to the current budget crisis for both parties, it is not the right solution; indeed, it is no solution at all! I greatly fear that the Repandercrats will cave in to the mantra advanced by the Democrats, threatening default. The U.S. will not default. Interest payments will be made. The ONLY question is where the money will come from, and it should not come from more borrowing. I am not an economist, but I wish I were. With some suffixes after my name after the B.S. and J.D. and other credentials acceptable to the elite who control the press, maybe I could be heard along with the multitude of ordinary Americans who say ‘Enough is enough.’ I hope all of you will take time to make your voices heard, whether or not you are a Tea Party sympathizer. Yes, delays or cuts in government payments will be painful in 2011 and 2012 and maybe beyond those elections that the politicians want to get past before facing the music. However, the truth is that until we learn that borrowing to pay debts is economic suicide, we will continue down the path to destruction of our way of life, at the tragic expense of our descendants who will enjoy only such "freedom" as their owner (the government, and maybe not ours) allows.
“Your flaming Conserberal,”
My response:
You certainly raise good and valid points. “[B]orrowing to pay debts is economic suicide,” no matter how you cut it. I do agree that default is an inappropriate term to use in the nation-state context. However, financial metrics like debt ratio and such, determine bond ratings, which in turn establish the interest rate (risk) on any paper issued. Yes, we must get our total debt down. We are not in a sustainable mode, even for a country our side and with the resources we have.
That said, I do not think the situation is as dire as the politicians and Press suggest. Our financial stability is not threatened, but our position in the world economy is very much at risk; so, the long-term impact remains real.
The long & short of it, politicians have been spending precious Treasure at an obscene rate for more than a generation, and it must STOP! There are too many things the USG should NOT be doing and we are continuing to pay for that excess, simply because we have been doing so for decades. As you say, we are going to have to endure some pain to get the ship of state trimmed properly for the conditions we face. I understand using the debt limit as leverage to get the spending cuts we must make, but I do not understand the intransigence regarding revenue. When I pay a greater fraction of my income in taxes than another citizen who makes several orders of magnitude more than me, I have a hard time seeing that as fair. By the same token, I am not interested in robbing from the rich to pay the poor.

Another contribution:
“I, too, offer my congratulations to the US Women's Soccer Team. Missed the game, but I saw the highlights on ESPN. Holy crud, what a game and what a comeback. Brandi Chastain and Mia Hamm (or Mrs. Nomar, as I tend to call her, as she's married to one of my favorite baseball players, Nomar Garciaparra) both commented that their comeback is a perfect example of the American spirit, that we will fight and fight and keep fighting until the bitter end, no matter the odds. Sometimes, when you turn on the TV or read or watch the news and are bombarded by examples of apathy, of selfishness, of a lack of leadership from our political leaders, of seeing the traditions that have made this country great torn to shreds, you wonder if the American spirit does exist any more. Then you see what the US Women's Team did and you realize that yes, there are people who have that can-do, never-say-die spirit, and I bet it's in a lot more people than we realize. In addition, and being one who makes his living covering sports, what happened Sunday is another example of how women's sports has gained so much respectability in the last decade or two. I've covered plenty of women's sports over the years, and can tell you first-hand that many of the female athletes I have interviewed are just as competitive, as tough, and as hard-working as any male athlete. I've even had male athletes tell me there are certain female athletes they would not want to go up against because they would kick their butts.
“The end of an era with the space shuttle. This must be what it was like between 1972-1981. Thank you, President Useless, for ending the Shuttle program and not having a replacement vehicle ready and not even giving a damn about the space program. Then again, as Casey Stengal said after the 1962 New York Mets season of 40-120, "No one man was responsible for this, this was a team effort." NASA leadership also needs to take the blame here. To me, our manned space program has been rudderless for many years. Where is the bold, clear-cut initiative of those guys laying out a plan that says Moon and Mars by such and such a date? President Bush had one speech about going to Mars, which many of the Dems ridiculed just because, and then Bush said nothing more of it and, as usual, never responded to his critics. NASA and D.C., pardon my French, get your fingers out of your asses and take us to Mars!
“I'm with you on the police and jacking up their weapons and capabilities. The bad guys are getting much better weapons than the cops. What does this writer want? Our cops to take on AK-47s with .38 revolvers? You're right. Weapons and gear are tools, and how they are used depends on the person wielding them. I know plenty of cops and plenty of ex-military people, and using their arsenals to oppress citizens and turn the USA into a police state is not something that crosses their minds. That is something that cannot be said in many other countries across the world. For the writer of that article to say that all US citizens are considered enemy combatants by law enforcement and that many of us are living in a police state strikes me as a combination of hysteria and ignorance, or at the worst, stupidity and just pure hatred of the police.
“Much as I can't stand the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, they did get this one right. It is not the state's business to determine what video games kids can and can't have. I remember being 8-years-old and going to the arcades on the boardwalk at the Jersey Shore and playing this bazooka game where you blew up everything on the screen. That included ambulances and stretcher bearers, even though my Dad told me not to shoot them because you lose points. But I blew them up anyway. And guess what? All those years of playing blow up everything in sight video games, all those years of watching ‘violent" cartoons/anime like ‘Star Blazers’ and ‘Battle of the Planets’ did not turn me into an unfeeling, unempathetic, delusional psychopath bent on taking out a Walmart with an assault rifle. I knew what the difference was between reality and make believe. I knew killing animated people on a video screen was OK, and doing it in real-life was not OK, and I think most kids out there understand that, too.”
My reply:
Re: women’s sports. Great observations. Thx. I’ve watched that last crossing shot and header . . . I don’t know how many times, and I have not reach my limit.
Re: space program. I believe the decision to end the shuttle program was taken by Bush 43, not Obama. Yes, I suspect we are heading into a period like 1972-1981, as you noted. Bush set the Mars objective, but he did not articulate why. President Kennedy’s Moon speech was inspirational, stimulating, and most of all uplifting. No president since has helped We, the People, see and understand the “why.” We must go to Mars, just like we had to cross the Mississippi and the Rocky Mountains. We must go beyond our Solar System.
Re: police up-gunning. When you distill out the political rhetoric and ideology, I think Khalek was trying to express an underlying concern for the government’s continuing encroachment upon our rights and freedoms. If true, I share that concern, which is precisely why I continue to read so many court rulings. IMHO, the government has gone too far, and we need realignment.
Re: SCOTUS & video games. We are agreed. Unfortunately, the Roberts’ Court is not likely to make the jump I suggest. We must change the law, but that is not likely to happen in the current environment of national debt, the War on Islamic Fascism, and the foolish political parochialism that paralyzes our ability to negotiate and compromise. I think you hit the point precisely. Spot on! Your parents taught you well how to see right from wrong, real from make-believe, non-fiction from fiction; regrettably, not all parents have done so. Very well said, my friend.

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

Update no.499

Update from the Heartland

No.499

4.7.11 – 10.7.11

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

To all,
Congratulations to the American women. What a fantastic quarterfinals match!! A perfect header in the last minute of stoppage time, on injury time, on extra time (121:19) to tie it up; then 5-3 in penalty kicks to defeat the Brazil side. I think the world must have heard me yell! I scared the dogs . . . poor things. It was an ugly match, not pretty, but the ladies got ‘er done.

The follow-up news items:
-- On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals removed their stay of a district court’s permanent injunction of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the case of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States [456, 457, 461], which means the appeals court de facto ordered an immediate end to enforcement of the law. This ruling may well push the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The final launch of the space shuttle program was not without drama. Despite weather concerns, a near flawless countdown stopped at T-00:00:31 – the moment ground computers were to hand off launch control to Atlantis’ on-board computers. They needed to use movable video cameras to confirm the proper retraction of the Gaseous Vent Arm (GVA) – the cap and gantry arm at the top of the external fuel tank. As a result, they took off three minutes late. The 12-day delivered a resupply module with consumables for one year of operations. The STS-135 mission is the 33rd flight for Atlantis. I witnessed the end of the Apollo Moon missions in 1972. There was doubt about the future of manned space flight back then, just as there is today. Space exploration will continue; it must continue.
A URL for a video montage of shuttle history:
http://www.cnn.com/video/ - /video/us/2011/02/23/nat.132.launches.132.seconds.cnn?iref=allsearch

Our 14-year-old granddaughter Aspen Shae observed, “Didn’t report her daughter missing until 31 days after it happened, yet still not guilty? That’s crap!” Well said, Aspen Shae. However, being found “not guilty” by a jury of our peers does NOT mean the accused is innocent; it simply means the State did not present sufficient evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt” to find her guilty. It also means the accused cannot be tried for that crime, again – double jeopardy. Such is the risk using only circumstantial evidence in capital murder cases. I would bet a dollar to donuts the jury believes she probably murdered little 2-year-old Caylee, but they know the State did not offer sufficient evidence to overcome “reasonable doubt.” The judicial system worked properly, as it should for the protection of all of us. Nonetheless, I hope “that woman” lives a long and very hard life. I also suspect (like O.J.) she will violate the law again (and hopefully, not get away with it).

A friend and regular contributor sent along this essay for comment:
“Why Do the Police Have Tanks? The Strange and Dangerous Militarization of the US Police Force – The federal government has supplied local police departments with military uniforms, weaponry, vehicles, and training”
by Rania Khalek
AlterNet.org
Posted: July 5, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/world/151528
To which, I replied:
Interesting perspective.
As I am want to do in such situations, I try to check pivotal details as much to test the veracity of the author’s statements as the structure of her argument, and of course, I always learn.
Khalek claims the turning point was “the Posse Comitatus Amendment on December 1, 1981 (Public Law 97-86).” Well, PL 97-086 is actually the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1982 [95 Stat. 1099], and I can find no reference to the “Posse Comitatus Amendment,” or “Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Act,” or anything even remotely close to “military use in drug enforcement.” Now, on the flip side, I remember press reports to that effect from that era, so I’m sure there is some interpretation out there; I just cannot find it in the law.
Khalek also points to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 [PL 104-201, 110 Stat. 2422], which does include Title X — General Provisions; Subtitle C — Counter-Drug Activities, which in turn includes Sec. 1033 – Transfer of excess personal property to support law enforcement activities. In the language of the law, I do not see anything untoward or even remotely conspiratorial. There is no “Law Enforcement Support Program” in the law that I could find.
My degree of skepticism mounts rapidly when I read liberal interpretations of the law or worse erroneous representations of the law, since most folks will not read the law for themselves, and if so inclined, they will accept the arguments based on those misrepresentations, with nothing to challenge the veracity of the overlaying opinions.
Police have been “up-gunning” for quite some time when faced with criminals using automatic weapons, rocket grenades and explosives. Like the circular argument in gun control, military equipment is simply a tool; how the police use the tool is the issue, not the type of tool they use. I want the police to have the best tools available, and I want them trained well to use them properly.
[Just an FYI side note: I suspect there is much more to the Aiyana Mo'Nay Stanley-Jones story than we have been told. I have a hard time digesting Khalek’s coloration of the event.]
Khalek said, “We have created circumstances under which the American people are no longer individuals protected by the Bill of Rights, but rather ‘enemy combatants.’” Really? “Enemy combatants?” She went on to conclude, “What might the end result be if the distinction between police and military ceases to exist? The answer is a police state -- and certain segments of our society are already living in one.” I share her concern for our most fundamental freedoms and rights; however, I cannot accept her translation of that concern. Are there bad police? Yes, as there are bad citizens. Regardless, to color all police as hell-bent on oppressing We, the People, is simply a gross overstatement and flat wrong.

Another article for comment:
“Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore Using Dodgy Statistics to Fuel Child Sex Slavery Panic – Throwing wildly inflated numbers around doesn't help young people avoid falling into the horrific world of prostitution”
by Joshua Holland
AlterNet.org
Posted: July 5, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/news/151530
To which I replied:
Holland makes a very good point that applies to so many social topics. So many advocates seem to feel the only way to punctuate their arguments is with exaggerated statistics. The technique works well, especially on those citizens who do not care about fundamental details, or are predisposed to the object of the argument, or have not taken the time to think through the particular issue at hand.
I have no doubt there are children who are truly abducted or forced into slavery . . . for common labor or sexual servitude. Yet, exaggeration does not serve any cause well in the information age. Like so many issues, so much hangs upon definitions, context, conditions and perceptions.
I also recognize and acknowledge that American society is extraordinarily uncomfortable talking about sex . . . any aspect about sex. Since the days of the Salem witch trials (1692), American society has been schizophrenic about sex. Since the time of Anthony Comstock (1844 – 1915) and the Victorian era, moralists among us have imposed their schizophrenia on We, the People, via the law, often via federal law, e.g., Comstock Act of 1873 [PL 43-258], White Slave Traffic Act of 1910 [PL 61-277], et al. My opinions of all the morality laws in this Grand Republic are well known; ‘nuf said.
I share Holland’s objection, but I must declare he did not go after the root cause – parental accountability. I suspect that some children in this country are truly forced into sexual slavery. Yet, instead of focusing on the genuine abducted and enslaved, we expand our outrage to all children exposed to sex prior to their 18th birthday. What is missing is parental accountability in this equation. Further, we must mature as a culture to support a citizen’s right to choose their “pursuit of Happiness,” to accept that sex is an important and relevant part of life, and to allow parents to make decisions for their children, even those we may not like or agree with ourselves. We may be offended by even the thought of minors exposed to sex, but that does not give us the right to impose our offense on other families who view life differently. We must focus on the genuine injury, not our moral effrontery.

A relevant opinion from a noted author:
“Is Sex Passé?”
by Erica Jong
New York Times

Published: July 9, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/opinion/sunday/10sex.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

In 2005, California Assembly Bill 1179 made the sale of violent video games to minors (<18yo) a felony. The gaming industry preemptively sought an injunction against enforcement, based on their opinion that the law was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. A Federal district court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared CA AB1179 unconstitutional. The divided Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ judgment – Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association [564 U.S. ___ (2011); no. 08–1448]. Associate Justice Scalia wrote for the Court and stated, “No doubt a State possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm . . . but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.” The Entertainment Merchants case illuminated a critical and significant dichotomy with the Supreme Court and as a reflection of American society. Associate Justice Thomas dissented and went into an uncharacteristically expansive treatise on childhood development and parental responsibility. He used the argument to justify the State’s interjection into the child’s life and education on behalf of the child and the parents. Interesting argument. Although he did not explicitly state it, his reasoning clearly implies that he is quite comfortable with the substitution of the State’s moral values for those of the parents. Associate Justice Breyer also dissented and noted, “But what sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her? What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman--bound, gagged, tortured, and killed--is also topless?” Breyer also offers long appendixes of reported scholarly studies that document the damage done on youthful development by violent video games. While I concur with the Court’s conclusion, I do not agree with their reasoning. In fact, I am disappointed with how meagerly shallow the Court was in its logic. Several justices noted parental dominance in childhood development; however, none of the justices even acknowledged the importance of parental accountability. Some parents teach their children to differentiate between violence for hunting sustenance versus the violence of war versus violence upon the public. Like so many things, some children learn to make good decisions, to respect other human beings and animals for that matter, to use firearms properly and safely, and to differentiate between video animation and real life. The issue in this instance is actions – not thoughts, entertainment, or exposure. I will argue it is far better to actively teach children how to evaluate and discern topics of life, like alcohol, violence, drugs, sex, politics, et al.

Another relevant opinion:
“Sex and the Supremes”
by Timothy Egan
New York Times
Published: July 7, 2011, 8:30 pm
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/sex-and-the-supremes/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1
Egan’s opinion is starkly supported in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.

News from the economic front:
-- The People's Bank of China announced it will raise the one-year yuan lending rate to 6.56% from 6.31%, and the one-year yuan deposit rate to 3.50% from 3.25%, as the central bank seeks to reign in growth with its fifth rate increase in the latest round of tightening.
-- The Department of Labor reported the U.S. economy added only 18,000 jobs in June. Private company, nonfarm payrolls added 57,000 jobs in June, from a revised gain of 73,000 in May, while government agencies have been shedding jobs as they grapple with budget pressures. The unemployment rate rose to 9.2 percent from 9.1 percent in May. The report showed the continuing jobs challenges, two years after the official end of the longest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

No comments and contributions from Update no.498.

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

Update no.498

Update from the Heartland

No.498

27.6.11 – 3.7.11

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

To all,
Happy Independence Day . . . to celebrate the efforts of our forefathers, as they began our separation from the British Crown. Just a mere 235 years ago, the glorious Declaration was signed and became the symbol of freedom for this Grand Republic. Jeanne will read the Declaration aloud this year, even though our children, grandchildren and friends will not be able to join us for the celebration. Happy Birthday Americans!

The follow-up news items:
-- On Monday, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for:
Muammar Muhammad Qaddafi [237 & sub],
his son Seif al-Islam Muammar Qaddafi [489] and
his brother-in-law and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanoussi.
The ICC charged them with crimes against humanity in the Libyan leader's four-month battle to cling to power. In response, Qaddafi threatens to attack Europe, as he did in the late 80’s . . . of course, why not. Then, the Associated Press reported that the African Union asked its member nations to ignore the warrant. I have mixed opinions on the ICC action, but hey . . . iacta alea est.
-- After Leon Panetta was confirmed as SecDef [497], General David Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate [vote: 94-to-0] to succeed Panetta as Director of Central Intelligence. Of course, Panetta’s predecessor offered some words of counsel.
“The Peril Of Deep Defense Cuts – Our country has taken an axe to the national security budget after every war of the 20th century. And every time we later regretted it.”
by Donald Rumsfeld
Wall Street Journal
Published: July 1, 2011; pg. 15
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584004576416271311589238.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

Abortion has long been a hot-button topic, especially here in Kansas, where state politics have been dominated by social conservatives for a long time. So it continues. The Kansas legislature passed and on Monday, 16 May 2011, Governor (former senator) Sam Brownback signed into law SB36 – an act concerning abortion; relating to licensure of abortion clinics, which became effective on 1.July.2011. Using the new law, the state government has refused to issue licenses to the three remaining clinics in the state without an inspection or even the courtesy of some other sliver of interaction.
“State closing clinics”
Editorial
Wichita Eagle
Posted: Wednesday, June 29, 2011
http://www.kansas.com/2011/06/29/1913066/state-closing-clinics.htmlWe know the state is well intentioned in their endeavor to banish and forbid the legal practice of abortion, and perfectly willing to condemn women to the back-alley butchers of many decades ago. I appreciate the frustration of lawmakers who seek to eradicate the medical procedure known as abortion, as well as their unwillingness to find a mutually supportive compromise solution. Instead, the power majority takes the bludgeon to an unfortunate minority. This episode is a perfect example of what the Founders / Framers sought to avoid – a willful majority denying rights to a hapless minority. And, they wonder why so many of us do not trust government. Licensing is an important regulatory function for government; however, when that process is used as a political tool to oppress a minority, it is as wrong and repulsive as the Jim Crow laws were.

As noted previously, I endeavor to remain clear of commenting on criminal activity for a host of reasons. Occasionally, I cannot resist. So it is in the sordid case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK). He stood accused of sexually assaulting a housekeeper in a New York City hotel. I imagine the police and prosecutors developed suspicions regarding the credibility of the “victim,” so much so they searched the jail recordings of her boyfriend, who is detained in Arizona for apparent immigration violation(s). Fortunately or unfortunately depending on your perspective, the “victim” is recorded telling her boyfriend, “Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing.” There are no ways to cut this in a positive manner. I do not know what happened in that hotel room, but we do know DSK left a deposit. We do not know what happened surrounding that event. Based on the publicly available information, I do not think the housekeeper was an innocent victim. Conversely, regardless of the housekeeper’s motive(s), DSK hardly demonstrated a modicum of self-control, discretion or differentiation worthy of a corporate or national leader, but none of that is a crime.

In March 2003, FBI agents apprehended Abdullah al-Kidd (née Lavoni Kidd – a native-born, U.S. citizen, former University of Idaho football star, and Muslim convert – as he checked in for a flight to Saudi Arabia at Kennedy Airport, New York. The FBI executed a material-witness warrant issued in Boise, Idaho, for al-Kidd in the prosecution of Sami Omar al-Hussayen – a Saudi graduate student at the University of Idaho, accused of creating and running a website in support of terrorism. Al-Kidd remained in federal custody for 16 days under harsh conditions, subjected to intense interrogation, and then on supervised release until al-Hussayen's trial concluded 14 months later. Al-Kidd was never called as a witness. Al-Hussayen was tried, acquitted, and eventually deported to Saudi Arabia. In March 2005, al-Kidd filed what the lawyers call a Bivens action {see Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents [403 U.S. 388 (1971)] [417]}, to challenge the constitutionality of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft's alleged policy, allowing what the Court called “pretextual use of the material-witness statute” – i.e., using the statute to detain and interrogate a citizen who may be a suspect, but the government has insufficient evidence to hold under criminal charges. The law at issue was the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 [PL 98-473; 98 Stat. 1982], specifically, Title II, Chap. I, Sec. 203(a), §3144 (18 U.S.C. §3144). Ashcroft v. al-Kidd [564 U.S. ___ (2011); no. 10-98] reversed and remanded the appeals court’s finding that the Attorney General’s application of 18 U.S.C. §3144 in al-Kidd’s case was unconstitutional. Associate Justice Scalia wrote for the unanimous Court, reversing on narrow technical grounds in that the Attorney General enjoyed absolute immunity, which precluded further consideration of the more serious issue; thus, the Supremes dodged the constitutional question. Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor wrote concurring opinions to cast a dark cloud over the government’s conduct in the al-Kidd case – a sort of warning shot across the bow. Unfortunately, we do not have access to the government’s evidence against al-Kidd. However, from the reflection seen in the Court’s observations, it does not appear that the government acted honorably. Associate Justice Ginsburg said it best as she concluded, al Kidd’s “ordeal is a grim reminder of the need to install safeguards against disrespect for human dignity, constraints that will control officialdom even in perilous times.” I have consistently advocated for aggressive prosecution of the War on Islamic Fascism. I suspect Lavoni Kidd was not an innocent bystander, but that does not give the government the right to ignore the Constitution and abuse citizens in the name of national security. The last time I checked, the 4th Amendment supersedes common law, even if the Supremes choose to look the other way.

News from the economic front:
-- The International Monetary Fund executive board elected French finance minister Christine Madeleine Odette Lagarde, née Lallouette, to be managing director, over Mexican central bank governor, Agustín Guillermo Carstens, to replace disgraced Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
-- After weeks of civil unrest in Athens primarily, the Parliament of the Hellenes approved the unpopular but necessary €28B (US$40B), five-year austerity package of spending cuts and tax increases. The European Union and International Monetary Fund demanded the austerity measures pass before they approve the release of a €12B loan installment from last year's rescue package. I do not know the details or history of the Greek economic crisis; however, to my lay knowledge, I think the genesis rests in the banking fiasco that affects all of us, and to a large extent, the socialist mindset that has existed for decades in the country. The Greeks have lived outside their means for all those decades. That said, I suspect a substantial portion of the violence and unrest in Athens comes from anarchists simply using the situation to cause trouble, to instigate government reaction for their unilateral purposes. A friend sent this relevant article:
“Greece can share Byng’s fate”
by Martin Hutchinson
Asia Times
Published: June 29, 2011
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/MF29Dj01.html
For those who may not read the article or recognize the name . . . on 14.March.1757, the Royal Navy executed Admiral John Byng, RN, by firing squad on the deck of the captured French warship Monarque in Portsmouth Harbor – the first & only British admiral executed for cowardice in battle. He was blamed for the loss of the Battle of Minorca (20.May.1756) and the island. Point taken, I do believe.

The Blago Scandal [365]:
-- On Monday, a jury convicted former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich on 18 of 20 counts of trying to sell or trade President Barack Obama's old Senate seat and other corruption charges. The panel deliberated for nine days following the retrial of Blago. I expect he will be sentenced to an appropriate prison term, and he will undoubtedly appeal his conviction.

Comments and contributions from Update no.497:
Comment to the Blog:
“We agree on the futility, harm, and expense of the “war on drugs,” but disagree on the value of addiction treatment. For me, a history of success trumps any intellectual exercise. History shows that treatment has a much better record than imprisonment. While judicial orders do not work perfectly, experience shows they do work for some addicts. The history of Prohibition, Repeal, and the treatment of alcoholics illustrates the relative success of treatment.
“Beyond that specific issue, treatment in general has helped alcoholics and addicts well enough to deserve funding. One thing you might not know is that demand for treatment far exceeds funding. Picture a desperate addict finally willing to undergo treatment being told that no bed is available but that he should check back daily at 8 a.m. for a couple of weeks and maybe a bed will come open. Interventions on TV don’t work that way; the addict is rushed to treatment the day of the intervention because he or she can rarely remain committed for any length of time without actually receiving treatment. Treatment works well when the addict is ready, but the timing matters.
“Also, I always advocate for public education as part of any effort to reduce usage because of the long-term success it has demonstrated against tobacco. The ‘there’s nothing society can do about addiction’ argument opposes actual results for other addictive chemicals.”
My reply to the Blog:
Re: “war on drugs.” Respectfully, I do not believe we disagree on the value of treatment programs. I truly believe treatment programs are far more effective than incarceration for the substance abuser (addict). Nonetheless, based on my experience, knowledge and awareness, my point was, neither incarceration nor treatment have any hope of success if the individual himself has not convinced himself he must change. I think we are all keenly aware of the gross recidivism among users. Any program that does not recognize that fundamental reality is just more wasted money (public and private). The truly hard part in treating any addiction is knowing what is in a person’s soul, i.e., are they truly ready for sobriety? Redemption or saving a soul is in God’s domain, not ours; my concern is the elimination of the horrendous collateral damage often inflicted by an individual’s substance abuse.
Re: substance abuse treatment. Yes, absolutely; there are successful treatment programs, and plenty of citizens who have been helped successfully by treatment programs. If demand exceeds funding, I would be in favor of diverting funding from prosecution of consumers, directly to treatment services. However, I must question the bona fide demand. I would not include anyone who seeks treatment for other than personal, individual, private choice. I cannot support court ordered treatment, or family interventions, or angry parents, or treatment to avoid prosecution. I believe that only personal choice has any prayer of success. Freedom is about choices, not about being forced to do something you do not want to do.
Re: public education. I see this element in the context of informed consent, just as we did with alcohol, tobacco, and I believe we should do with pubescent sex education. The educating of children on the attractions and damage of substance abuse, as well as the illumination of public collateral damage, will go a long way to preparing children to avoid addiction. “Just say no” was a naïve, myopic and fanciful program as an avoidance mechanism.
. . . with follow-up comment:
“We cannot determine anyone's motivation with any reliability. Believing that people who find themselves in deep legal trouble are not ready for recovery has no more likelihood of being accurate than believing they are. We pretty much have to take their word for it. That method has serious and obvious flaws, but no better method is available. Thus, determining a ‘bona fide’ quality to demand for treatment will not become possible in the foreseeable future.
“The procedure I mentioned (‘call at 8 a.m. every day and maybe a bed will come open’) is what happened to two different people I know personally. It appears to be standard procedure here in Columbus, OH. Neither of these people was involved with either the court system or any other ‘intervention’ procedure.
“I'm not sure what you mean by ‘the context of informed consent.’ I will note that a genetic component has been clearly demonstrated in addiction, so "informed consent" may be more complex than it seems at first glance. All the same, programs focusing on education in various formats have apparently succeeded with tobacco and, to a degree, with alcohol. I do not have specific statistics at hand; they are available to anyone who cares to do the research. ‘Just Say No’ was not education but misguided oversimplification.”
. . . and my follow-up reply:
Re: motivation. Precisely! Like so many forcing functions, such as “deep legal trouble,” they are external inducements, not internal motivation. I think we will get closer to an individual’s genuine choice, which is precisely why I advocate for a more tolerant environment for the user. Although, I must admit that doing anything other than what we are doing is bound to be better.
I am sorry your acquaintances could not find help when they sought it. Hopefully, things will change.
Re: informed consent. Your point is well taken. Some addicts are predisposed, genetically predisposed, to the seduction of psychotropic substances. Others fall into addiction for a host of other reasons. My use of informed consent is similar to alcohol and tobacco . . . helping children and adults understand the “pro’s & con’s” of intoxication and perhaps appreciate the rules for safe use and no collateral damage / injury. That is what I mean by informed consent.

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