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 :-)