05 September 2011

Update no.507

Update from the Heartland
No.507
29.8.11 – 4.9.11
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The gift that just keeps giving . . . conservative Kansas politicians versus a woman’s freedom of choice – SB36 [498], an act concerning abortion, relating to licensure of abortion clinics.
“Kansas To Pursue Strict Abortion Licensing Regulations Despite Court Injunction”
by Igor Volsky - Associated Press
Wichita Eagle
Posted: July 5, 2011 at 9:01 am
U.S. District Judge Carlos Murguia of Kansas issued a preliminary injunction against the State of Kansas to block the enforcement of SB36, while it is under judicial review. Of course, Governor Sam Brownback is not about to be dissuaded in his morale crusade. He directed the state to withhold disbursement of Federal funds for Planned Parenthood; then, U.S. District Judge Thomas Marten of Kansas ordered the state to reinstate payments.
“Planned Parenthood funds in Kansas restored by federal judge”
by Brad Cooper - The Kansas City Star
Wichita Eagle
Posted on Wed, Aug. 31, 2011
http://www.kansas.com/2011/08/31/1995877/planned-parenthood-funds-in-kansas.html
My letter to the editor of the Wichita Eagle:
Politicians like Sam Brownback are flabbergasted and dumbfounded by citizen accusations that they are untrustworthy, deceitful, verging on felonious, and they wonder in utter ignorance why people do not trust government. Phill Kline has the audacity and arrogance to claim before his state supreme court chartered ethics hearing that deceptions and falsehoods are acceptable in the pursuit of his political agenda and jaundiced interpretation of the law. When politicians like Brownback and Kline allow their personal, political ideology to consume and cloud their reasoning, the rest of us must inevitably endure the obscene abuse of power. They demonstrate considerable comfort in subverting well-intentioned law to impose their moral values and judgment on all citizens. Moral-projectionist politicians invariably claim divine encouragement, support and obligation to use whatever means possible to carry out their crusade. Conversely, they suggest that for them to not act as they do would be tantamount to liberals imposing their deviant values on them. What they consistently fail to recognize or acknowledge are the founding principles of this Grand Republic that freedom of choice along with a fundamental right to privacy are essential elements to our individual and collective Liberty. This Grand Republic has never been based on majority rule and the domination of one active group over others. Freedom belongs to all of us, or ultimately none of us will have it. Let us all respect the freedom every citizen of this Grand Republic should enjoy.
-- In last week’s Update [506], I surmised the blame-game regarding the Air France Flight 447 (AF447) [391, 493] accident was contained. Au contraire, mon ami. After the BEA released its 3rd interim report [502], the speculation regarding cause factors has taken on unfortunate and ridiculous dimensions, and one article appears to have triggered the burgeoning accusations.
“Pilots' addiction to automation a danger”
by Joan Lowy - Associated Press
Wichita Eagle
Posted on Wed, Aug. 31, 2011
http://www.kansas.com/2011/08/31/1995625/pilots-addiction-to-automation.html
That was followed by more speculation within the aviation community.
“Should Airline Pilots Fly More -- Or Less?”
by Mary Grady
AvWeb – (self-professed) World’s Premier Independent Aviation News Resource
Posted: August 31, 2011
http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/ShouldAirlinePilotsFlyMoreOrLess_205308-1.html
On the same day, news outlets of all media released similar stories virtually accusing pilots of forgetting how to fly. The involvement of automation, or rather failure modes, as a contributing factor in the AF447 accident remains a significant unknown. It is easy for folks, including some professed experts, to point their accusatory fingers at the pilots. I urge anyone who will listen to not be so reckless or quick to judge. Let us wait until we see the BEA’s final report and can review the data that substantiates their findings before we make such rash indictments. I offer as corroborating evidence the near cataclysmic debate in the late 1970’s, early 1980’s, when a substantial number of airline pilots screamed bloody murder at the notion of taking away their conventional “steam gauges” for integrated, digital displays. The convulsions rose with intensity when automated flight controls were added to the mix. Clearly, there are still pilots to this day who believe the only thing they can trust is steam gauges and control cables linking them directly to the control surfaces. While I have already raised a deficiency in modern, integrated, situation awareness, display technology – namely the lack of continuous, primary, angle of attack indication – the failure of a primary data source (total pressure, i.e., airspeed) began a cascade of events that led to impact. I am not ready to indict contemporary pilot training, just yet either. The contribution of automated flight control systems to the AF447 outcome must be resolved first. Concomitantly, pointing at the pilots with essential information still not public is verging on irresponsible, even if some experienced pilots are willing to make such accusations to the Press. Every pilot is taught from the get-go to FLY THE AIRPLANE FIRST, then sort out whatever the problem(s) may be plaguing a particular aircraft or flight. Aviation history is replete with examples of pilots who violated that most basic axiom of flight. Continental Express Flight 3407 [374] on approach to Buffalo (12.February.2009) being a recent example. The AF447 pilots may go into that infamous bucket eventually, but it is premature and wrong to go there at this juncture.

Aslan Soobzokov sent the following update in his continuing efforts to find justice for his father – Tscherim Soobzokov.
“Please recall that a horrible article appeared in The Record newspaper [of Northern New Jersey] about my father in November 2011. They refused to discuss a retraction and were quite arrogant. Attached is the result. Today is my father's birthday.
“Kindly feel welcome to comment.
“Peace to you and your family, my brother.”
Attached: Soobzokov v. The Record, date-stamped by the court clerk on 24.August.2010, in Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County – a defamation claim against the newspaper and those associated with the paper or article.
My reply:
I have no experience or knowledge of cases such as yours. I noted your complaint was filed a year ago. Has there been any progress with the case?
I remember reading a British case that has some similarities to your case, and may offer some supportive arguments.
Mosley v. News Group {[2008] EWHC 1777 (QB); Case No: HQ08X01303} [346]
It seems to me that such complaints against the Press have a rather high threshold for success. However, as you noted, the Press cannot defame citizens without substance, which the newspaper has not offered or provided. It is unreasonable and unfair that the Press forces you to defend your family.
Please keep us informed as your case progresses. Good luck.
Aslan’s follow-up comment:
“May peace be with you and your family, as with you the members of your listserv.
“The complaint was just filed on August 24, 2011. The story was printed in November 2010. There is a one-year statute of limitations in New Jersey. August 24 just happens to be my father's birthday.
“The appeal to the federal case is ongoing however. I am waiting for a briefing schedule from the third circuit court of appeals and thereafter I will file a brief in support of the appeal.
“Are you getting confused on me brother...?
“May almighty God be with you and your family brother.”
. . . and my reply to Aslan’s follow-up:
Thank you for your kind words.
The county court clerk needs to check his date stamp; he stamped your complaint with the received and filed date as AUG 24 2010.
What is the basis of your appeal to the 3rd Circuit?
No confusion; just trying to keep up with you.

“Sex Tax Machine Introduced for Bonn Prostitutes”
Der Spiegel
Published: 30.August.2011
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,783438,00.html#ref=nlint
Prostitution has been legal in Germany since 2002 (unbeknownst to me, I might add); it was tolerated in the Netherlands for decades and legalized in 2000. I do not know sufficient details of the Dutch or German laws to form a strong opinion; however, what I have been able to learn suggests their laws are much closer to the laissez-faire legalization end of the spectrum rather than the regulated end. The Dutch have had problems with “other criminal activity” attaching itself with the legitimate business. As noted in the Der Spiegel article, several German cities have struggled with control of streetwalkers or freelancers. Most folks who are even remotely familiar with the business of prostitution know the plethora of associated criminal activity that comes with prostitution, e.g., illicit drugs, extortion, human trafficking, assault and battery, venereal disease, et cetera. Like most “sinful” pursuits in our moral-projectionist society, prohibition is the root cause of more serious criminal activity simply because it forces the “attractive” element underground, out-of-sight, where organized crime can flourish. The Dutch are beginning to retrench, closing some of the looser establishments and practices, which will undoubtedly be interpreted as a failure of legalization. In isolation, such an indictment would be true prima facie. However, I respectfully submit, neither the Dutch nor the Germans have gone far enough to regulate the sex trade. First and foremost, our laws must protect the health, security, safety and freedom of customers as well as practitioners. The process is usually executed with licensing, standards and inspections, so that traceable records are maintained, privacy protected, and history developed. Sex workers should be licensed and covered under the law for their health, safety and prosperity as well as their customers. Even with legalization AND regulation, like other emotionally inflammatory activities like abortion or drugs, some citizens will see condemnation and de facto prohibition as their moral crusade rather than acknowledge and accept that not every citizen agreed with their particular freedom of choice. The long & short of it is, as long as no one is injured (the objective of regulation), if you do not like something, don’t do it, but leave other citizens who do not agree with you alone to enjoy their particular freedom of choice.
{NOTE: The BUFAS organization noted in the article is actually the Bündnis der Fachberatungsstellen für Sexarbeiterinnen und Sexarbeiter (BUFAS eV) [Alliance of Professional Counseling Services for Sex Workers] – a national advocacy group for sex workers of all types.}

I note this review for your notation and critical inquiry.
“Purists Gone Wild”
by Timothy Egan
New York Times
Posted: September 1, 2011, 8:30 pm
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/01/purists-gone-wild/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1
Ken Burns’ latest documentary series “Prohibition” premieres 2/3/4.October.2011, at 20:00 on your local PBS station.

On Friday, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator Cass R. Sunstein sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson suspending an important change to the air quality requirements. The issue immediately at hand is the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone that became a Federal regulation on Thursday, 27.March.2008, as delineated in the Federal Register, vol. 73, no. 60, pp. 16436-16514. The 1st paragraph of the Sunstein letter reads, “On July 11, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted a draft final rule, “Reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” for review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) under Executive Orders 13563 and 12866. The President has instructed me to return this rule to you for reconsideration. He has made it clear that he does not support finalizing the rule at the time.” The letter has caused quite a disturbance in the Force as noted below. Being President of the United States of America never has been, is not, and never will be an easy job. While the President’s action is disappointing, it is certainly understandable in the context of contemporary economic and political circumstances.

Our youngest son, the deputy sheriff, and I have engaged in a long running discussion / debate regarding the nuances of the 4th Amendment, protecting citizens from unreasonable search and seizure of their person and/or property by any agent of the State. One of the historic Supreme Court cases that define the constitutional rights of citizens was Weeks v. United States [232 U.S. 383 (1914); no. 461]. So the story goes, on 21.December.1911, a police officer arrested Fremont Weeks, a U.S. citizen and resident of Missouri, in Union Station, Kansas City, Missouri, his place of employment, working for an express company. At the same time, other police officers went to Weeks’ house. After being told by a neighbor where the spare key was kept, they entered his house, searched his room, and took possession of various papers and articles found there, which were afterwards turned over to the United States marshal. Later the same day, expecting to find additional evidence, police officers returned to Weeks’ house, were admitted by someone in the house, probably a boarder, and seized additional personal property. Weeks petitioned the court for return and exclusion of his private property as a violation of his constitutional rights under the 4th and 5th Amendments. The trial and appeals courts denied his petition. What was the heinous crime Fremont Weeks was charged with, you ask, that justified the aggressive State enforcement measures? The Federal government charged Weeks with and convicted him of violating §213, 1909 [Federal] Criminal Code [PL 60-321; 35 Stat. 1129], to wit, “the use of the mails for the purpose of transporting certain coupons or tickets representing chances or shares in a lottery or gift enterprise.” This was the Victorian era, dominated by Anthony Comstock, after all. Let us get the State out of our private lives and refocused on public safety and conduct, so that every citizen can enjoy the freedom of choice regarding their “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.”

News from the economic front:
-- The Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve debated options available to them beyond the potential third round of Quantitative Easing (QE3), reportedly to include extending the average duration of the Fed's existing portfolio by selling bonds with short maturities and buying those with longer maturities, which could have a similar effect as buying new securities outright.
-- The Federal Housing Finance Agency – the organization that oversees the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – filed lawsuits against 17 of the nation's largest banks, accusing them of misrepresenting the quality of mortgage securities they assembled and sold at the height of the housing bubble. The government seeks billions of dollars in compensation for losses from the failed investments. Among the banks are Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, and General Electric.
-- The Labor Department reported non-farm payrolls were unchanged last month as the private sector added only 17,000 jobs and the government sector continued to shed jobs – the worst result since a small decline in September 2010. The unemployment rate also remained unchanged at 9.1% – another sign economic growth is stagnating.

Comments and contributions from Update no.506:
Comment to the Blog:
“Charlie Rose does a fine job of venting his ire with Congress, and does it in a way that will stir many readers. I dislike the results of the current Congress as much as anyone I know, and I never expected to defend its members. Mr. Rose, however, fails to deal with reality. Congress is not a unit and may not be expected to act as one. It is two houses, made up of two parties plus a few independents from each of the states and each of 445 Congressional districts. This gives Congress a wide variety of “the people” to whom they are legitimately obligated. We give each of them the condition of raising enormous amounts of money every election cycle from whatever sources are available. Even without that condition, the job entails dealing with advisors, lobbyists and outside experts (who have human biases) on almost every conceivable subject. These 545 people, however, are not expected to be experts in anything except getting elected and re-elected. Just for more fun, let’s put the President back into the equation. Regardless of his statutory duties, he is highly visible and influential; he can often personally decide whether a given Representative or Senator is elected or re-elected. In addition, he has a major say in his party’s allocation of election funds. Rather than blame “Congress” as if it were an errant child, Mr. Rose needs to work on changing the system, particularly the election financing system.”
My reply to the Blog:
As much as I hate to say it, we have but to look at the majority’s opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [424] to see the enormous obstacles common citizens face in gaining the attention of their representatives in Congress. Election financing is certainly a major contributor to the moral corruption in Congress, but that is only the beginning. Political commitment is not about rigidity to a particular ideology, but rather to use their bias as a tool to achieve compromise in mutually acceptable solutions to real problems. And, if the next set has learned how to negotiate, compromise, and find mutually acceptable solutions, then we will just need to keep searching for good representatives until we find them.

Another contribution:
“Totally, totally, totally agree with that article by Charlie Reese. Sometimes, I think they want these problems to continue because they can snow people into thinking it's the other party's fault and they can keep their jobs for a long, long time.”
My response:
I am convinced they all know precisely what they are doing . . . creating the crisis, the conflict, the tension, the complication . . . all to justify our dependence on them as the experts we so desperately hope will solve the problems . . . but they never do. They simply create more complex problems, so they can blame the other guys, to gain points on the political scale.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“You don't sound wrong to me. Can't see anything you wrote I can argue with.”

Another contribution:
“Here's another example of why progressives regret voting for Obama.”
URL: http://us.greenpeace.org/site/R?i=mw79RFTtaKOJ9309fDyPqw
My reply:
Let us cut the man some slack and keep things in perspective. He is trying to lead us through a minefield. The economy is teetering on the brink of a second, potentially deeper recession, if not outright depression. He must balance dramatically divergent forces. The reality is, the economy is the engine that drives everything. We must get back to stability and growth in order to afford to do the things that must be done. The President is not rejecting the EPA enforcement rules, only the timing.
. . . and a follow-up comment:
“We need not cut Obama some slack. He's been cutting himself some slack ever since he got elected. Cutting back on clean air regulations is just one more example of the misguided idea that increasing corporate profits will somehow put people back to work. As we have seen ever since the Reagan administration, that is not what happens in real life. It's just another excuse based on Ayn Rand and other insane "thinkers" to promote the interests of corporations and the very wealthy, even when the wealthy people themselves, such as Warren Buffet and Richard Block, disagree. I don't really care anymore whether Obama is corrupt merely spineless. He's not doing what we elected him to do and, in this case, is giving up before he's even attacked.”
. . . and my follow-up reply:
The President has a duty and obligation to serve all the People as best he can, not just his political constituency. One group vilified the last President no matter what he did. A different group does exactly the same thing with this President. As long as we continue to insist upon strict adherence to one political ideology or another, we will never achieve moderation and mutually acceptable compromise, and we will continue to perpetuate the divisive, polarized, intransigent, political environment we have endured for the last 40 years. If we continue to do what we have always done, we will get what we’ve always gotten. So, I guess that means we shall respectfully disagree. I think President Obama is doing what has to be done; his priority must be on economic recovery, as that will increase revenue and create capacity to absorb the burden of cultural adjustments necessary to implement the proposed “Reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards.”
Let us not forget that the Obama administration is implementing the so-called Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) [Federal Register vol. 76, no. 152, pp. 48208-48483, dated: Monday, August 8, 2011; effective on October 7, 2011].

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

2 comments:

Calvin R said...

I thank you very much for the link to the “Purists Gone Wild” article by Timothy Egan. While I have long been aware of the criminal and alcoholic aspects of Prohibition, I had not realized the political background. This article is downright scary in its parallels to our current political situation. If other readers of your blog skipped that article, I recommend they go back and read it. We may extend that comparison a bit as well. During Prohibition, Wall Street ran up a risky market until it crashed, which is our current situation. Perhaps our distractions with other people's morals had something to do with that. Prohibition ended in intense national pain over the pervasive corruption and the loss of many lives. What will it take to end this insane drive to cripple government until Grover Norquist’s followers can “drown it in the bathtub?”
On top of everything else, this parallel can extend into the moral prohibition of prostitution in the USA, because one moral crusade is very like another. We can certainly discuss what level of regulation is appropriate to prevent or lessen damage from prostitution (I agree with you), but at least Germany and the Netherlands have ended their denial and begun trying to deal with the issues realistically. The license dispensers that the linked article discusses are an attempt to collect taxes on prostitution. Here in the USA we have no legitimate means of doing that because of our prohibition on prostitution, which is proven ineffective 24/7 in my neighborhood. Germany’s solution is imperfect, but at least Germany is making progress. So long as moral crusaders can make decisions for the USA, we will not make progress dealing with these issues or in reclaiming our personal freedoms.

Cap Parlier said...

Calvin,
Well said, all the way around. My point precisely! I have faith that one day we will mature as a freedom-loving society and recognize that freedom belongs to all of us or none of us. I think you struck resonance with your observation. The lessons of Prohibition apply to all those moral projectionist condemnations – prostitution, gambling, drugs, death with dignity, alcohol, abortion, non-heterosexual marriage, et cetera ad infinitum. We have SO MUCH to yet to learn about Liberty. We need to let people lead the lives they chose to live in their “pursuit of Happiness.”

Thank you for your contributions. Take care and enjoy.
Cheers,
Cap