Update from the Heartland
No.538
2.4.12 – 8.4.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Just a couple of related opinions from last week’s exchange regarding the Trayvon Martin case [537]:
* “More Guns, Fewer Hoodies”
by Gail Collins, Op-Ed Columnist
New York Times
Published: March 28, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/opinion/collins-more-guns-fewer-hoodies.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120329
* “In Trayvon Martin case, it’s not about the hoodie”
by Leonard Pitts Jr.
Miami Herald
Posted on Tuesday, 03.27.12
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/2717397/its-not-about-the-hoodie.html
I shall refrain from direct comment, since a series of rather lengthy exchanges with readers exists in the Comment Section below.
The President signed into law the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012 (STOCK Act) [PL 112-105; S.2038; Senate: unanimous consent; House: 417-2-0-14(2); 126 Stat. xxxx] to make a lame attempt to dampen congressional corruption – at least it’s a start.
The President also signed into law the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act) [PL 112-106; H.R. 3606; Senate: 73-26-0-1(0); House: 390-23-0-19(3); 126 Stat. xxxx]. I have mixed feelings about this law; it appears to be a nice effort, but I suspect it is just more largesse by Congress for their cronies.
“In defence of Big Brother: I want more snooping, not less”
by Dan Hodges
The Telegraph
Last updated: April 5th, 2012
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100149400/in-defence-of-big-brother-i-want-more-snooping-not-less/
The title alone caught my attention – purpose served. I understand and appreciate Hodges’ opinion; however, I shall respectfully disagree. His argument brings us back to the necessary wall of separation between intelligence and prosecution. In a perfect world, government agents would faithfully utilize the vastly powerful tools given them to deal properly with the bad guys intent upon doing us harm. I know this will disappoint some folks, but, we do not live in a perfect world. Those charged with wielding the instruments of State are no different from all the rest of us; we are all weak and flawed human beings. It only took one Elliott Spitzer to convince me that flawed men cannot be trusted with such power. I am more comfortable with the Intelligence Community (IC) having access to such intrusive surveillance methods. However, there must be a judicial filter between the IC and Law Enforcement (LE), and punishment for those who use intelligence for political or prosecutorial purposes other than as the law intended. We do NOT have those safeguards in place today; thus, my disagreement with Hodges’ notional suggestion. I cannot accept or condone IC derived material being used to enforce the morality of the few or even the majority. I would rather take my chances with terrorists.
“The drug legalization dilemma”
by George F. Will
Washington Post
Published: April 4, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/would-drug-legalization-do-more-harm-than-good/2012/04/04/gIQANg46vS_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
First, I laud Will’s chutzpah for suggesting legalization as a notional conservative, main stream author. I broadly agree with his opinion. However, I shall offer a few tweaks. Decriminalization or legalization without regulation would solve part of the problem; yet, in my humble opinion, doing so would actually make matters far worse at the individual level. I strongly urge legalization WITH appropriate regulation, e.g., avoidance of sales to minor (<18yo) children, uniform dosage, clear informed consent warning labels, quarantine of abusers, et cetera.
A thought-provoking article:
“In Spain, Women Enslaved by a Boom in Brothel Tourism”
by Suzanne Daley
New York Times
Published: April 6, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/07/world/europe/young-men-flock-to-spain-for-sex-with-trafficked-prostitutes.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120407
My opinion regarding prostitution has not changed.
The Catholic Church chose to use modern tools to propagate its message.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9vQt6IXXaM&hd=
Test of Fire: Election 2012 (Official HD Version - Catholic)
Uploaded by creativelab7 on Mar 6, 2012
The technique has shades of a 1985 U.S. Marine Corps recruiting video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC82SwuDrcE&feature=related
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
The freedom each of us wishes, hopes and expects to enjoy exists beyond the intrusion of one influence group or another. Freedom means making choices that are meaningful to each of us in our circumstances. The Church uses the word “freedom” to mean they are free to impose their beliefs on everyone else, but no one can impose upon them. If the Church chooses to enter the political arena, then let them carry the burdens of citizenship; they can pay taxes like all the rest of us. The Church is acting more political than corporations. As the concluding scene shows – “LIFE – MARRIAGE – FREEDOM” – they want freedom to be protected for them, but not for other citizens who do not believe as they believe. That is NOT freedom; it is tyranny by a different name.
These various court cases are probably not interesting to most folks, but hey, I am the one writing and each of you can choose not to read. The Supremes finally rendered their decision in the case of Zivotofsky v. Secretary of State [DC CCA no. 07-5347 (2009)] [492]. On 17.October.2002, Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky was born in Jerusalem. His parents were American citizens and applied to the U.S. consulate office for their son’s Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) and his passport, since he acquired United States citizenship at birth. What makes this story interesting is young Zivotosky’s birthplace; Jerusalem is a disputed city whose affiliation has not been decided – a no-man’s land, if you will. Menachem’s parents held no such confusion. They wanted their son’s CRBA and passport to show his place of birth as Jerusalem, Israel. The State Department denied the request. To complicate matters, two and a half weeks prior to Menachem’s birth, President Bush signed into law the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 [PL 107-228; 116 Stat. 1350; 30.9.2002] [492], including Division A, Title II, Subtitle A, §214, titled: “United States policy with respect to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel” [116 Stat. 1350, 1365], which states, “[T]he Secretary [of State] shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen’s legal guardian, record the place of birth as Israel.” The DC Circuit rejected the Zivotosky claim based on the “political question” doctrine that enjoins the Court to avoid disputes between the political branches – Legislative and Executive. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court, as they vacated the DC Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for further lower court review; only Associate Justice Breyer dissented. The Court neither passed judgment on §214, nor on Zivotosky’s claim. They rejected by avoidance and remanded to the lower courts for one reason only, they wanted to read through a proper judicial work-up on those two questions along with the associated legal opinions. The case is far from simple. The Executive of the Federal government has historically and traditionally based its authority to conduct foreign affairs on Article II, Section 3, which authorizes the President to “receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.” The justices waltzed around whether a passport place of birth is part and parcel to the foreign policy authority of the Executive. I believe §214 is an unconstitutional violation of Article II, Section 3, and Zivotosky’s claim is moot and should be denied.
News from the economic front:
-- The Labor Department reported that the U.S. economy added 120,000 jobs last month – the first time since November that job growth fell below 200,000, and well below the forecast. Private companies again fueled the growth, adding 121,000 jobs in March. The unemployment rate ticked down a tenth of a percentage point to 8.2%.
Comments and contributions from Update no.537:
Comment to the Blog:
“Re: Trayvon Martin case. George Zimmerman ignored police instructions that, ‘We don’t need you to do that’ in reference to following Mr. Martin. Whatever happened in the scuffle and shooting, Zimmerman was not ‘standing his ground.’ He was aggressive. Zimmerman followed Mr. Martin for no reason other than Zimmerman’s own racism.
“I agree with Chris Hedges that NDAA is the formal end of representative republican government here. We are not, in fact, at war. We have no clearly defined enemy. No specific group can surrender, thus ending this event (think “associated forces”). And the larger context of history supports Hedges rather than his doubters. NDAA completes a pattern that has been repeated over and over throughout history, going back at least as far as the Roman Republic becoming the Roman Empire. In more recent history, I ought not need to remind you that every action Hitler took inside Germany was legal. Americans are not exempt from human nature. The reason that I am not in jail or dead for writing this is that those in charge have bigger fish to fry—so far. The reason Chris Hedges is not in jail or dead is that his public voice has not been shut down yet. Between Mr. Hedges and me lies a place I hope to avoid.
“Of course, my comment from last week stands. The President has claimed the right to kill Americans without due process. Your implied statement that Presidents will ‘know where to draw the line’ is not supported by history (see above).
“I still think you need to look deeper than ‘rampant socialism’ to find causes for Greece’s troubles. If ‘austerity’ means ‘damn everybody who is not already rich,’ I do not support that. Leaving the EU might not be such a bad thing in the long term. The EU nations give up a good deal of sovereignty for their memberships, and that has not benefitted Greece, Italy, Portugal, or Spain if we go by their current condition. Other nations seeking to join the EU might do well to compare its results in the nations that resemble theirs rather than take overall figures originating from the EU as their own likely outcomes.”
My reply to the Blog:
Re: Trayvon. I do believe there is a fair amount of supposition in your opinion. Yes, the 9/11 dispatcher said that, but I do not interpret that as a command. I do not know if the dispatcher is law enforcement in Sanford, Florida. If I saw a suspicious character in our neighborhood, I would watch him until he was no longer a threat . . . that is what Neighborhood Watch is all about. Zimmerman did the responsible thing; he called 9/11 to report a suspicious person. We do NOT know what happened in that confrontation other than Trayvon was fatally shot. I have not seen evidence to label Zimmerman a racist. I am not ready to condemn Zimmerman.
Re: Hedges. The language of the Authorization for Use of Military Force [PL 107-040, 115 Stat. 224] is rather plain and explicit – “[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines . . .” As we have discussed many times before, Congress did not use the words “declaration of war,” yet there is little discernible difference. The conclusion of this war will be determined by the President and Congress when they rescind the Authorization, probably when al-Qa’ida no longer presents a material threat. You do not need to remind me of Hitler’s process to legitimize his tyranny. Yes, as I said, I do share his apprehension regarding the impact of warfighting laws upon our civil rights as well as our ability to recover from those abridgements. Nonetheless, I will argue there are journalists who have aided and abetted the enemy, and their Press credentials do NOT give them authority to do so. The First Amendment is not an unlimited or unbounded right. You have been critical of the USG as I have been; I’m not aware of any of your opinions or actions affecting the ability of the Federal Government to wage war successfully.
Re: targeted killing. We shall respectfully disagree. The Court has sustained the President’s authority in such cases [see: Al-Aulaqi v. Obama [USDC DC case 1:10-cv-01469-JDB (2010) {479}].
Re: EU. Again, we shall respectfully disagree. IMHO, one of the contributing factors in Greece taking on such enormous debt was the country’s membership in the EU. If they had tried to take on that debt based on their GDP, I doubt many lenders would have participated. Their sovereignty would have allowed them to print money, but the associated inflation would have diminished their capacity to borrow even further. The EU more closely resembles our old Confederation; they have their federalist forces as well. I am no expert on Greece, but my opinion is what it is, until I learn more.
. . . round two:
“I never said the police commanded Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon Martin. I simply pointed out that he had no logical reason to do so except for his racism. I understand that you could have been a lawyer. I am not a lawyer; I merely point out the obvious.
“At least two important factors separate the ‘war on terrorism’ from a literal war. (1) We have no coherent definition of an enemy. ‘Terrorists’ is a concept, not a defined organization, and that concept can be expanded indefinitely. (2) Partly because of (1), we have no defined goal. Going on until the President and Congress rescind the Authorization is a blank check, not a goal.”
. . . my reply to round two:
Re: Zimmerman. I am neither a lawyer nor a wannabe. I am a simple citizen with an ample curiosity and concern. I see a much broader horizon in this event. I have not been able to find sufficient, trustworthy facts for an adequate image of the event. My gut tells me the public turmoil is an emotional over-reaction, not fundamentally different from the reaction of a portion of our citizens to the O.J. Simpson not-guilty verdict. My gut also tells me a goodly portion of the public reaction appears to be an inherent distrust of law enforcement. As more than a few people have said, perception is reality. I’m just trying to dampen the fervor so we can get the facts.
Re: war. Unfortunately, warriors never enjoy the luxury of philosophical contemplation. This war is what is often referred to as asymmetric warfare. The fact that our enemy is an extra-territorial, stateless, violent entity with minimal form does not alter their status as an adversary. What differentiates a criminal from an enemy? When does crime become war? The defined goal is to stop the violence. The fact that our enemy does not have the structure, substance or form common to adversaries in prior wars does not alter their status. Interesting questions: what is crime? What is war?
. . . round three:
“I have noticed that people in numbers-based fields such as IT, engineering and accounting often condemn ‘emotional’ responses. Typically, when they do that, they avoid responding to someone’s argument. George Zimmerman had no appropriate reason to continue following Trayvon Martin after Zimmerman talked to the police.
We could discuss the nature of “war” infinitely, I guess. All the same, the current action gives the Presidents license to continue wasting lives, squandering resources, and rescinding civil rights indefinitely, subject only to the slight potential for restraint from a crippled Congress.”
. . . my reply to round three:
I could say, et tu, Brutus; but that would not be constructive. I make no excuses for my engineering brain. You know me better than that; I head into the argument, not away for faux avoidance.
Re: Zimmerman. I would say he most assuredly had a reason to continue; he was in situ, the po-po were not; he was doing what Neighbor Watch folks do – trying to protect his community. I appreciate that the 9/11 dispatcher was trying to avoid a confrontation, but he gave Zimmerman no assurance of any support whatsoever. So his choices were: 1.) continue to observe, or 2.) abandon his observation. Just because Martin had Skittles & Iced Tea does not make him innocent or defenseless. We continue to forget . . . Zimmerman belonged there; Martin did not. I continue to feel there is much more to this story the police know and we do not. A state independent investigation would be appropriate for state law; the FBI would be appropriate for Federal law. Let’s give the process a chance to work rather than put a bounty on his head or lynch him at the oak tree outside town.
Re: war. Perhaps we should continue to discuss the nature of war. The President’s primary job is national security. Part of that process as it has evolved in this Grand Republic is to mobilize and focus the citizenry to wage war successfully. I would argue Roosevelt did a masterful job in his war. Truman – an adequate but mediocre job. Kennedy, Johnson & Nixon all failed. H.W. did pretty good. The jury is still out on W’s performance, but my gut-check says mediocre at best. Barack inherited this war. He has demonstrated the ability to make the tough, risky calls necessary and get out of the way, which Carter did not have the courage to do. However, Barack is losing the will of the People. I think he is searching for the best way to wage war successfully in this particular asymmetric war. I also think we share the same skepticism regarding the enormous power Congress has turned lose in the hands of weak and flawed men without few if any safeguards. Yet, we disagree regarding the necessity for such instruments of State to wage war successfully in this War on Islamic Fascism. To my thinking, our debate or argument is an essential and crucial drop in a mighty river.
. . . round four:
“Zimmerman did not do what a reasonable Neighborhood Watch person would do. A reasonable person would take the police dispatcher's word for it that he did not need to follow Trayvon Martin. Mr. Martin presented no threat to Zimmerman or the neighborhood except in Zimmerman's racist mind. Zimmerman's choice was to follow Martin or to accept the dispatcher's assurance that he need not do so and get back to his legitimate concerns. Contrary to what you said, Martin did indeed ‘belong’ in that neighborhood. He was visiting his aunt; that is not a threatening activity. Nobody is entitled to the notion that a young black man in a gated community ‘does not belong’ or is some sort of threat simply by his presence.
“I will go no further with you on the subject of war. That has become pointless.”
. . . my reply to round four:
Re: Neighborhood Watch. I would agree if I knew the police were coming. He had no indication there would be any response whatsoever. Was he just to leave his neighbors to their fate, if Martin had had nefarious intentions? This is not to say that Martin was anything other than an innocent person, but Zimmerman did not know that. Presumably, he assumed the worst until he had indications otherwise.
Re: threat. Respectfully, we do not know that. None of us have seen one piece of evidence regarding the actual confrontation or the threat assessment. Although we do not want to think so, Martin’s intentions and conduct could have been quite threatening. We do not know.
Re: legitimate concerns. Zimmerman’s intentions and conduct may well have been legitimate. We do not know.
Re: belonging there. It was reportedly a gated community. Martin did not live there. I do not know why Martin was inside a gated community in which he did not live. Martin does not get a pass simply because he died in the confrontation.
Re: racist event. If this was a racist hatred event, then Zimmerman should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Likewise, if Martin is not as innocent as he is being portrayed, then let us stop trying to lynch Zimmerman.
My only purpose here is to dampen the wild speculation and rhetoric on both sides. We have seen no evidence that this event is whitey lynching Emmett Till, as some would have us believe. Let us all allow the process to work. We do not know enough to condemn either man.
Re: war. I am truly sorry to hear you say that. It is certainly not pointless to me. Nonetheless, I accept your position.
. . . round five:
“The definition of war is not pointless, but our discussion of it has led to no change in a very long time. We can both use our time to better purposes.”
. . . my reply to round five:
As you wish, my friend.
Another contribution:
“I think one of the problems with this is the immediate determination to not arrest Zimmerman- he apparently had been very friendly with the PD, they knew him from his work as a 'neighborhood watch' member. One of the detectives at the scene wanted to arrest him, as he didn't believe the story- as said so in an affidavit. Had they made an arrest and then gone through the system, the facts would have been able to come out in a better atmosphere. The fact that the chief of police and senior DA were ON THE SCENE at - what they then termed a ‘John-Doe’ killing raises a lot of questions. The PD's actions have raised at least a question of unfairness.
My response:
Perhaps, although law enforcement misconduct is not readily apparent to me, just yet, either. There are disagreements within law enforcement and the district attorney’s office all the time. I understand the state has assigned a special prosecutor to investigate, and of course, the Fed’s have opened a civil rights investigation. The details will eventually come out. I just worry that this mob fervor being whipped up is pushing folks to jump to conclusions without supportive evidence. Would our collective approach be different if Zimmerman had been an off-duty police officer, deputy marshal, or FBI special agent? Just because he was a civilian, Neighborhood Watch guy does not make him guilty of murder or even manslaughter.
. . . a follow-up contribution:
“Actually, his status is relevant. He was NOT a trained law enforcement officer and that is the point of much criticism. In fact, the PD dispatcher told him not to follow Martin. The fact that not only did he follow him despite being told not to do so, but that he got out of his car and followed on foot showed his bad judgment and lack of law enforcement training. Several commentators- supporters of the law by the way, have opined that had he actually been a real law enforcement type, the shooting well may not have happened. And when there is a shooting with law enforcement, the officer is temporarily suspended and an investigation ensues.
“And we are now learning that he probably never could have been a law enforcement officer, as he was apparently fired from a security job for temper control issues.”
. . . my follow-up response:
I am not too keen on dissecting Zimmerman’s life without probable cause. Likewise, I do not seek any quid pro quo regarding Martin, either. There are far too many friends & buddies with vested interests on both sides to be of any value. We are questioning Zimmerman’s motives and not questioning Martin’s motives. Why was he inside a gated community? Why didn’t he just leave? I have seen nothing yet that suggests Zimmerman left his house that night seeking confrontation. I have heard no evidence that suggests he was attempting a citizen’s arrest. Zimmerman belong there; I’m not so sure Martin did. Fact: Martin is dead. Fact: Zimmerman shot him. Beyond those facts, we have far too much circumstantial information, some of which seems highly suspicious to me. I’m trying to keep an open mind with this event.
A different contribution:
“. . .escalated not . . .escaladed. Who's proofing?
“I have heard that this was a gated community. I presume the activity took place within the gated community. What was Trayvon Martin doing in the gated community? Did his girlfriend live in the gated community? I have not heard that she did or did not?”
My reply:
I have not heard answers to your questions either. The Press is trying to obtain facts, but there are too many contradictory bits, confused by the cacophony of mob yammerings, to sort out a clear view. I just don’t want the guy hung before the facts are known and due process of law.
. . . round two:
“Check with Spike Lee, Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton for the facts. They seem to be on top of things.”
. . . my reply to round two:
No, thanks. I remember the Tawana Brawley case all too well. Just because a citizen has dark skin pigmentation does not make them innocent at the get-go.
. . . round three:
“I was being sarcastic. They're the ones who have really made a mess of things.”
. . . my reply to round three:
Amen. I knew that. I just had to get the Brawley comment in.
. . . round four:
“I knew the name, but had forgotten the case. I just read up on it. The harm these things do, followed by the ensuing proliferation by people with questionable agendas, to society as a whole is staggering.”
. . . my reply to round four:
Exactly, it is the emotional current of a lynch mob . . . takes good people into bad places. Just because Neanderthal white lynch mobs murdered innocent boys like Emmett Till decades ago does not justify the reverse action today. I can appreciate a modicum of distrust for law enforcement, but this feels like way beyond simple distrust. If the Sanford police attempted to cover up a crime, then the State or Feds will illuminate their crime and prosecute them. This must play out to a just conclusion.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The follow-up news items:
-- Just a couple of related opinions from last week’s exchange regarding the Trayvon Martin case [537]:
* “More Guns, Fewer Hoodies”
by Gail Collins, Op-Ed Columnist
New York Times
Published: March 28, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/opinion/collins-more-guns-fewer-hoodies.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120329
* “In Trayvon Martin case, it’s not about the hoodie”
by Leonard Pitts Jr.
Miami Herald
Posted on Tuesday, 03.27.12
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/2717397/its-not-about-the-hoodie.html
I shall refrain from direct comment, since a series of rather lengthy exchanges with readers exists in the Comment Section below.
The President signed into law the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012 (STOCK Act) [PL 112-105; S.2038; Senate: unanimous consent; House: 417-2-0-14(2); 126 Stat. xxxx] to make a lame attempt to dampen congressional corruption – at least it’s a start.
The President also signed into law the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act) [PL 112-106; H.R. 3606; Senate: 73-26-0-1(0); House: 390-23-0-19(3); 126 Stat. xxxx]. I have mixed feelings about this law; it appears to be a nice effort, but I suspect it is just more largesse by Congress for their cronies.
“In defence of Big Brother: I want more snooping, not less”
by Dan Hodges
The Telegraph
Last updated: April 5th, 2012
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100149400/in-defence-of-big-brother-i-want-more-snooping-not-less/
The title alone caught my attention – purpose served. I understand and appreciate Hodges’ opinion; however, I shall respectfully disagree. His argument brings us back to the necessary wall of separation between intelligence and prosecution. In a perfect world, government agents would faithfully utilize the vastly powerful tools given them to deal properly with the bad guys intent upon doing us harm. I know this will disappoint some folks, but, we do not live in a perfect world. Those charged with wielding the instruments of State are no different from all the rest of us; we are all weak and flawed human beings. It only took one Elliott Spitzer to convince me that flawed men cannot be trusted with such power. I am more comfortable with the Intelligence Community (IC) having access to such intrusive surveillance methods. However, there must be a judicial filter between the IC and Law Enforcement (LE), and punishment for those who use intelligence for political or prosecutorial purposes other than as the law intended. We do NOT have those safeguards in place today; thus, my disagreement with Hodges’ notional suggestion. I cannot accept or condone IC derived material being used to enforce the morality of the few or even the majority. I would rather take my chances with terrorists.
“The drug legalization dilemma”
by George F. Will
Washington Post
Published: April 4, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/would-drug-legalization-do-more-harm-than-good/2012/04/04/gIQANg46vS_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
First, I laud Will’s chutzpah for suggesting legalization as a notional conservative, main stream author. I broadly agree with his opinion. However, I shall offer a few tweaks. Decriminalization or legalization without regulation would solve part of the problem; yet, in my humble opinion, doing so would actually make matters far worse at the individual level. I strongly urge legalization WITH appropriate regulation, e.g., avoidance of sales to minor (<18yo) children, uniform dosage, clear informed consent warning labels, quarantine of abusers, et cetera.
A thought-provoking article:
“In Spain, Women Enslaved by a Boom in Brothel Tourism”
by Suzanne Daley
New York Times
Published: April 6, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/07/world/europe/young-men-flock-to-spain-for-sex-with-trafficked-prostitutes.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120407
My opinion regarding prostitution has not changed.
The Catholic Church chose to use modern tools to propagate its message.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9vQt6IXXaM&hd=
Test of Fire: Election 2012 (Official HD Version - Catholic)
Uploaded by creativelab7 on Mar 6, 2012
The technique has shades of a 1985 U.S. Marine Corps recruiting video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC82SwuDrcE&feature=related
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
The freedom each of us wishes, hopes and expects to enjoy exists beyond the intrusion of one influence group or another. Freedom means making choices that are meaningful to each of us in our circumstances. The Church uses the word “freedom” to mean they are free to impose their beliefs on everyone else, but no one can impose upon them. If the Church chooses to enter the political arena, then let them carry the burdens of citizenship; they can pay taxes like all the rest of us. The Church is acting more political than corporations. As the concluding scene shows – “LIFE – MARRIAGE – FREEDOM” – they want freedom to be protected for them, but not for other citizens who do not believe as they believe. That is NOT freedom; it is tyranny by a different name.
These various court cases are probably not interesting to most folks, but hey, I am the one writing and each of you can choose not to read. The Supremes finally rendered their decision in the case of Zivotofsky v. Secretary of State [DC CCA no. 07-5347 (2009)] [492]. On 17.October.2002, Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky was born in Jerusalem. His parents were American citizens and applied to the U.S. consulate office for their son’s Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) and his passport, since he acquired United States citizenship at birth. What makes this story interesting is young Zivotosky’s birthplace; Jerusalem is a disputed city whose affiliation has not been decided – a no-man’s land, if you will. Menachem’s parents held no such confusion. They wanted their son’s CRBA and passport to show his place of birth as Jerusalem, Israel. The State Department denied the request. To complicate matters, two and a half weeks prior to Menachem’s birth, President Bush signed into law the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 [PL 107-228; 116 Stat. 1350; 30.9.2002] [492], including Division A, Title II, Subtitle A, §214, titled: “United States policy with respect to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel” [116 Stat. 1350, 1365], which states, “[T]he Secretary [of State] shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen’s legal guardian, record the place of birth as Israel.” The DC Circuit rejected the Zivotosky claim based on the “political question” doctrine that enjoins the Court to avoid disputes between the political branches – Legislative and Executive. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court, as they vacated the DC Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for further lower court review; only Associate Justice Breyer dissented. The Court neither passed judgment on §214, nor on Zivotosky’s claim. They rejected by avoidance and remanded to the lower courts for one reason only, they wanted to read through a proper judicial work-up on those two questions along with the associated legal opinions. The case is far from simple. The Executive of the Federal government has historically and traditionally based its authority to conduct foreign affairs on Article II, Section 3, which authorizes the President to “receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.” The justices waltzed around whether a passport place of birth is part and parcel to the foreign policy authority of the Executive. I believe §214 is an unconstitutional violation of Article II, Section 3, and Zivotosky’s claim is moot and should be denied.
News from the economic front:
-- The Labor Department reported that the U.S. economy added 120,000 jobs last month – the first time since November that job growth fell below 200,000, and well below the forecast. Private companies again fueled the growth, adding 121,000 jobs in March. The unemployment rate ticked down a tenth of a percentage point to 8.2%.
Comments and contributions from Update no.537:
Comment to the Blog:
“Re: Trayvon Martin case. George Zimmerman ignored police instructions that, ‘We don’t need you to do that’ in reference to following Mr. Martin. Whatever happened in the scuffle and shooting, Zimmerman was not ‘standing his ground.’ He was aggressive. Zimmerman followed Mr. Martin for no reason other than Zimmerman’s own racism.
“I agree with Chris Hedges that NDAA is the formal end of representative republican government here. We are not, in fact, at war. We have no clearly defined enemy. No specific group can surrender, thus ending this event (think “associated forces”). And the larger context of history supports Hedges rather than his doubters. NDAA completes a pattern that has been repeated over and over throughout history, going back at least as far as the Roman Republic becoming the Roman Empire. In more recent history, I ought not need to remind you that every action Hitler took inside Germany was legal. Americans are not exempt from human nature. The reason that I am not in jail or dead for writing this is that those in charge have bigger fish to fry—so far. The reason Chris Hedges is not in jail or dead is that his public voice has not been shut down yet. Between Mr. Hedges and me lies a place I hope to avoid.
“Of course, my comment from last week stands. The President has claimed the right to kill Americans without due process. Your implied statement that Presidents will ‘know where to draw the line’ is not supported by history (see above).
“I still think you need to look deeper than ‘rampant socialism’ to find causes for Greece’s troubles. If ‘austerity’ means ‘damn everybody who is not already rich,’ I do not support that. Leaving the EU might not be such a bad thing in the long term. The EU nations give up a good deal of sovereignty for their memberships, and that has not benefitted Greece, Italy, Portugal, or Spain if we go by their current condition. Other nations seeking to join the EU might do well to compare its results in the nations that resemble theirs rather than take overall figures originating from the EU as their own likely outcomes.”
My reply to the Blog:
Re: Trayvon. I do believe there is a fair amount of supposition in your opinion. Yes, the 9/11 dispatcher said that, but I do not interpret that as a command. I do not know if the dispatcher is law enforcement in Sanford, Florida. If I saw a suspicious character in our neighborhood, I would watch him until he was no longer a threat . . . that is what Neighborhood Watch is all about. Zimmerman did the responsible thing; he called 9/11 to report a suspicious person. We do NOT know what happened in that confrontation other than Trayvon was fatally shot. I have not seen evidence to label Zimmerman a racist. I am not ready to condemn Zimmerman.
Re: Hedges. The language of the Authorization for Use of Military Force [PL 107-040, 115 Stat. 224] is rather plain and explicit – “[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines . . .” As we have discussed many times before, Congress did not use the words “declaration of war,” yet there is little discernible difference. The conclusion of this war will be determined by the President and Congress when they rescind the Authorization, probably when al-Qa’ida no longer presents a material threat. You do not need to remind me of Hitler’s process to legitimize his tyranny. Yes, as I said, I do share his apprehension regarding the impact of warfighting laws upon our civil rights as well as our ability to recover from those abridgements. Nonetheless, I will argue there are journalists who have aided and abetted the enemy, and their Press credentials do NOT give them authority to do so. The First Amendment is not an unlimited or unbounded right. You have been critical of the USG as I have been; I’m not aware of any of your opinions or actions affecting the ability of the Federal Government to wage war successfully.
Re: targeted killing. We shall respectfully disagree. The Court has sustained the President’s authority in such cases [see: Al-Aulaqi v. Obama [USDC DC case 1:10-cv-01469-JDB (2010) {479}].
Re: EU. Again, we shall respectfully disagree. IMHO, one of the contributing factors in Greece taking on such enormous debt was the country’s membership in the EU. If they had tried to take on that debt based on their GDP, I doubt many lenders would have participated. Their sovereignty would have allowed them to print money, but the associated inflation would have diminished their capacity to borrow even further. The EU more closely resembles our old Confederation; they have their federalist forces as well. I am no expert on Greece, but my opinion is what it is, until I learn more.
. . . round two:
“I never said the police commanded Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon Martin. I simply pointed out that he had no logical reason to do so except for his racism. I understand that you could have been a lawyer. I am not a lawyer; I merely point out the obvious.
“At least two important factors separate the ‘war on terrorism’ from a literal war. (1) We have no coherent definition of an enemy. ‘Terrorists’ is a concept, not a defined organization, and that concept can be expanded indefinitely. (2) Partly because of (1), we have no defined goal. Going on until the President and Congress rescind the Authorization is a blank check, not a goal.”
. . . my reply to round two:
Re: Zimmerman. I am neither a lawyer nor a wannabe. I am a simple citizen with an ample curiosity and concern. I see a much broader horizon in this event. I have not been able to find sufficient, trustworthy facts for an adequate image of the event. My gut tells me the public turmoil is an emotional over-reaction, not fundamentally different from the reaction of a portion of our citizens to the O.J. Simpson not-guilty verdict. My gut also tells me a goodly portion of the public reaction appears to be an inherent distrust of law enforcement. As more than a few people have said, perception is reality. I’m just trying to dampen the fervor so we can get the facts.
Re: war. Unfortunately, warriors never enjoy the luxury of philosophical contemplation. This war is what is often referred to as asymmetric warfare. The fact that our enemy is an extra-territorial, stateless, violent entity with minimal form does not alter their status as an adversary. What differentiates a criminal from an enemy? When does crime become war? The defined goal is to stop the violence. The fact that our enemy does not have the structure, substance or form common to adversaries in prior wars does not alter their status. Interesting questions: what is crime? What is war?
. . . round three:
“I have noticed that people in numbers-based fields such as IT, engineering and accounting often condemn ‘emotional’ responses. Typically, when they do that, they avoid responding to someone’s argument. George Zimmerman had no appropriate reason to continue following Trayvon Martin after Zimmerman talked to the police.
We could discuss the nature of “war” infinitely, I guess. All the same, the current action gives the Presidents license to continue wasting lives, squandering resources, and rescinding civil rights indefinitely, subject only to the slight potential for restraint from a crippled Congress.”
. . . my reply to round three:
I could say, et tu, Brutus; but that would not be constructive. I make no excuses for my engineering brain. You know me better than that; I head into the argument, not away for faux avoidance.
Re: Zimmerman. I would say he most assuredly had a reason to continue; he was in situ, the po-po were not; he was doing what Neighbor Watch folks do – trying to protect his community. I appreciate that the 9/11 dispatcher was trying to avoid a confrontation, but he gave Zimmerman no assurance of any support whatsoever. So his choices were: 1.) continue to observe, or 2.) abandon his observation. Just because Martin had Skittles & Iced Tea does not make him innocent or defenseless. We continue to forget . . . Zimmerman belonged there; Martin did not. I continue to feel there is much more to this story the police know and we do not. A state independent investigation would be appropriate for state law; the FBI would be appropriate for Federal law. Let’s give the process a chance to work rather than put a bounty on his head or lynch him at the oak tree outside town.
Re: war. Perhaps we should continue to discuss the nature of war. The President’s primary job is national security. Part of that process as it has evolved in this Grand Republic is to mobilize and focus the citizenry to wage war successfully. I would argue Roosevelt did a masterful job in his war. Truman – an adequate but mediocre job. Kennedy, Johnson & Nixon all failed. H.W. did pretty good. The jury is still out on W’s performance, but my gut-check says mediocre at best. Barack inherited this war. He has demonstrated the ability to make the tough, risky calls necessary and get out of the way, which Carter did not have the courage to do. However, Barack is losing the will of the People. I think he is searching for the best way to wage war successfully in this particular asymmetric war. I also think we share the same skepticism regarding the enormous power Congress has turned lose in the hands of weak and flawed men without few if any safeguards. Yet, we disagree regarding the necessity for such instruments of State to wage war successfully in this War on Islamic Fascism. To my thinking, our debate or argument is an essential and crucial drop in a mighty river.
. . . round four:
“Zimmerman did not do what a reasonable Neighborhood Watch person would do. A reasonable person would take the police dispatcher's word for it that he did not need to follow Trayvon Martin. Mr. Martin presented no threat to Zimmerman or the neighborhood except in Zimmerman's racist mind. Zimmerman's choice was to follow Martin or to accept the dispatcher's assurance that he need not do so and get back to his legitimate concerns. Contrary to what you said, Martin did indeed ‘belong’ in that neighborhood. He was visiting his aunt; that is not a threatening activity. Nobody is entitled to the notion that a young black man in a gated community ‘does not belong’ or is some sort of threat simply by his presence.
“I will go no further with you on the subject of war. That has become pointless.”
. . . my reply to round four:
Re: Neighborhood Watch. I would agree if I knew the police were coming. He had no indication there would be any response whatsoever. Was he just to leave his neighbors to their fate, if Martin had had nefarious intentions? This is not to say that Martin was anything other than an innocent person, but Zimmerman did not know that. Presumably, he assumed the worst until he had indications otherwise.
Re: threat. Respectfully, we do not know that. None of us have seen one piece of evidence regarding the actual confrontation or the threat assessment. Although we do not want to think so, Martin’s intentions and conduct could have been quite threatening. We do not know.
Re: legitimate concerns. Zimmerman’s intentions and conduct may well have been legitimate. We do not know.
Re: belonging there. It was reportedly a gated community. Martin did not live there. I do not know why Martin was inside a gated community in which he did not live. Martin does not get a pass simply because he died in the confrontation.
Re: racist event. If this was a racist hatred event, then Zimmerman should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Likewise, if Martin is not as innocent as he is being portrayed, then let us stop trying to lynch Zimmerman.
My only purpose here is to dampen the wild speculation and rhetoric on both sides. We have seen no evidence that this event is whitey lynching Emmett Till, as some would have us believe. Let us all allow the process to work. We do not know enough to condemn either man.
Re: war. I am truly sorry to hear you say that. It is certainly not pointless to me. Nonetheless, I accept your position.
. . . round five:
“The definition of war is not pointless, but our discussion of it has led to no change in a very long time. We can both use our time to better purposes.”
. . . my reply to round five:
As you wish, my friend.
Another contribution:
“I think one of the problems with this is the immediate determination to not arrest Zimmerman- he apparently had been very friendly with the PD, they knew him from his work as a 'neighborhood watch' member. One of the detectives at the scene wanted to arrest him, as he didn't believe the story- as said so in an affidavit. Had they made an arrest and then gone through the system, the facts would have been able to come out in a better atmosphere. The fact that the chief of police and senior DA were ON THE SCENE at - what they then termed a ‘John-Doe’ killing raises a lot of questions. The PD's actions have raised at least a question of unfairness.
My response:
Perhaps, although law enforcement misconduct is not readily apparent to me, just yet, either. There are disagreements within law enforcement and the district attorney’s office all the time. I understand the state has assigned a special prosecutor to investigate, and of course, the Fed’s have opened a civil rights investigation. The details will eventually come out. I just worry that this mob fervor being whipped up is pushing folks to jump to conclusions without supportive evidence. Would our collective approach be different if Zimmerman had been an off-duty police officer, deputy marshal, or FBI special agent? Just because he was a civilian, Neighborhood Watch guy does not make him guilty of murder or even manslaughter.
. . . a follow-up contribution:
“Actually, his status is relevant. He was NOT a trained law enforcement officer and that is the point of much criticism. In fact, the PD dispatcher told him not to follow Martin. The fact that not only did he follow him despite being told not to do so, but that he got out of his car and followed on foot showed his bad judgment and lack of law enforcement training. Several commentators- supporters of the law by the way, have opined that had he actually been a real law enforcement type, the shooting well may not have happened. And when there is a shooting with law enforcement, the officer is temporarily suspended and an investigation ensues.
“And we are now learning that he probably never could have been a law enforcement officer, as he was apparently fired from a security job for temper control issues.”
. . . my follow-up response:
I am not too keen on dissecting Zimmerman’s life without probable cause. Likewise, I do not seek any quid pro quo regarding Martin, either. There are far too many friends & buddies with vested interests on both sides to be of any value. We are questioning Zimmerman’s motives and not questioning Martin’s motives. Why was he inside a gated community? Why didn’t he just leave? I have seen nothing yet that suggests Zimmerman left his house that night seeking confrontation. I have heard no evidence that suggests he was attempting a citizen’s arrest. Zimmerman belong there; I’m not so sure Martin did. Fact: Martin is dead. Fact: Zimmerman shot him. Beyond those facts, we have far too much circumstantial information, some of which seems highly suspicious to me. I’m trying to keep an open mind with this event.
A different contribution:
“. . .escalated not . . .escaladed. Who's proofing?
“I have heard that this was a gated community. I presume the activity took place within the gated community. What was Trayvon Martin doing in the gated community? Did his girlfriend live in the gated community? I have not heard that she did or did not?”
My reply:
I have not heard answers to your questions either. The Press is trying to obtain facts, but there are too many contradictory bits, confused by the cacophony of mob yammerings, to sort out a clear view. I just don’t want the guy hung before the facts are known and due process of law.
. . . round two:
“Check with Spike Lee, Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton for the facts. They seem to be on top of things.”
. . . my reply to round two:
No, thanks. I remember the Tawana Brawley case all too well. Just because a citizen has dark skin pigmentation does not make them innocent at the get-go.
. . . round three:
“I was being sarcastic. They're the ones who have really made a mess of things.”
. . . my reply to round three:
Amen. I knew that. I just had to get the Brawley comment in.
. . . round four:
“I knew the name, but had forgotten the case. I just read up on it. The harm these things do, followed by the ensuing proliferation by people with questionable agendas, to society as a whole is staggering.”
. . . my reply to round four:
Exactly, it is the emotional current of a lynch mob . . . takes good people into bad places. Just because Neanderthal white lynch mobs murdered innocent boys like Emmett Till decades ago does not justify the reverse action today. I can appreciate a modicum of distrust for law enforcement, but this feels like way beyond simple distrust. If the Sanford police attempted to cover up a crime, then the State or Feds will illuminate their crime and prosecute them. This must play out to a just conclusion.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
I can only see Mr. Hodges’ “defence of Big Brother” as a parody, not to be taken seriously.
I have refrained from reading George Will’s work for many years due to my ongoing irritation with him. I read the article you linked. He still makes rash and self-serving assumptions, but the stronger irritant right now is that this entire column is a teaser for his “solution,” to be presented in a subsequent column. He does not support legalization as far as I can see. He offers no solution at all within this column.
I saw a Catholic Church official on TV yesterday attempting to explain why the Church’s institutional freedom involves limiting its employees’ freedom. That makes no sense to me, and it reminds me a little bit of the Citizens United decision in its insistence upon organizations being seen as equal to the individuals that create them. Nothing in the contraception issue limits Catholic officials, clergy, or individual Catholics in the practice of their beliefs in any way. That should settle that “freedom of religion” issue.
I see the STOCK Act as insufficient. You have pointed out that it makes a beginning, but what are the chances for future improvement?
Calvin,
Re: Hodges. I sure hope you are correct.
Re: Will. We shall see regarding “his solution.” We have discussed a number of elements that I believe offer an amicable and stable solution to the incredible injury done by our faux-righteous, prohibition of prostitution, simply because the notion of sex professionals offends our sense of propriety and piousness.
Re: Catholic Church. You make a very good point. Thank you. The Catholic Church makes the choice to deny freedom to others all in the name of their freedom – an interesting but lame argument. If the Catholic Church is against contraception, birth control, abortion, homosexuality, or any other morality issue, let them prevail by the strength of their argument rather than by prohibition and retribution.
Re: Citizens United. The case has opened Pandora’s Box that will take years, if not generations, to close again.
Re: STOCK Act. I am confident the greed of some in Congress will overcome the minor annoyances of the STOCK Act. I doubt there will be any future improvements, until another few Senators and Representatives are exposed for benefitting from insider trading.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment