Update from the Heartland
No.555
30.7.12 – 5.8.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The Mars rover Curiosity touched down precisely at 22:31 [U]
PDT, on 5.August.2012, after an eight-month, interplanetary transit and a
complex, automatic, seven-minute, Entry-Descent-Landing (EDL) phase. The spacecraft landed in the Gale
Crater, one of the lowest points on Mars and a comparative temperate +10º F
(-12º C). It took an
additional, anxious, seven minutes for Curiosity to phone home. The rover sent back the first black
& white images of one of its wheels on the surface. The mission is to search for water and
signs of early life, and study the geologic history of the planet. Congratulations to the entire design,
build, launch, EDL and operations team.
Well done, NASA! We look
forward to great discoveries.
This was a rough week for freedom of choice and the
government’s intrusion into a woman’s body. I have not been able to obtain, set aside study, any of the
three judicial rulings, but I will eventually.
·
U.S. District Court of Arizona – Judge James A.
Teilborg – upheld Arizona Mother's Health and Safety
Act [HB 2036]
·
U.S. District Court of Colorado – Judge John L.
Kane Jr. – issued a temporary injunction against enforcement of the Federal
requirement for contraceptive coverage
·
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit – upheld
a controversial 2005 South Dakota law regarding the content of mandatory
counseling
There will be more to follow when I can access and study
these rulings.
In one of those really strange, rather bizarre, twists of
history, Sanford I “Sandy” Weill, 79, the former chairman of Citigroup and
principle advocate for repeal of Federal banking regulations, has publicly come
out for reinstatement of the very same regulations he lobbied against . . . now
that he has sucked his wealth out of the financial system before the Great
Recession. He now wants to repeal Title
I, Subtitle A, §101 [113 Stat. 1338, 1341] of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999
(AKA Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act), which repealed portions
of the Banking Act of
1933 (AKA Glass-Steagall
Act) [48 Stat. 162].
While I view Weill’s present position as rather ironic, I do agree with
him. Bankers are incapable of
policing themselves, and the removal of barriers between good banking and the risky
speculation of investment banks has dramatically amplified the risks to the
international system – the consequences of which we have yet to recover. NOTE: doncha just love that term
“modernization”?
Reprinted with permission from a parallel forum:
“As the one
caller to KOGO's Steve Yuhas begged a good question which was do the at best 15%
of the population (gays or their supporters) really want to take on 85% of the
majority in these increasing boycotts?”
[The URL for the precipitating article:]
“Lakewood Cake Shop Refuses Wedding Cake To Gay Couple”
CBS Denver
Published: July 28, 2012; 7:06 PM
. . . comment from contributor 1:
“I think that it's the shop owner's right to refuse to bake
the cake. I also think that it's
the right of people who disagree to take their business elsewhere. Riddle me this - if a shop operated by
a non-Christian refused to make you a cake for a Christian religious holiday,
how would you react?”
. . . comment from the host:
“I think the discourse should be on property owners rights
(business owners) in this context, which is what you are supporting, the right of
the business owner. I believe any
business owner should have the latitude to refuse service to anyone, and also
not have to hire someone they wish not to hire. I understand bigger corporation have all kinds of hiring
standards, sometimes mandated by the government, for instance where they are
procuring DoD contracts, a certain number of bid-awards must be given to
segments like "small woman owned" or "minority owned", etc.. MY belief is many corporations go way
overboard to try and satisfy their customers at any cost. While Starbucks has
been successful in their culture, brand, profits, expansion, etc., I think they
go too far in trying to please any/all customers almost at the risk of alienating
their own employees.
“To answer your question, I would have absolutely no problem
with an establishment refusing to make me let's say a Christian oriented
cake. I would chose to take my
business to someone who would.
“My sense is this entire culture war situation with the gays
and same-sex marriage would be a non-event or small primary blip on radar, if
certain change-agents including media, and the gay advocacy groups abound, had
not PROPAGATED the divisions. Example, had Dan Cathy of Chic-Fil-A made his
statement as he did that he is against same-sex marriage based on his Bible
understanding, I don't think we would even know it or the gays protesting and
Christians supporting Chic-Fil-A, would not be there, again, had the
propagation (BUZZ) not been conducted.
Was this conducted by same-sex marriage advocates or Christians against
it? I'm fairly sure the boycott movement was begun, in reaction, by the gays
because the propagation of Cathy's position on the matter.
“Now the interesting thing will be in net-sum, like you
suggested, whether Chic-Fil-A's business $uffers, or $urges. I also entertained the speculation that
something damning might come out on CEO Cathy or Chic-Fil-A, or someone could
try and sabotage their reputation based on something outside Cathy's same-sex
marriage opinion. Craig proffered
that perhaps many gays will apply for employment with Chic-Fil-A, and if any
denials of employment are made under whatever circumstance, under the Fair
Employment & Housing Act, those prospective employees could take legal
action. Don't know. I only can imagine that this situation
with Chic-Fil-A could become an anchor for them, or promotional coup. I tend to think it could go of the
former.
“Recall when Doug Manchester supported California's Prop-8,
the gay activists were actually somewhat successful at damaging some of his
business at the Manchester Hyatt.
Some corporations pulled all kinds of functions at his hotel, and
conventioneers dropped their hotel bookings. His selling out the hotel interests soon thereafter was
noteworthy because I suspect Hyatt wanted to disassociate themselves from
Manchester, perhaps threatening to terminate the franchise with
Manchester. Manchester sold his
interest (some say due to a nasty divorce) and went on to start the Grand Del
Mar which now has a 5-star rating.
He also but a controlling interest in the U-T San Diego, which I am
concerned about because the paper will likely lose any journalistic/political
balance that it might have once been attempting.”
. . . response from contributor 1:
“I really disagree with the suggestion that gays started the
divisions. They've been reviled,
ostracized and even maimed and killed routinely for years. It's only in the
last 40 years or so that they have been able to live their lives other than as
a lie. Their only "agenda" is to be left alone to live their lives
and enjoy the same freedoms that you so passionately claim as your right.”
. . . response from the host:
“Sorry, but I cannot agree. If the gays wanted to be left alone to live their lives than
why do they work so hard to distort the truth about others than do not approve
of their behavior/lifestyle. Why
is it the gays are so militant and in our faces about their equality and rights
while willing to trump the First Amendment of so many others (like the
majority)?
“The violence you suggest against gays may happen in some
other countries (like Iran or some other Islamic countries) but I do not
believe that happens in America. I
personally believe the criminal violence against gays in America is not very
common, and when it is, I am against it and support the criminal prosecution of
anyone who would use violence against a homosexual based on the "sexual
orientation" of such victim.
“Maybe many of us are being politicized (me included) on
this issue that like so many in America today, is causing the polarization of a
United We Stand. Ripe for the
sickens of our enemies.”
. . . my contribution to the thread:
OMG, are you actually defending the legal discrimination
against a portion of our citizenry because of your moral disapproval of their
private conduct and choices? Say
it ain't so. If it is so, what is
the public interest in dictating private conduct? This question, like so many others, is not a poll of our
personal opinions or sense of morality.
This is about whether any of us and specially the government (federal, state,
county or city) have the right to impose our moral condemnation of private
conduct upon all citizens. Your
argument is precisely the same argument made against citizens with dark skin
pigmentation just a few decades ago -- no different, other than the object of
the condemnation. Non-heterosexual
citizens are simply looking for equal rights under the law, guaranteed by the
Constitution; they do NOT seek your approval and they do not wish to change
your opinion. You seem to forget
that less than ten years ago, the private choices of some of our citizens was a
major felony; how on God's little green earth can that be equal rights? And, to this moment, they still do not
share equal rights under the law.
. . . to which the host responded:
“I need to buy time to offer a thought out response.
“However, I would like to say this, that I believe it to be
a moral imperative that we prevent the MORAL MORASS from growing beyond what
problems we already have. Let's put the Bible aside for now and say as a nation
we have a terrible problem with molestation of boys and young men. In the bulk
of those cases (90%+?) they are done by a male. Therefore my logic would cause
me to deduce that those males doing the molestation are homosexual (or bisexual),
beside predators of young boys and men. That would be one great reason for us
not to so quickly accept homosexuality as openly as we are told to (again, not
factoring in moral or biblical principles). I find it amazing the media and
intellectual writers always have this disconnect between homosexuals and child
molestation. Is that to say all homosexual men molest young boys? No, I don't
believe that but do know each male molester of other males, is homosexual.
“Isn't there a MAN-BOY ASSOCIATION that promotes what we
call child molestation?
“Secondly, while it seems HIV/AIDS is under better control
(though not in all countries), isn't that a disease that most directly was
result of the homosexual sex patterns/life style? At one time, it was almost an
exclusive homosexual disease prior to spreading into other segments of the
population.
“Thirdly, homosexuals have some of the leading suicide,
alcoholism, drug abuse, divorce and STD rates among our population.
“Now I'd like to know why our media and change-agents are
working full-time to normalize homosexuality as almost a trendy or chic
lifestyle choice?”
. . . and my response:
First,
I think your image of homosexuals, or rather non-heterosexuals, is seriously
skewed and biased by misinformation, mythology and generalized stereotyping.
Second,
I also think any attempt to correct the misinformation would be wasted
effort. Only you can convince
yourself.
Third
and further, I think you would be well served finding a few non-heterosexual
friends that could help you understand, learn and overcome the induced societal
condemnation that I suspect colors your attitude toward the portion of our
citizenry who do not conform to the boundaries of The Box.
Lastly,
it serves no purpose to attempt to dissuade anyone from their learned
phobias. I stand to protect and
defend your beliefs. I will
quibble with the implications of your opinion in that no one is asking you to
accept their private choices and conduct.
I have never heard of a single non-heterosexual seeking to impose his
choices on you or anyone else. No
one is asking you or any other citizen to give up even a sliver of your rights
and privileges. The issue is
enabling the very same rights and privileges for all citizens regardless of
their sexual orientation, attraction or preference. Private choices are not our business and of no public
interest, thus no reason to deny equal rights based on sexual orientation. The questionable observations you offer
reflect individual conduct, NOT generalized behavior, no more so than
heterosexual pedophiles reflect all heterosexuals. Let us focus on injurious conduct, not the learned fears of
our past.
. . . comment from contributor 2:
“The inroads of the gay agenda is just evidence that our
collective moral compass is pointing South.
“It won't be much longer before Christians are rounded up
and/or put to death for their beliefs in this country like so many others
around the world.
“Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law, says Satan's minions. Of all the trees you may freely eat
except one, and we couldn't help but violate that simple rule due to the lure
of wanting to do what seemed pleasing to us at the time. Mankind has suffered ever since under
the burden of sin. We had a handle
on it for awhile and now the temptation is too great.
“Social entropy is occurring because there is a lack of moral
energy being put into the system by too many people that desire to skate on sin
ice.”
. . . my response to contributor 2:
Associate
Justice O’Connor said it best in Lawrence
v. Texas [539 U.S. 558
(2003); no. 02-102], “Moral disapproval of this group,
like a bare desire to harm the group, is an interest that is insufficient to
satisfy rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause.”
Private
morality is between the individual and God. Let us leave it there.
. . . to which the host added:
“The two core angles I have looked at this from (plus more),
was Dan T. Cathy (COO, sorry, I was stating CEO earlier) stating a natural
opinion he has come to the conclusion of, in honesty to who asked, or was his
motivation to further politicize this? I don't think it really matters because I believe it
was the former, but if the latter, I still believe he has every right to push
back on the gay activists who are continually in our faces in HollyWEIRD, news
media, print journalism, big business, small offices, government, Pentagon, and
now churches.
“There is need for some clarification here that is important
to your argument, Chick-Fil-A is privately held. I would never want to run a public corporation because they
do have so many constituents to keep happy, not to mention the drive for
quarterly earnings gains by targeted percentage. And with SEC and all the other regulatory oversight,
it is in a private organization that Mr. Cathy can express his opinion, in this
so-called free country America (we are trending towards Russia's level of
freedom, in my humble opinion) as free thought and latitude of expression, is
becoming choked out by a most militant and active group I refer to as the GAY
MAFIA.
“As mentioned yesterday in my rant, I think this could be
the appropriate blowback for the GAY MILITIA. They may have chewed off more than they anticipated, when
they chose to openly take on one more of the thousands they have already
attempted to sabotage, simply for a statement by Mr. Cathy that he is against
same-sex marriage. This
issue has expanded to not be as much the moral issue by the "moral
majority" you suggest, but I believe (and hope) this is much more about
the majority of Americans asserting our right to opine, regardless what the
latest cultural (if not socially engineered) politically correct position is
demanded. We need to protect
people like Mr. Cathy, his employees and financial stakeholders, from the
organized and ruthless efforts to sabotage his business by a most vocal and
active group that overwhelmingly is a minority regardless that they would like
us to think every Tom, Dick and Harry is gay, bisexual, or sits watching
sitcoms nightly dreaming about it.
“I would not be fair if I did not conclude by saying I hope
some of the gay militants grab their poodles and go back inside their villa,
and keep their lifestyle out of my face every night on TV. I am sickened to see
then news media showing video clip after video clip of men kissing men, and
women kissing women. If
their cabal wants to keep promoting the normalization so that all our children
will be kissing the same sex, they will get an exceeding reacting force to
protect what we believe to be normal and natural.”
. . . and my response:
Re:
Dan Cathy. I respect his opinion,
although I fundamentally disagree with him in the context of this Grand
Republic. When he spoke, he was in
a suit, standing in a Chic-Fil-A store, as the COO of the company, not just
that store but all the company’s stores.
His personal opinion became the commercial position of the company,
essentially a public condemnation of the private choices of other citizens –
that is the point.
Re:
“in our faces.” I can only say
that if your rights & privileges were restricted, constrained, condemned,
discriminated against, made illegal, or what not, that you would be doing
everything in your power to gain your rights.
Re:
privately held company. It makes
no never-mind in the public domain.
The legal precedent has been well-established for decades now as the
Supreme Court broke down the discrimination of private companies doing business
in the public domain. Even if
Cathy is the sole owner and answerable to no one else – Board or otherwise –
the company is still doing business in the public domain, and the company is
legally forbidden from discriminating.
Re:
tending toward Russia. I’m sorry,
my friend, I must raise the bullshit flag. No one is challenging Cathy’s personal opinion; they are
only challenging the company’s expressed discrimination against a portion of
our citizenry. Cathy is fully
entitled to whatever opinion he wishes, no matter how bigoted and irrational it
may be. The company is not so
entitled.
Re:
gay militia. The term implies
armed resistance. I am not aware
of any such conduct.
Re:
protecting Cathy. Really? Who was there to protect Reverend Bill
Larson (1973), or Matthew Shepard (1998), or all the others who lost their
lives simply because they were or supported homosexuals? Chic-Fil-A would have no problem
whatsoever if Cathy had kept his personal opinions separated from the company
he represents; when he spoke, his opinion became the company’s position.
Re:
being gay. Once again, I must say
I believe you are quite wrong. No
one wants anyone else to be homosexual.
They only want respect for their choices, just as you want respect for
your choices. My support and
defense is for each and every citizen to enjoy the freedom of choice for their
personal “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness,” as the Founders sought for
all of us.
Re:
children. I shall defend your
right to teach your children as you choose, just as I defend the right of all
parents, unless those teachings cause injury to another person or property.
Re:
kissing. Other than offending your
sense of propriety or decorum, who are they hurting? What injury is being caused?
[I ran out of capacity . . . to be continued in next week’s
Update.]
News from
the economic front:
-- In an odd confrontation, the Treasury Department put
heavy political pressure on the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to permit
participation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in a limited Federal program of
debt forgiveness. Treasury questioned
the FHFA assumptions regarding reductions in mortgage balances for certain
troubled homeowners, and asked the FHFA to reconsider.
-- In an ominous sign, a U.S. jury rejected the Securities
and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) allegations that a former Citigroup banker
misled investors who bought a US$1B mortgage product by failing to tell them
the bank had bet against it. This
was the first courtroom test for the SEC regarding allegations that banks
misled investors, including hedge funds and insurers, during the financial
crisis when they bought mortgage-linked securities. We can only hope the SEC does better in prosecuting bad
bankers.
-- MF Global Holdings [515]
bankruptcy trustee Louis Joseph Freeh (and former FBI director) submitted
written testimony to the Senate Agriculture Committee that farmers, ranchers,
traders and other investors are still owed an estimated US$1.6B and “eventually
will be made whole.” MF Global collapsed last October under the weight of a
customer panic caused by the company’s huge bets on European debt, and the
shortfall occurred when MF Global dipped into customer accounts as it attempted
to stay solvent.
-- The Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee decided
against taking any new steps to support the economy and indicated they were
prepared to take new action if job growth does not improve. The Fed said that the pace of economic
growth had slowed over the summer, and said that it expects the unemployment
rate to fall “only slowly.”
-- The People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) Purchasing
Mangers’ Index (PMI) ticked down slightly from 50.2 in June to 50.1 in July, barely
above the 50 threshold that separates expansion from contraction.
--European Central Bank (ECB) President Mario Draghi
indicated that the central bank was ready to its controversial purchases of
government bonds on the secondary market to bring down the "exceptionally
high" borrowing costs of financially stressed euro-zone economies such as Greece,
Spain and Italy. Draghi said, “The governing council within its mandate to
maintain price stability over medium term and in observance of its independence
in determining monetary policy, will undertake outright open market operations
of a size adequate to reach its objective.” The ECB left its main interest rate unchanged at a historic
low of 0.75%.
-- The Labor Department reported the U.S. economy added
163,000 jobs in July, the most in five months. The separate unemployment rate rose from 8.2% to 8.3%.
Comments and contributions from Update no.554:
Comment to the Blog:
“Your attack on the Commerce Clause as an instrument to
enforce Prohibition of various drugs is a bit misplaced. The central fallacy of
regulating these drugs is that they are separately regulated at all, not the
tools used to do so. That enormous waste of lives and resources is proof
positive that the United States fail to learn the lessons of Prohibition of
alcohol.
“China shows signs of becoming our successor as the most
powerful nation in the world. Your note on their acquisition of oil resources
supports that potential.
“Unlike your other commenter, I do not believe the Second Amendment
is outdated. My issue is that part of it is chronically ignored. The Amendment
refers to “a well-regulated militia” as the cause for a right to keep and bear
arms. An unregulated mob has little or no relationship to a well-regulated
militia.
“If one person in that theater had carried a concealed
weapon, it is reasonable to believe that Mr. Holmes would have killed him or
her with a grenade as soon as he brought out his weapon. It requires a great
deal less skill and time to throw a grenade than to fire a pistol to kill
someone in body armor. That assumes that the armed citizen would be close enough
and skilled enough to kill Mr. Holmes with one shot in an extremely difficult
shooting environment; he would not get a second try. It also assumes that our
armed citizen would comprehend the situation more quickly than most in the
theater actually did. Those are rash assumptions.
“As for what to do about people using guns to kill people,
what stands out is your statement that 99.9999% of people are to be trusted
with firearms. That number far exceeds reality. Remember, it’s not only people
like James Holmes who kill with firearms. A wide variety of domestic batterers,
drunks, robbers, people who mistake family members for burglars and many others
do so every day in the United States. If as many as 1% of the population might
kill others deliberately or accidentally with guns, that’s a substantial issue.
I suspect that making firearms “well-regulated” would deter many of them, and
most could not do the killing with lesser weapons. Also, I have a better idea.
We need to study such nations as Canada and Switzerland that have high rates of
gun ownership and far lower crime rates than the US. (I don’t count Israel as
either free or peaceful.) The outstanding thing here is that we are doing
something wrong. We need to find out what others do differently.
“I read your paragraph on ‘communities caring’ with horror.
Block watches and similar organizations are tightly limited for good reasons.
Real police officers typically have years of training nowadays, but they still
make mistakes and have the same issues as other human beings. The untrained
block watch people are those who are drawn to regulating their neighbors, not
the entire range of the general public. Thus we have not only the likes of
George Zimmerman but many less serious examples of the incompetent nosy. Let’s
not give them official powers of any kind. Creating a new level of policing
will solve far fewer issues than it will create.
“I suspect that our differences of view center on our view
of the ‘community,’ a way of saying people at large. The notion that people
consistently act from insight, enlightened self-interest, clear understanding
of the situation or rational and helpful motives has no support that I have
seen. Studies tend to support my viewpoint that most people are well-intended
but will respond to stress, pressure from family or authority figures, or
(legitimate) self-interest, sometimes from understandings that are
ill-considered or misinformed. Some others, including many who achieve
positions of authority, have strong tendencies to act directly in their own
short-term interests without considering others’ well-being. In addition, most
people probably do not understand their own motives and actions clearly.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
Commerce Clause. I hesitated to take my predictable shot
via the Constitution at my predominate target – the Controlled Substances
Act. Poor choice. Sorry! Clearly, I distracted the debate from significant NFIB
ruling. My apologies for diverting
our intellectual focus off the PPACA and the crucial debate on the abuse of the
Commerce Clause.
Re:
Controlled Substances Act. If the choice is CSA or no CSA, I’ll
take the latter. However, I would rather
see CSA amended to provide for proper regulation of psychotropic substances to
ensure quality control, uniform dosage, distribution, and such.
Re:
PRC. American successor . . .
perhaps; but, I am a very long way from convinced. I think they are acquiring energy resources for a host of
reasons, not fundamentally different from the forces that drive our national
interests.
Re:
2nd Amendment. The “well regulated militia” is not the
object of the Amendment, rather the qualifier – the rationale. The genesis of the Amendment must be
the context by which to understand why.
The Framers distrusted a large, powerful, standing army. They vested national security in widely
distributed, state militias that could be mobilized in the event of an
emergency. They recognized that
communities were so dispersed that local citizen had to defend themselves. As the Supremes have written, that arms
and militias are not exclusively dependent, i.e., arms are not for the purpose
of the militia, but rather the militia supports the need for an armed
citizenry.
Re:
theater massacre. I do not agree
that your supposition is reasonable – possible, yes, of course, but there were
several former military men in the audience who were all trained in the use of
firearms. The grenades were smoke
and/or potentially CS (tear) gas to create confusion and distraction; they were
no fragmentation grenades, based on all the public reports. I am always watchful and inherently
suspicious – an emergency exit opening should have triggered more than a few
with focused attention. None of us
can say how we would react in that situation. I would like to think one armed, trained person would have
done better than what happened.
Re:
guns. I’m not sure arguing about
numbers is productive. OK, my
suggestions are naive. Let us hear
yours. Studying other countries is
good; I could support that.
However, the history of every country is different and unique, which
means the context would have limited application.
Re:
“communities caring.” No go! OK, again, your suggestion. Who will protect us from the bad
men? Your words do not suggest you
have much faith in mankind. What
are we to do? The answer must be
found in people.
. . . round two:
“I think we agree in many ways on the ‘War’ on Drugs. A good
step toward proper regulation might be to add these substances to existing laws
regulating alcoholic beverages or to make a list of controlled substances and
say ‘and other substances named in [legal name of list].’ I see the illegal
drugs as roughly equivalent to alcohol. Such a beginning would allow for
refining the laws as differences in detail emerge.
“The details of what are and are not legitimate applications
of the Commerce Clause might make a good discussion for another time. The
nature of commerce has changed since the Constitution was written, and whether
and how to adapt to that could be a lively and multifaceted discussion.
“On the People’s Republic of China, your response reads as
if you agree with me. ‘I think they are acquiring energy resources for a host
of reasons, not fundamentally different from the forces that drive our national
interests.’ Their interests, I would think, are in becoming more powerful and
wealthy than anyone else, thus becoming our successor as our economy and
society continue to deteriorate.
“On the Second Amendment, why would the rationale not be
a predominant issue? When the Founders gave their intent right in the
Amendment, that ought to settle the issue.
“On the issue of the Aurora massacre, I respect that we
cannot re-write history. While you or another highly-trained, very alert armed
citizen might have prevented or minimized the damage Mr. Holmes did, most
people have neither the training nor the alertness to do that. The statement I
have seen over and over involves "anyone with a legal concealed
firearm." The theater was dark and very shortly become smoky. Hundreds of
people filled the room, and the noise/distraction level was very high. Ordinary
permit training will not make a typical civilian capable of stopping a
heavily-armed attacker in that situation.
“On the more general gun issue, I fail to see where arguing
from anything but numbers is productive. Knowing the scope of this or any
problem is necessary to resolving it. On an issue this emotional, numbers are
the only way to attain clarity. So, answering the question of whether the issue
is the behavior of 1% of the adult population or merely 0.0001% matters a great
deal to determining the best approach. What I favor, of course, is a system of
registration and background checks for gun buyers. Those have been defeated by
the NRA’s use of a “slippery slope” argument with a very paranoid feel to it. I
will note here that the slippery slope argument is a fallacy in logic.
“I have faith in mankind based on the longer sweep of
history. I do not, however, believe that very many caring, high functioning
people will use their time to attempt to correct their neighbors’ minor
unwelcome behaviors, and I especially do not believe that ordinary, untrained
people can or should police their neighbors. Answers to society’s ills will
probably come from actions of large numbers or people, but we must accept them
as they are. There’s no point in attempting to impose a utopian ideal on
reality; that has failed again and again. Indeed, it was the origin and
ultimately the downfall of Communism.”
. . . my response to round two:
Re:
drugs. Agreed. Alcohol level controls should be
adequate for starters.
Re:
Commerce Clause. As I have read all too often, the
Commerce Clause can be interpreted to justify regulation or prohibition of any
private or personal use activity, or even as was attempted with PPACA, the
unwillingness to participate. The
rationale with respect to controlled substances is regulation of interstate
production, transportation and distribution, which morph’ed into prohibition
and criminalization of private consumption. The bastardized logic of moral condemnation opened the door
for virtually any governmental intrusion into private conduct. Contemporary interpretation has gone so
far beyond the founding principles.
Re:
PRC. I cannot authoritatively
speak to the PRC’s motivations.
Their activities and demands are verging on hegemonic, although I am not
yet there. Nonetheless, they are
intimidating their neighbors to expand their control and influence in the
region in what appears to be nationalistic, not yet fascist, objectives. I suspect they are after respect on the
world stage and a place at the table, more so than supplanting the United States.
Re:
2nd Amendment. Are you suggesting that the sentence
construction renders “well regulated militia” and “bear arms” as precisely
interdependent and thus inextricable?
If so, I do not believe any substantiation for such an interpretation
exists in the supporting documentation of the era. Again, the object of amendment is “arms,” not “militia.”
Re:
armed citizen. Ahso, in that
context, I would agree. Yet,
returned fire has a tendency to distract or dissuade an attacker, especially a
poorly trained attacker.
Muzzle-flashes are often quite distinguishable even in a smoky room, and
the audible sound of bullet passage alters a shooter’s perspective of any
situation. I respectfully submit,
even shots fired into the ceiling might have helped reduce the carnage. I am not advocating for everyone to be
armed, but I am advocating for those who choose to be trained and qualified not
be denied that right. Just one
capable citizen might have stopped the massacre and saved innocent lives in
each of the massacre events cited below.
Re:
numbers. OK, let us talk
numbers. The U.S. population is
roughly 320M. Thus, 1% is 3.2M,
and 0.0001% is 320. I thought I
was being generous. Aurora –
2012. Virginia Tech – 2007. Columbine – 1999. The first two . . . single
perpetrators. The third . . . two
boys. We are not talking about
hundreds of these events every year.
We are not talking about every crime committed with a gun involved –
used or not. So, what number is
applicable to your argument?
Re:
guns. We already have registration
and background checks . . . well for new purchases. I have guns I’ve had from young adult days and I inherited
quite a few more. Are you
suggesting that I must go to a government office and register each and every
pistol, rifle and shotgun I own?
Re:
“slippery slope.” I do not share
all of the NRA’s positions. The
“slippery slope” to me goes back to the camel metaphor. Why does the government or anyone else
need to know what and how many firearms I own? If there is some legitimate public interest, what assurance
do I have than the government will not abuse that information as the USG has so
freely done with all the other information we are obligated to provide? Lastly, where do you see the fallacy in
the “slippery slope” logic?
Re:
mankind. I am not advocating for
everyone go George-Zimmerman on us, nor should untrained citizens perform
“policing” activities. I am
suggesting that citizens care about their community. Be attentive to our environment. Look for people who show disrespect for others or the
environment. I would not be
surprised if someone saw Holmes suiting up outside the theater and ignored it
or did not report it. A simple
warning or shout-out might have rattle Holmes just enough to cause him to
hesitate, change his mind, or give someone else time to react. I am talking about caring not policing.
. . . round three:
“I'll take a shot at those parts I understand.
“The Chinese (or whoever) have no reason to direct their
actions toward us. We have blown the lead all by ourselves on many fronts.
Pretty much any nation's objectives are ‘nationalistic’; that is, they place
the welfare of that nation above any other consideration. Also, combining
Communism with fascism would be quite a trick, even for China.
“I have read here and elsewhere that the Supreme Court has
disconnected the parts of the Second Amendment. I'm not sure how we reached the
point of the Supreme Court telling us to disregard the Constitution, but here
we are. I imagine the reason there's little background discussion by the
Founders because this one sentence is crystal clear.
“One exceptional citizen might have ended that massacre in
the theater in Aurora, Colorado. Not merely one ‘capable’ citizen.
“Why would we discuss only such incidents as Columbine and
Virginia Tech? They are a tiny minority of homicides by gun. Are we discussing
how to address US society's violent side or merely how to detect
dangerous psychological illnesses? In that case, I will point out that
often these shooters (Aurora and the Tucson shooter come to mind) have not
encountered either law enforcement or the mental health system in a way that
triggered warnings. The vast majority of "ordinary" killers have
histories. I have no issue with you and other gun owners registering each of
your weapons, and I fail to understand why you do. You can pass any background
check imaginable. Most of those who kill with guns cannot even pass a cursory
check. Furthermore, if a criminal succeeds in stealing your guns, a
registration system would give an additional chance of convicting the criminal
and of returning your guns. If law enforcement can find the guns more quickly
than at present, they might be able to retrieve them before they are used to
commit more crimes. Say it any way you want, guns are much more effective ways
to rob and kill people than such weapons as knives or clubs.
“The ‘slippery slope argument’ is a standard example of a
logical fallacy. You can find it discussed in more detail in any book devoted
to logic. It describes an argument that begins with an innocuous event, in this
instance regulating or registering gun sales in some way, and leads to some
unwarranted conclusion by making a series of unsupported assumptions about
events that the speaker expects to follow from the first, in this instance the
speaker's political enemies taking over the country by violence. (For those who
haven't noticed, people have already taken over the country by buying the
government, and your weapons have no effect on that.)
“Your hope of changing human nature has been
attempted many times but never achieved.”
. . . my response to round three:
Re:
PRC. Interesting
observations. My use of the word
“fascism” in the context of the PRC is more a reflection of the dictatorial
aspects of the Politburo rather than the singularity of the dictator. Also, fascism in contemporary history
tends to represent projection of their “benevolence” to “enlighten” neighboring
“underprivileged” people. It is
not yet clear whether all the territorial demands are actually geographic or political. We must retain our vigilance.
Re:
2nd Amendment. Perhaps you should read the Supremes
reasoning both pro & con. I’d
suggest District of Columbia v. Heller [553 U.S. ___ (2008); No.
07-290] [342]. They have never
disconnected the words – only put them in proper perspective. Crystal clear . . . exactly what the
Supremes say, too.
Re:
citizen. “Exceptional” vs.
“capable” . . . qualification; we can argue about the meaning of the words.
Re:
violence. As always, we can
discuss whatever you wish. Someone
who would injure another person without acceptable justification has
demonstrated little, if any, respect for human life or other people.
Re:
gun registration. What is the
public domain purpose for the government needing to know the type, quantity,
and serial number of the guns I own?
What assurance do I have that the government will not abuse that
information like they have done with most other data bits? Yes, I can pass any background
check. I am not concern about me
or my citizenship. I am concerned
about the government. The 4th Amendment
requires the government to have a proper, public reason to intrude into my
private life. If my guns are
stolen, I have a separate record of each and every weapon along with its
associated details and serial numbers; advance knowledge will not alter the
crime or the speed of response.
Re:
effective means. Ahso, my point
precisely. The issue is those
individuals who choose to commit crimes.
Are we really trying to regulate their means of committing crimes, or
dealing with the root cause of the crime?
I fully understand and agree with your aggravation with the collateral
damage done by those who lack respect for mankind. As long as there are citizens who are more aligned with not
being snitches, not caring about the impact on other citizens, then I shall
argue strongly to retain an undisclosed, unregistered means to defend my family
and myself. Let us focus on the
root cause, not the obvious symptoms, and not impacting the overwhelming
majority because we would rather not be snitches or deal with the bad
characters.
Re:
“slippery slope.” I understand the
logic. I do not understand your
application in this debate.
Re:
human nature. One axiom of life .
. . we cannot change human nature.
We can only recognize aberrations and deviant conduct to the public
good, and insulate or isolate such conduct from causing collateral injury to
other citizens or property. I
learned a long time ago that there was no way to alter an addict’s trajectory –
only the addict can do that. Our
task is not to attempt reform or rehabilitation of the addict, but rather the
diminishment and hopefully elimination of the collateral damage done by the
addict as he feeds his obsession.
The same process is valid for those who choose to hurt others. I fully agree with you, we cannot
change the individual.
. . . round four:
“‘Are we really trying to regulate their means of committing
crimes, or dealing with the root cause of the crime?’ By the time we find some
unifying root cause of crime in general or mass murder in particular and devise
a means to change that, you and I will be long dead. Regulating the means of
committing crimes would save an enormous number of lives between now and then.
“When addressing the idea of attempting to change human
nature, you seem to think I want to change the nature of addicts. I did not
refer to addicts in my point. I referred to your wish that neighbors or other
possible witnesses to unwelcome behaviors would somehow act to curtail those
before they develop into larger criminal acts. We cannot change the nature of
the neighbors or other witnesses any more than we can change addicts.”
. . . my response to round four:
Re:
crime. I think the root cause of
crime is actually quite simple – disrespect for other people and/or
property. We might even go farther
back to conclude that criminals learned their disrespect for others from bad or
dysfunctional parents. As you well
know, I still search for how does society identify and intercede with
dysfunctional or bad parents before they can damage their children.
Re:
human nature. I used an addict as
an illustrative example, not as a deflection. My point was we cannot change others, not our neighbors,
addicts, or criminals. I simply
want folks to notice public conduct and intercede with potentially injurious
behavior. In Rudy Giuliani’s
terms, nab the turnstile jumper, stop the bank robber.
. . . round five:
“My point was and is that these are examples of wanting to
change human nature.”
. . . my response to round five:
Au
contraire, mon ami. I
have no desire to change anyone. I
only want to prevent those so inclined from injuring or disrespecting other
citizens – identification, prosecution, incarceration, whatever. If the individual chooses to alter his
behavior and become socially tolerable, then that is his choice, not ours. My collateral point is, law enforcement
as we know it cannot perform this task without our assistance. If citizens choose to retain their “I’m
no snitch” mentality, then I have no interest in supporting any further
restrictions on gun ownership and usage for self-defense, hunting, et cetera.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
Cap,
I’ll keep this one brief. I agree with just about all of your points concerning the Chick-Fil-A discussion, but doubt the usefulness of your having a battle of wits with unarmed opponents.
A friend of mine has a gift for simplicity. He suggests that Mr. Cathy of Chick-Fil-A set up the entire incident as a way to increase store traffic. If we follow the money, that’s the strongest explanation I’ve heard of the entire situation. Segmenting markets makes directed marketing possible and profitable. This situation exemplifies that. Chick-Fil-A had already lost the business of people like me, but we are a very small segment of a very large market. Mr. Cathy does not need the business of every American. If he can appeal to the intellectually challenged likes of your opponents, he has plenty of people to use in making money. On top of that, he need never make sense. That’s not a priority for those people.
Calvin
Calvin,
Thank you for your opinion.
I believe it is important to include aspects of any debate. I offer my opinions to stimulate or instigate public debate on contemporary issues. I seek all opinions. I want citizens to confront my opinions. Public debate helps me understand, see other facets, and refine my thinking. Hopefully, such exchanges help other refine their thinking as well.
Re: Cathy’s motive. Your observation is plausible, but reflects a very cynical view of humanity and business, which apparently, for Dan Cathy, is equally plausible. I see this whole episode as rather sad. We have so much to learn.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment