Update from the Heartland
No.558
20.8.12 – 26.8.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Norwegian, confessed, mass murderer, Anders Behring
Breivik killed 77 people on 22.July.2011 [501]. On Friday, Judge Wenche Elisabeth
Arntzen in Oslo, declared Breivik sane and sentenced him to 21 years of “preventive
detention” – the maximum under Norwegian law. However, such sentences can be extended, if an inmate is
considered dangerous. The 33-year-old
right-wing extremist Breivik has often been compared to Timothy James McVeigh,
26-years-old at the time of his crime; unfortunately, however, Breivik will not
meet the same consequence as McVeigh.
-- According to the Press, an anonymous, former, SEAL team
member has written a book – “No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the
Mission That Killed Osama bin Laden.” The book was written under the nom de plume Mark
Owen, and was not authorized or sanctioned by the Department of Defense, as
required by law. In what appears
to be somewhat a tête-à-tête, a “military official”
identified the author to the Press – Matt Bissonnette, 36, of Wrangell, Alaska,
a former member of SEAL Team 6, and apparently a participant in Operation NEPTUNE’S
SPEAR [489, 490,
503] and the rescue of SS Maersk Alabama [382].
On Saturday, 25.August.2012, Neil Alden Armstrong, 82,
passed away following complications resulting from cardiovascular
procedures. I was a midshipman
serving aboard USS Mississinewa
(AO-144) and returning from shore leave in Civitavecchia, Italia, at the moment
he made history, when he broadcast from the Moon to the World, “That’s one
small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” [20.July.1969]. Godspeed and following winds,
Neil. May God rest your immortal
soul.
I have been waiting for this particular video clip. The Mars rover Curiosity descent video:
Magnificent achievement, NASA!
I vacillated on this issue and eventually succumbed to the
irresistible temptation. I feel
the urge to apologize, however . . .
Representative
William Todd Akin of Missouri, the Republican candidate for Senate, said a week
ago, Sunday, in a televised interview:
“It seems to me, first of all, from
what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try
to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or
something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to
be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”
“Legitimate rape”?
Really? Sure, being a
staunch social conservative, he probably meant “forcible rape,” since that is a
big term for such ideologues, with shades of the antiquated doctrine of
coverture; or, he might have meant “bona fide rape,” to separate such violent
criminal acts from false claims or accusations, since many of these men truly
believe women bring rape upon themselves.
The problem I have . . . he probably spoke his mind quite clearly. Akin is quite comfortable supporting a
constitutional amendment to prohibit abortion for any reason. His demonstrated paucity of
understanding regarding human biology is shockingly medieval and devoid of
science. Beyond the foolishness of
his thinking and misspeak, the flash fire represents precisely why prohibition,
elimination, or even restraint of abortion cannot be achieved in the public,
political domain. I have
absolutely no problem with anyone’s personal opinion from the absolute
prohibition of abortion to free abortion on demand for any woman who wants
it. I am also quite comfortable
with the individual private choices of citizens. My position narrows substantially when someone suggests
passing a law to enforce their personal opinion. The State has no place, and I respectfully submit no
authority, to intrude upon a woman’s very private medical decision. If we want to end abortion as a medical
procedure, let us find solutions to the underlying, root cause issues that lead
to abortion. Prohibition will
never work; such an action would only force women to the back alley
butchers. We must extract
ourselves from this non-productive, ideological flagellation. We need respectful solutions, not
mindless rhetoric.
I read the Supremes’ recent FCC v. Fox Television
[565 U.S. ___ (2012); no. 10–1293] ruling; it is hard to call it a decision as
it involves yet one more remand “for further proceedings consistent with the
principles set forth in this opinion.”
I also bounced around whether to even mention the latest rendition. You may recall the previous version of
this issue – FCC v. Fox Television [556 U.S. 502 (2009); No. 07-582] [385] {28.April.2009}. The case involved the same three
broadcast television incidents of alleged indecency, for which the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) received “public” complaints.
·
First, Fox Television Stations, Inc., broadcast
the 2002 Billboard Music Awards [10.December.2002], in which the singer Cher
exclaimed during an unscripted acceptance speech, “I've also had my critics for
the last 40 years saying that I was on my way out every year. Right. So f *** ‘em.”
·
Second, Fox broadcast the 2003 Billboard Music
Awards [10.December.2003], while presenting an award Nicole Richie made an unscripted
remark, “Have you ever tried to get cow s*** out of a Prada purse? It's not so f ***ing simple.”
·
Third, ABC Television Network broadcast an episode
of NYPD Blue [25.February.2003] that showed the naked buttocks of an adult
female character for approximately seven seconds and a momentary glimpse of the
side of her breast, as she was preparing to take a shower, when a child
portraying her boyfriend’s son entered the bathroom.
Before the FCC issued their Notices of Apparent Liability to Fox and ABC, NBC broadcast the
2003 Golden Globe Awards [19.January.2003], during which the singer Bono
exclaimed after winning the Best Original Song award, “This is really, really,
f ***ing brilliant. Really,
really great.” As a result, the
FCC declared the “F-word actionably indecent,” as “one of the most vulgar,
graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual activity in the English language,”
and thus “any use of that word or a variation, in any context, inherently has a
sexual connotation.” On 18.March.2004,
the FCC issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order, Complaints
Against Various Broadcast Licensees Regarding Their Airing of the “Golden Globe
Awards” Program, (AKA Golden Globes Order) [FCC 04-43; 19 FCC Rcd. 4975,
4976, n. 4 (2004)]. The
broadcasters claimed the FCC’s progressively more stringent enforcement since
2001, against the broadcasting of fleeting expletives was arbitrary, vague and
without sufficient explanation or notice.
In this latest Fox decision, the Supremes agreed
and sent the case back to the lower courts one more time. Justice Ginsburg wrote the only
concurring opinion, since she could not pass the opportunity to take a shot at
a long standing precedent case – FCC v. Pacifica Foundation [438
U.S. 726 (1978); no. 77-528] [347] – the 3.July.1978 Supreme
Court decision based on George Carlin’s “Filthy Words” routine, broadcast Tuesday, 30.October.1973.
Justice Ginsburg got it right; the FCC Golden Globes Order is
constitutionally invalid AND Pacifica
should be overruled and eliminated as precedent in such cases.
News from
the economic front:
-- The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the
default execution of Title I of the Budget Control
Act of 2011 (BCA) [PL 112-025; 125 Stat. xxxx; 2.August.2011] {AKA
the Sequester, the
fiscal cliff, or Taxmageddon} [503, 504] will plunged the Nation into a deep recession during the first
half of next year, if Congress fails to avert nearly US$500B in tax hikes and
spending cuts set to hit in January.
The massive round of New Year’s belt-tightening would disrupt recent
economic progress and push the unemployment rate back up to 9.1% by the end of
2013. Let us not forget the
failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit
Reduction [519], charged by
Title IV of BCA to achieve a solution to avoid the Sequester. Congress had the opportunity to solve
the problem a year ago. I do not
hold much hope they will stand up to the mark this time.
-- The Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee indicated
they are preparing new stimulus to boost the recovery, if the economy does not
show substantially stronger signs of growth “fairly soon.”
-- The British Office of National Statistics revised the
country’s 2Q2012 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) up to -0.5% from -0.7% after
adjustments to the construction and production sectors.
Comments and contributions from Update no.557:
Comment to the Blog:
“I see we still disagree on transparency in government.
Official secrecy has always been used to cover up incompetence as well as
corruption, and Operation Fast and Furious will be a particularly damning
example of that, I think.
“The end of secrecy in general is in sight. Julian Assange
is only one example of people who are making pretty much all government and
corporate operations open, ready or not.
“Why Harvard would use DNA to encode language is beyond me.
“The point of knowing Governor Romney’s tax rate is to
understand whether he could ever empathize with ordinary Americans. I have my
doubts.
“Your discussion of the Supreme Court decision eludes me in
its entirety.
“Governor Brewer continues to assert her imaginary right to
defy the Federal government. We may hope that in time she will go too far and
be removed from political life. In the meantime, the Native American part of me
revels in the irony of Europeans complaining about the later immigrants
threatening their way of life.
“I marvel at how easily you and your friend find people
driving slowly on the freeways. The legal speed limit seems a reasonable
measurement of that. I drive very close to the speed limit, and I encounter a
slower driver about once in fifty to one hundred miles. That would be one in
several thousand drivers. People driving at dangerously slow speeds elude me. I
have seen people drive at lower than ten miles under the speed limit on
freeways about five or six times in the thirty-five years I have been driving.
Perhaps those who find themselves highly annoyed should learn to plan their
time more effectively and to deal with their stress. Keep in mind that your
rage changes nothing about anyone else but can affect your own health. I wish
you well.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
government transparency. I do not
presume to know or understand the reasons why the administration needs to
withhold Fast and Furious information.
They are entrusted with protecting this Grand Republic. History and the law catches up to
everyone, but public disclosure of classified information is not the way. Are there bad people who try to use
classification to hide their malfeasance?
Yes! However, public
disclosure of means and methods is not the way to nab the bad guys.
Re:
secrecy. We need it for a host of
reasons, especially in wartime.
Re:
encoding DNA. Beyond me as
well. No one has yet stood up to
explain why.
Re:
Romney taxes. Again, I think it a
bogus, red herring. There are
plenty of other ways to establish his empathy. If you don’t like the amount of taxes Romney pays, tell you
representatives and senators to change the tax code. I have no doubt Mitt has complied with the law.
Re:
SCOTUS SB 1070 ruling. I will not attempt to rehash the
significance, unless you really would like to get into it. The most significant element was in
Alito’s dissenting opinion that the Court’s decision establishes precedent of
enforcing agency policy rather than the law. The potential consequences of the SB 1070 ruling are
comparable to Citizens United . . . that to me is enormous.
Re:
Brewer. Arizona is caught between
a rock and a hard spot – damned if they do, damned if they don’t. I do not take kindly to Brewer’s
confrontational approach, but any action is better than inaction. The point of the dissenting opinions
was that the USG is choosing not to enforce the law, which is a policy
decision. Further, Congress passes
laws, then denies resources necessary to enforce the law, and turns around to
condemn Arizona for making a stab at enforcement. Arizona did not supercede the Federales;
they in fact followed the law.
Re:
traffic. So, you are saying it is
OK for a citizen to use his vehicle to enforce traffic laws and regulations as
he sees fit, but it is not OK for citizens to protect their communities? I have absolutely no problem with
anyone who chooses to drive at or below the speed limit. All I am saying is have a little respect
for the flow of traffic.
Conversely, I do not condone reckless driving, e.g., large speed
differentials. If you wish to
drive at or below the speed limit, move to the right and let others pass. If someone is driving recklessly, let
the police deal with him, or pull over and call 911 to report him. I am only asking for a little respect
and courtesy. To say my irritation
or displeasure is rage or road rage, would be a misnomer. There are others among us who are not
so tolerant.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
My comment on the end of secrecy last week referred to the ability to keep secrets, and to neither the willingness to try nor to the morality of the situation. I was as startled as anyone to learn that a member of Seal Team 6 had written about the killing of Osama bin-Laden.
As with any American my age or older (I assume), I remember watching the first moon landing. We had no TV, but we had friends who did. I can still remember the linoleum on the floor where I sat for what seemed forever before and after Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon.
I would call Representative Akin a toad, but toads serve a purpose and Akin does not.
On both of the cases you discuss, my position is simple. I favor freedom.
On the Sequester bill, I am one of the many who saw this as a disastrous evasion of responsibility on the part of Congress. We may only hope that someone can push our elected “representatives” to take some of the responsibility for their choices at some point before the current mess goes catastrophic again.
Calvin,
Re: secrecy. Ideologically, I would prefer all government actions to be open, public and timely. The Internet has helped us get closer that idealized objective. I actually supported the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 based on Press reports – all we had available 40 years ago. Today, we can read legislation as it is created and makes its way through Congress. We can read judicial pronouncements from the district courts to the Supreme Court, which helps us understand the law and its implications. We are far closer to open government than at any time in our history. Yet, there are elements of information that should remain classified and not available to the public for at least 20 years. I wanted to know the details of the Operation NEPTUNE’S SPEAR, but the government leaks compromised future operations and inflicted a terrible punishment on Doctor Shakil Afridi. While the President’s public statement was encouraging and probably appropriate, everything beyond the simple fact was grossly inappropriate. I am very much for open government, but not when it compromises national security or public safety.
Re: Armstrong. That day left a permanent impression on those of us who witnessed history.
Re: Akin = toad. Spot on! Unfortunately, there are far too many just like him and worse.
Re: freedom. Freedom is not always pretty, pleasant or comforting, yet the parsing of freedom ultimately diminishes freedom for all of us . . . we may not recognize it but true nonetheless.
Re: Sequester. The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) [PL 112-025; 125 Stat. xxxx; 2.August.2011] may not be perfect law but it did what had to be done – we cannot sustain this debt. We are spending beyond our means. I pointed directly at the political intransigence of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction as the canary in the coal mine. I have no reason to doubt the assessment of the CBO. If Congress believes an even deeper second dip recession is appropriate and necessary, then let’s get on with it. We have risen from the ashes before, I do not doubt we will do it again. The only question is when?
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment