Update from the Heartland
No.563
24.9.12 – 30.9.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- As we discuss the value of freedom of speech amid the
ashes [561/562], I strongly recommend Leonard Pitts’ editorial opinion.
“Most dangerous words ever written”
by Leonard Pitts Jr.
Miami Herald (Wichita Eagle)
Published: Monday, Sep. 24, 2012, 12 a.m.; Updated Monday,
Sep. 24, 2012, 6:30 a.m.
‘Nuf said.
Three months ago, the Supreme Court rendered judgment in United
States v. Alvarez [566 U.S. ___ (2012); no. 11–210] in which they
declared the Stolen
Valor Act of 2005 [PL 109-437; 120 Stat. 3266; 20.December.2006] [560] an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. The case encompasses and settles United
States v. Strandlof [USDC CO 1:09-cr-00497-REB (2010)] [450] and United States v. Alvarez
[9CCA no.08-50345 (2010)] [454]. The very first words of the ruling
were, “Lying was his habit.” In
2007, Xavier Alvarez attended his first public meeting as a board member of the
Three Valley Water District Board in Claremont, California. He introduced himself, “I'm a retired
marine of 25 years. I retired in
the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was
awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy.” Not a word of his statement was true. Associate Justice Kennedy wrote for the
majority, “The probable, and adverse, effect of the Act on freedom of
expression illustrates, in a fundamental way, the reasons for the Law's
distrust of content-based speech prohibitions. . . . The statute seeks to control and suppress all false
statements on this one subject in almost limitless times and settings. And it does so entirely without regard
to whether the lie was made for the purpose of material gain. . . . That governmental power has no clear
limiting principle. Our constitutional tradition stands against the idea that
we need Oceania's Ministry of Truth.”
Kennedy went on to say, “The remedy for speech that is false is speech
that is true. This is the ordinary
course in a free society. The
response to the unreasoned is the rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened;
to the straight-out lie, the simple truth.” And, “Only a weak society needs government protection or
intervention before it pursues its resolve to preserve the truth. Truth needs
neither handcuffs nor a badge for its vindication.” He concluded, “The Nation well knows that one of the costs
of the First
Amendment is that it protects the speech we detest as well as the
speech we embrace.” I could argue
both sides of this topic despite my clear, biased sympathies for the Act as a
former Marine rifleman. The sad
reality in this case rests upon the significance of combat valor awards to our
society. Six of the Supremes were
not sufficiently impressed.
As
an historic note for reference purposes, Congress created the Medal of Honor on
21.December.1861 [PL 37-II-001; 12 Stat. 329], and became a permanent military award
for valor on 3.March.1863 [PL 37-III-079; 12 Stat. 744]. Since the award was created a total of
3,476 medals have been awarded with a total of 19 men awarded the Medal of
Honor twice, 14 of these received two separate medals for two separate actions,
while 5 received both the Navy and Army Medals of Honor for the same action.
My
personal opinions aside, Congress has thrown down the gauntlet as the House passed
the latest version, the Stolen Valor Act of 2012
[H.R.1775; House: 410-3-0-16(6)] {the Senate has yet to consider the
bill}. Also, significant to this
issue, the Department of Defense created an on-line database of high, combat,
valor awards given since 11.September.2001.
Military Awards
for Valor - Top 3
A more comprehensive but unofficial database goes beyond the
War on Islamic Fascism.
Military Times Hall of Valor
I trust we will find a way to respect the highest awards for
combat valor given by this Grand Republic without impinging upon a citizen’s
freedom of speech.
News from
the economic front:
-- Durable Goods Orders decreased to a seasonally adjusted
US$198.49B (down 13.2%) in August, as the sales of commercial-aircraft and
other capital items dropped, the latest sign of a weakening manufacturing
sector.
-- The U.S. economic output grew at an annual rate of 1.3% in
2Q2012, down from the previously reported 1.7% gain.
-- Initial jobless claims fell by 26,000 to a seasonally
adjusted 359,000 in the week ending 22.September.
-- As British financial regulators continue their
investigation into what happened to the London InterBank Offered Rate (LIBOR), as
they expand their effort to Singapore and former RBS derivatives trader Tan Chi
Min (AKA Jimmy Tan). RBS fired Jimmy
last November for alleged gross misconduct relating to the setting of LIBOR. Apparently part of Jimmy’s duties included
providing LIBOR rate-setters with “input.” RBS condoned the practice. Jimmy counter-sued the bank for wrongful dismissal.
Comments and contributions from Update no.562:
Comment to the Blog:
“Mr. Justice Thomas is known around the Court mainly for
saying nothing. Now we have a clue to the reason. He’s just not that bright.
Beyond that, he may still be worried about someone following up on those
conflicts of interest.
“I find myself in agreement with Eugene Robinson. His
central point, that teachers cannot fix all that is wrong with schools, stands
for itself and should be obvious. I also agree with him that poverty is at
minimum one of the underlying causes. Poverty in and of itself makes parents’
and children’s lives extremely stressful. I recommend you study that subject
before you dismiss it so easily. Also, you set up a conflict for yourself when
you insist on trying to change parenting and at the same time insist on the
sanctity of actions taken in private. That amounts to wanting to have your cake
and eat it too.
“The ‘Congressional Reform Act of 2012’ is strictly for
amusement; it won’t be enacted ever. I see no reason not to negate the
influence of money in our elections. Removing corporate subsidies from any of
several industries could provide funding for honest election campaigns without
allowing donations above a reasonable small amount, say $100. (That probably
won’t happen either.) Making it easier for additional parties to achieve
recognition and ballot space might make elections more competitive because
someone would dare to offer what real people would want them to enact rather
than the marketing BS we have now. I do not understand your statement that, ‘.
. . without money we have NO representation.’
“Median (not necessarily average) household income has been
falling for a long time, as adjusted for inflation.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
Thomas. I believe you
underestimate Justice Thomas. My
focus on the article was his reflection on the dichotomy of his youth and the
constraints of his jurisprudence.
I do not agree with many of his judicial pronouncements, however I do
respect him and his reasoning.
Re:
teachers. I agree that teachers
are not the problem, and I believe I said just that. Where I disagree with Robinson is the significance of
poverty on education. However, I
needed to take my argument farther to the root cause. We have discussed poverty many times, and I am certain we
will many more times. I do not
have the capacity to study poverty to the degree you imply. I am not dismissing poverty as a
factor, but as with most things in life, our responses to events are driven by
our attitude. If you believe you
are downtrodden, then you act downtrodden. There are poor people who act in a very noble manner, as
well as there are rich folks who act like trailer trash. Like the social constraints of The Box,
our society has created the expectation of middle class lifestyle as normal,
the standard, the objective for us all.
Re:
reform. I believe that was my point
as well. On your query, as the
call for revolution 247 years ago – No taxation without representation – our
call for revolution may well become “representation without money.”
Re:
income. I sure feel like my income
has fallen. And, we are not out of
the woods, yet.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
[Please keep my paragraph breaks. They are important to clear writing.]
I agree with you and Leonard Pitts as far as Pitts’ analysis of Muslim response to the anti-Islamic movie Innocence of Muslims. However, Newt Gingrich’s suggestion, endorsed by Mr. Pitts, that the USA (presumably, some part of it) should use this incident to “teach the Muslim world about freedom” does not follow.
First of all, “the Muslim world” is not our student. They do not seek to learn from us. Indeed, we are the last source they would use as a teacher.
Second, their lesson from either the attack in Benghazi or this posting would be that freedom is a disadvantage for the majority/mainstream opinion, as Mr. Pitts points out clearly with the example of the nasty Phelpses picketing soldiers’ funerals. Outsiders cannot be expected to understand that as a positive thing. You go on to point out that we do not punish lying in matters of high honor. From the viewpoint of those who do not have a prior high value on freedom, you have simply pointed out how weak “freedom” makes the USA. You would do far better to point out the important results of academic freedom, the ways the civil rights movement has benefitted the USA as a whole or other reasons we all benefit from freedom rather than focus on the unwelcome but necessary features. To draw an analogy, your writing reads as if automobiles are welcome because of pollution and accidents rather than because of their speed and flexibility in transporting us.
As far as the economic news, I have come to believe that far too many figures are available. The many attempts to predict the future merely cloud the picture, which benefits the bold manipulator rather than the honest investor. My father survived the Great Depression as an adult. He pointed out every so often, “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” The LIBOR situation is an excellent example of that.
Calvin,
[I try. My apologies if I misfired. I am not flawless.]
Re: teaching. Well, actually, I think teaching in fact does follow precisely. Freedom is about choice. I do not know what Gingrich or Pitts considers as teaching freedom. However, to me, it is individual and collective freedom of choice and respect for the choices of others. It matters not what choices others make in freedom as long as their choices respect mine and do not injure others. I interpreted Pitts in that context, not some parochial imposition on the un-anointed.
Re: Muslim world. Indeed, they are not our students. I will certainly respect their choices, if they respect mine.
Re: lessons. I surmise for your reply that you see a hegemonic intention here, that the United States seeks to impose our values, our system of governance on others. If so, I do not believe that is correct. Again, if the Afghanis freely choose the dictatorial theocracy of the Taliban, then I say, good for them, godspeed and following winds. My understanding of history tells me the Afghanis did not freely choose the Taliban. Also, the Taliban chose to harbor al-Qa’ida, knowing full well the Arabs were a fascist element seeking to impose their will upon others and they were intent upon projection of their hatred to the Great Satan. That is where they crossed the line. That is also where education regarding the power of freedom and the need to protect it comes into play. I think your analogy is misapplied.
Your father was a wise man.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment