Update from the Heartland
No.570
12.11.12 – 18.11.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Secession! Really? How timely!
Jeanne was not interested, so she
sent out an invitation for any local family to see Steven Spielberg’s movie “Lincoln.” The only taker was our friend Cindy. We met at the theater at noon
Saturday. Critics proclaimed the
movie . . . slow; I shall respectfully disagree. While the main and title character is President Abraham
Lincoln, the subject was the passage of the 13th Amendment [House
passage: 31.January.1865; ratification by the “loyal” states: 6.December.1865]
– an interesting complement to the parliamentary efforts of William Wilberforce
[1807] and portrayed in the movie “Amazing
Grace.” A phenomenal cast
includes at least three Academy Award winning actors, beyond the Academy Award
winning director/producer, and performed at exemplary levels. Every citizen of this Grand Republic as
well as every freedom loving person on the planet must see this movie – this is
history alive. Congratulations to
Spielberg and the fantastic cast of “Lincoln.” Well done.
The follow-up news items:
-- BP has agreed to plead guilty to felony charges of “Misconduct
or Neglect of Ships Officers” and pay US$4.5B in penalties, including US$1.26B
in criminal fines, stemming from the Macondo Well / Deepwater Horizon disaster [20.April.2010] that killed 11 workers
and became the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history [436, 442, 456, 471, 474]. The plea deal is subject to U.S.
federal court approval. Attorney
General Eric Holder also announced indictments against two of BP’s
highest-ranking supervisors on the Deepwater Horizon rig; the pair were charged
with 23 counts of criminal wrongdoing, including manslaughter.
This segment should be in the follow-up section, but it is
too long. Also, I started to write
this assessment several times, only to abandon those attempts; this last one
survived. All other things aside,
I would have preferred to leave what has become known as L’Affaire Petraeus
without further comment [569];
however, the national security implications and rather poor reflection upon our
society compel me to write. I do
not have sufficient grasp of facts or the capacity to reconstruct what
happened; however, I do have a solidifying opinion.
As
a preface, we should be attentive and focused on the far more critical, fiscal
cliff solution – national debt, tax reform, operating budget, deficit spending,
et cetera ad infinitum – instead, we are consumed by the Petraeus resignation,
or at least the titillating, salacious innuendo and implications surrounding
his resignation. We, the People,
have not had a proper Federal budget in years. This is no way to run a railroad. Yet, here we are, so into the deep end I jump.
To
my knowledge (to this point), no one has violated any laws. The L’Affaire Petraeus undoubtedly
offends the sensitive moral values of many, but that does not make it
wrong. In this context, adultery
is defined as voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone
other than a lawful spouse. Beyond
the law, some take a far broader view to include any sexual activity (physical)
as well as mental or emotional infidelity, thus our obsession with flirtatious
communications. In the epoch of
Victorian-era morality and the Comstock sin police, adultery was a felonious
crime, ostensibly to protect women (wives) who held a subservient legal
position under the Doctrine of Coverture.
Adultery remains a crime in some states, although rarely prosecuted
these days. [FYI: in Michigan, the
maximum penalty for adultery is life in prison, quite akin to the “Scarlet A”
branding.] Adultery also remains a
court-martial offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for all
military personnel regardless of rank.
Adultery is a morality law regarding private conduct or behavior. My opinion of such laws should be quite
clear, without re-statement.
Just
so we keep the personal things on a fair plain for the central players, since
our Comstock morality has been offended:
·
Petraeus, 60 – married, father of two adult
children (daughter & son)
·
Allen, 58 – family status unknown
·
Broadwell, 40 – married, mother of two young
children (both sons)
·
Kelley, 37 – married, mother of three young
children (genders unknown)
·
Humphries, 47 – family status unknown
There is of course much more to this story.
For
the purpose of my opinion, I shall say L’Affaire
Petraeus began in May of this year, when Paula Dean Broadwell, née Kranz, allegedly
sent “threatening” eMail message(s), using the pseudonym “Kelleypatrol,” to Gilberte
“Jill” Kelley, née Khawam, regarding the common point of their cyber-spat –
none other than Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) General David Howell
Petraeus, USA (Ret.) [USMA 1974], as if he needed assistance.
As
we know, Broadwell co-authored “All In –
The Education of General David Petraeus”; but, she is also an Army Reserve
intelligence officer [LtCol, USAR; USMA 1995], which probably means she has a
TS-SCI (Top Secret – Sensitive Compartmented Information) clearance and some
degree of access when she served on active duty. Some Press reports suggest the FBI found classified material
in her possession; if so, she may be charged with criminal violations of
national security law.
I
initially reported that Kelley was “the State Department's liaison to the
military's Joint Special Operations Command and a Petraeus family friend” [569] – not quite correct but as the
Press reported. She was an
“unpaid” social liaison volunteer (which sounds quite like a fancy name for a
prostitute) to MacDill Air Force Base, including U.S. Central Command and Joint
Special Operations Command, in Tampa, Florida; she is also married and a mother
of three children; she is not an employee of U.S. Government, nor is she
affiliated with the State Department or any other government agency.
Kelley
brought the eMails to the attention of a friend of hers, local FBI Agent
Frederick Ward Humphries, II, who in turn referred the case to the FBI
cyber-crimes unit. As a curious
side note, Humphries is a former Army intelligence officer and was apparently
quite enamored with Kelley, as he sent images of himself bare-chested to
Kelley. Humphries was barred from
the case due to his friendship with Kelley and perceived conflict of
interest. The FBI quickly
determined there was no national security threat with respect to Petraeus. Not happy with the result and
suspicious the case would be swept under the rug, Humphries took it upon
himself, presumably as a whistleblower, to contact Representative David George “Dave”
Reichert (R-WA) [27.October.2012], who in turn contacted House Majority Leader,
Representative Eric Ivan Cantor (R-VA), who in turn contacted FBI Director Robert
Swan Mueller, III – what goes around, comes around. Circa 6.November, the Justice Department informed Director
of National Intelligence James Robert Clapper, Jr., of the investigation. Petraeus and Broadwell both acknowledged
their extramarital affair. Clapper
called Petraeus and urged him to resign.
Petraeus resigned three days later.
In
the course of the investigation, Commander, International Security Assistance
Force (Afghanistan) General John R. Allen, USMC [USNA 1976], turned up in the
eMail messages and was placed under investigation for “inappropriate
flirtatious communications” with Jill Kelley – yes, the same one. General Allen is serving on active
duty, and thus is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which
punishes adultery and conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman. Allen was preparing for Senate
confirmation hearings regarding his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander,
Europe. Secretary of Defense Leon
Edward Panetta requested the Senate place Allen’s appointment on hold, pending
the outcome of the investigation.
It
would be easy to conclude Paula Broadwell started the whole cascade of events
that cost us the service of a successful soldier and maturing DCI. We have not and may not see the eMails
to judge for ourselves; so, any judgment in that context must be reserved for
future disclosure. Nonetheless,
the image coalescing in my little pea-brain is that of an intelligent,
accomplished, ambitious person who has grand aspirations and the competency to
achieve them. Some in the Press
and Media like to portray her action as a jealous mistress protecting her turf,
but that is not the image I have.
I think she was trying to be a good friend and warn friends away from
risk. I could also present a
cogent argument that Jill Kelley is the culprit with her revolting
self-aggrandizement, and egocentric, irresponsible, narcissistic drivel, but
that would be too easy with her grossly inflated impression of herself. I have a very low image of her
intellectual contributions to our society. No, I will not take the easy targets. To me, the real culprit in this episode
is FBI Agent Fred Humphries who should have known better. He should have been able to see Kelley
for what she is, but he was so smitten, to be blind to reality; he acted like a
lovesick boy with a powerful weapon.
Instead of trying to impress Kelley with his importance and to somehow
get closer to her, Humphries should have been able to sort through her thin
façade in short order; I dare say, he is not the investigator he thinks he
is. I believe a goodly portion of
the initial public disclosures came from Humphries. His foolish enchantment with Kelley coupled with his own
sense of self-importance made him the perfect source. Yes, my ire is focused on Humphries, and I expect him to
lose his privileged position as a consequence of his foolishness. He cost us the service of a good man,
despite his human flaws.
The
only concern for the counterintelligence (CI) services should be threat
potential, not judgment and condemnation for his private sexual proclivities
and foibles. The national security
risk is using a sensitive private factor that an individual wants to keep
hidden for any one of a host of reasons.
The usual response by the CI folks is disclosure to remove the potential
threat. We do not know, and we
most likely will never know, whether the CI folks gave Petraeus the usual
option. Based on the publicly
available information, his resignation was a political action, probably to make
a social, moral statement, rather than any national security risk. The tragedy here is, We, the People,
lost a valuable public servant and leader of the Central Intelligence
Agency. I am not happy with how
this affair has played out and the extraordinary cost at the frivolous hubris
of Frederick Humphries. L’Affaire Petraeus should have never
played out the way it did.
Just
because you join the military or take a position in government does not mean
you take a vow of chastity. I
would say, government employees of any flavor are expected to conduct
themselves in accordance with the law and maintain proper public behavior – the
same as any of us. This was never
public conduct and as the FBI determine, there was no compromise or threat to
national security; that should have been it. Sure, Petraeus would have had some ‘splanin’ to do with his
wife, but that should have been it.
We simply must grow out of this damnable Victorian morality that
condemns those who do not live by those Victorian standards. Sacrificing Petraeus for an antiquated,
unnatural and ridiculous morality regarding private conduct is just flat-ass
wrong, period.
As
an historic footnote: In embarrassing events such as this with honorable men, I
am somberly reminded of Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jeremy Michael
Boorda, USN, who committed suicide 16.May.1996. Boorda is notable for being the first American sailor to
have risen through the enlisted rates to become the Chief of Naval Operations. He was distraught over a Press
investigation into his wearing of the Combat “V” on one of his personal awards. I hope none of these current military
leaders feel the urge for an “honorable” death.
From an entirely different case, a relevant opinion piece
worth your time:
“When the strains of war lead to infidelity”
by Rebecca Sinclair
Washington Post
Published: November 15, 2012
Rebecca Sinclair is the wife of Brigadier General Jeffrey A.
Sinclair, USA, who faces a general court martial, charged with forcible sodomy,
wrongful sexual conduct, attempted violation of an order, violations of
regulations by wrongfully engaging in inappropriate relationships and misusing
a government travel charge card, violating general orders by possessing alcohol
and pornography while deployed, maltreatment of subordinates, filing fraudulent
claims, engaging in conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman and engaging
in conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, or of a nature to bring
discredit upon the armed forces.
While under investigation, the general was relieved of duty as Deputy Commander,
82nd Airborne Division, in Afghanistan, and assigned as a special assistant to
the Commanding General, XVIII Airborne Corps. Ms. Sinclair said, “My husband had an affair. He violated our marriage vows and hurt
me tremendously. Jeff and I are
working on our marriage, but that’s our business.” We should listen to the wisdom of Rebecca Sinclair.
A related debate question:
“Should Pornography Come Out of the Closet?”
Room for Debate Forum
New York Times
November 11, 2012
My short answer: yes, absolutely without a doubt, just as
prostitution should be de-criminalized and regulated for the protection of
providers and customers. The
societal notion that prohibition somehow “protects” the innocent in a free
society is the worst, most corrosive thinking.
Stimulated by the PPACA [432]
debate and the eventual associated decision by the Supremes – NFIB
v. Sebelius [566 U.S. ___ (2012)] [554]
– I returned to an earlier case regarding limits on Federal authority – South Dakota v.
Dole [483 U.S. 203 (1987); no. 86-260; 23.June.1987]. Eighteen months after passage of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 [PL 97-424; 96 Stat. 2097;
6.January.1983],
Congress passed and the President signed into law an amendments act [PL 98-363;
98 Stat. 435; 17.July.1984] that established a national minimum drinking age of
21 years for consumption of alcoholic beverages [§6 (a); 98 Stat. 435, 437; 23
USC 158] and threatened to withhold 5% of the state’s allocation of Federal
highway construction and maintenance funds from states that did not
comply. South Dakota promptly
challenged the law as a violation of the 21st Amendment that the state
contended granted sole jurisdiction to the states regarding the regulation of
alcohol consumption. Writing for
the majority and the Court, Chief Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist noted, “In
considering whether a particular expenditure is intended to serve general
public purposes, courts should defer substantially to the judgment of
Congress,” and he went on to conclude, “Congress found that the differing
drinking ages in the States created particular incentives for young persons to
combine their desire to drink with their ability to drive, and that this
interstate problem required a national solution.” This is a classic example of selective or biased
interpretation of language (the law) to fit our social predisposition. I understand that despite the societal
agony of the Prohibition era, a goodly portion of our population still
disapproves of alcohol consumption and especially condemning of alcohol for
young folks. Unfortunately,
Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was not able to persuade her colleagues,
yet as was so often the case, her wisdom and insight are far more constructive
to our sense of freedom. In her
dissenting opinion, O’Connor wrote, “[Congress] is not entitled to insist as a
condition of the use of highway funds that the State impose or change
regulations in other areas of the State's social and economic life because of
an attenuated or tangential relationship to highway use or safety. Indeed, if the rule were otherwise, the
Congress could effectively regulate almost any area of a State's social,
political, or economic life on the theory that use of the interstate
transportation system is somehow enhanced.” This is precisely my predominant concern with federalism and
the encroachment of Congress on state’s rights as well as individual freedom of
choice. The Spending Clause [Article I, Section 8, Clause 1]
in this particular case and the Commerce Clause [Article I, Section 8, Clause 3] in general, especially
as they have been expanded by preferential interpretation by a federalist
Supreme Court, are the instruments of our demise. Her logic and reason should have prevailed over the emotions
of social conservatism. We define
18 years as the age of majority under the law at which point a person gains
full citizenship, which means he can vote, can sign contracts, enlist in the
military, and do all other things that citizens can . . . well, except he
cannot consume an alcoholic beverage . . . the last vestiges of
Prohibition. The alcohol drinking threshold
remains at 21 years of age to this day.
So, when one person or another starts yammering about the current
administration being the advocate for big government, nanny-state intrusions
into our private lives, please recall this little factoid – South Dakota v.
Dole. The Federal government
has been whittling away our freedom to pursue our personal, private Happiness
for many more years than President Obama has occupied the Oval Office. I could argue the erosion of our
freedom began in earnest during the Nixon administration, but that would ignore
laws passed in 1873, or 1857, or even as early as 1842. Clearly, we cannot rely on the Court to
defend our precious freedom; that responsibility remains squarely with We, the
People.
News from
the economic front:
--
Japan’s Cabinet Office reported the nation’s economy contracted by 0.9% in
3Q2012, the steepest decline since the Tohoku Earthquake hit in 1Q2011, as
exporters suffered a 5% decline in shipments to key markets such as China and
Europe. On an annualized basis, Japan’s
GDP fell 3.5% in 3Q2012, following a revised 0.3% gain in 2Q2012. The economic outlook for Japan is
worsening.
-- The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecast the U.S.
will overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world’s largest oil
producer by 2017. The report
reflects how the drilling boom that is tapping North America’s vast reserves of
hard-to-get-at oil and gas, the so-called shale revolution, and is changing the
global energy landscape.
-- Eurostat,
the EU’s statistics office, reported the eurozone’s economy contracted by 0.1% in
3Q2012, compared with the previous three months, which follows from a 0.2%
decline in 2Q2012 and means the eurozone (the 17-member subset of the EU) fell
back into recession in the third quarter, dragged down by the Netherlands and
peripheral nations. The wider EU
avoided recession after recording slight growth of 0.1% in the third quarter,
largely thanks to an Olympics-related boost in the UK. The French economy unexpectedly grew
0.2% in 3Q2012. The German economy
grew at a modest 0.2% after growing 0.3% in 2Q2012.
-- The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) reported the
results of an independent annual audit that indicated the agency will exhaust
its capital reserves and face a deficit of US$13.5B. The FHA has forecast significant losses on the US$1.1T in
loans it guarantees and may require taxpayer funding for the first time in its 78-year
history.
Comments and contributions from Update no.569:
“I do agree with some of your points. Yes, Obama is not solely to blame for
this economic mess. To borrow from
Casey Stengel, after his New York Mets Team lost 120 games in 1962. ‘No one man was responsible for
this. This was a team effort.’ But Obama has done nothing to try to
aid in economy's recovery. The
Stimulus Bill was a joke. He curbs
domestic oil drilling. He has no
respect for small business owners – ‘You didn't build that’ - and has no
understanding how business works.
“Health care reform is needed. I think everyone can say that. But Obamacare is not the way to go. A system that forces you to buy
insurance or be fined is obscene and unconstitutional, regardless of what that
fool John Roberts says. That man
is a disgrace as a judge and has pushed this country further toward
socialism. I have nothing but
contempt for him.
“Obama probably is a good father. I'm willing to give him that. But given what he has done to turn us into a socialist
welfare state, given how he has done nothing to curb government spending, given
how he and his administration allowed four Americans to die in Benghazi, given
how he sued my state because he is more concerned about the rights of illegal
immigrants than the rights of American citizens, given individual mandate of
the health care reform act, it is my view that Obama is ruining this country
and doesn't even give a damn so long as he can sit in the Oval Office and spew
out his empty promises and try and fool as many Americans as possible into
believing he is the answer. I
refuse to show him an ounce of respect. Maybe that makes you a better man than me, but I despise
Obama. He does not have the
country's best interests at heart and I have nothing but ill feelings toward
him.
“I just pray that enough Americans find ways to resist and
overcome his hurtful policies and do what they can to get the country back on
track. Only time will tell, I
guess.
“Have a good day, and on this Veterans Day, thank you and
your fellow servicemen and women for your service to our great country.”
My reply:
At least we agree of
a few things.
Re:
economic recovery. We can argue
over the role of government in recovery from recession, but I cannot agree that
Obama has done nothing. The banks
and businesses saved by government bailout money are undeniable. Again, we can argue whether they should
have been saved, but he did take action.
Re:
Obama’s “build it” statement. His
statement has been twisted well beyond the context. He was referring to the totality of the economic
system. The Federal government
paid for most of the interstate highway system, subsidized railroads, electrical
grid, runways, bridges, et cetera, the infrastructure that business depends on to
take orders and move their goods to market. The USG also established standards for a myriad of things
that have enhanced our competitive position, i.e., our products have become the
world standards. So, let us not be
so narrow in our focus that we forget that government enables business and
makes life better. This Grand
Republic was founded upon commerce.
Re:
PPACA.
I do not defend PPACA as The Answer, but at least it is an attempt. I was taught early on as a midshipman
and Lieutenant of Marines that any action is better than inaction, i.e., do
something, don’t just stand there.
There is no doubt that PPACA can be improved. I will also agree that the NFIB ruling was a stretch, but
John Roberts is no fool.
Re:
socialist welfare state. You’re
going to have to paint a more specific picture. I simply do not see it. I hear all the brouhaha rhetoric, but I do not see the
facts. Show me!
Re:
Benghazi. Really? Allowed them to die . . . really?
Re:
AZ SB1070. I’ve written my opinion. It has not changed.
I did not support the action by the Federales.
Re:
respect. Whether you show him
respect is your choice. I shall do
so, and I see no reason not to. He
has not done a perfect job, but he has done some things. You are free to despise him. I cannot dissuade you, and all I can do
is urge you to take the broader view.
Re:
hurtful policies. What policies,
and hurtful to whom?
It
has always been an honor to serve this Grand Republic, even in those dark days
of the Vietnam era. Thank you for
the recognition.
Comment to the Blog:
“My summary of the Federal election: the two parties spent
$2 billion, fought for two years, and changed nothing. We have the same
President, the same party controls each house of Congress, and we face more
nonsense.
“Same-sex couples progress toward marriage rights. I see
that as another development in a trend extending from the 1960s onward of
sexual equality reaching more people. I applaud the changes.
“Marijuana laws interest me. The history of Prohibition of
alcohol shows me that banning the use of any mood-altering substance does
nothing but drive users underground, leaving them and society prey to all
manner of predators. You have an important point that the Federal Government
will have an issue because these laws conflict with Federal law. We shall see
what happens.
“The Puerto Rican vote may become very important. Between
the multiple interests within Puerto Rico, mainland xenophobia, and the role
ascribed to Latinos in the 2012 Presidential election, the outcome of that vote
may provide fascinating politics for decades.
“Your ‘long term friend and contributor’ takes the unlikely
position that others seek the defeat of the nation where they live. I don’t
think so. I believe that many, including your friend, see their own interests
poorly and have been consistently misled by people whose view of our national
health is blinded by their own greed and/or their desire to control others’
personal lives.
“The term ‘socialism’ is a bogyman used loosely in this and
many other public spaces. The provision of the PPACA
(Obamacare) to which you and others object is a requirement to do business with
corporations. That is not socialism; it comes closer to fascism and benefits
those corporations. Some of the corporations involved are so short-sighted that
they fail to realize that. Follow the money to find the real interests. In the
meantime, the more prosperous countries right now are the Scandinavian nations
of Northern Europe, which come much closer to socialism than anything we have
in the USA. Even Germany, the most prosperous ‘capitalist’ member of the EU,
offers many more social benefits than we do. According to capitalist theory
(i.e., the most prosperous are the most virtuous) they must be doing something
better. (That addresses national, not individual, prosperity.)
“Your linked articles on marriage would be more interesting
if they were more readable. My personal reading level is in the 99th
percentile, and I found that first article difficult. All she does is refute
the notion of ‘civil unions’ for caregiver purposes. She entirely misses the
question of civil versus religious marriage and does not discuss resistance to
any of these ideas. The other two articles could benefit from an easier format.
They use simpler language, but they give advice for those already involved in
polyamory, not discussion on the larger issue of marriage. Because you stated, ‘The
floor is open,’ I will add my personal view. I would open marriage to any
consenting and responsible adults, but I doubt that unions of more than three
people will ever achieve much success. Your third article supports that.
“We have not slowed our approach to the fiscal cliff. The
same dimwits who set up this hazard remain in charge. Same old same old. Grab
your parachute.
“I agree that governors who refuse PPACA
(Obamacare) funds are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
“General Petraeus’ affair is none of my business.
"The clergy and churches operate in a bizarre legal
environment.
“Please track the real-world results of austerity programs
in Southern Europe. Keep in mind that people failed by social-service programs
drag down economies due to illness, homelessness, and the other results of such
failures. Note the comment on prosperity above.
“I suddenly realized that this comment has become very long.
Please advise if it needs trimming.”
My response to the
Blog:
Calvin,
No
worries about the length . . . as long as it is accepted by the Blog. Opinions and vigorous debate are far
more important than length.
Re:
election. Excellent observation
and quite appropriate it seems to me . . . more nonsense indeed.
Re:
marriage equality. I join you in
the applause, but we have so far to go and Kansas is buried so far in the past.
Re:
marijuana. I know the logical and
inevitable outcome. The only
question in my mind is how much pain do we have to endure to achieve it.
Re:
Puerto Rico. You got that right .
. . fascinating politics indeed.
Re:
contributor. We all have our
opinions, and it is important to share those opinions for the good of this
Grand Republic.
Re:
socialism . . . indeed, the boogeyman.
I believe I noted the insurance business manipulation . . . so, are we
agreed?
Re:
marriage articles. As noted at the
bottom of the 1st article, the author is an academic, thus the structure of the
article. Perhaps marriages of more
than three people cannot be successful, but at the end of the day, that is not
for us to decide or determine. My
takeaway from the three articles: there are broad potential relationships
inside and outside The Box, and we should allow people to decide for
themselves. These articles are
just reflective of the larger issue of marriage.
Re:
fiscal cliff. It remains a far
greater concern that the Petraeus-Broadwell affair, and yet the Press is
saturated by sex.
Re:
L’Affaire Petraeus.
Once the lack of a national security threat had been established by the
FBI, the only suggestion should have been to inform his wife, so there would be
no future vulnerability. The
affair was between his wife and him, and no one else.
Re:
clergy & the law. You got that
right . . . in many more ways than one.
I have long believed they want their cake and eat it too.
Re:
social services. Noted!
Thanks for sharing
your observations and opinions.
Take care and enjoy.
Cheers,
Cap
A follow-up comment:
Subject: Re: [Fwd:
[Update from the Heartland] New comment on Update no.569.]
From: "Uncle
Calvin"
Date: Tue, November
13, 2012 9:20 pm
To: "cap"
We have fairly broad agreement this week. The only thing I
will add is that as clergy myself, I am aware that tax laws, for example,
almost directly invite abuse. I could (but do not) use my clergy status to
avoid taxation for almost any type and level of income. On the other hand, as a
church employee (if I were part of an organized religion), I would face hazards
not part of ordinary employment, as the court decision you cited points out.
My follow-up response:
Uncle Calvin,
Indeed. Employment laws are intended to protect
employees from abusive employers and companies. By giving clergy the latitude allowed under the current
interpretation of the law, we reduce those intended protections in the name of
the Establishment Clause.
Just
a related FYI . . . I view religion and churches in the same light as I do
corporations post-Citizens United.
Eventually, we shall have to recognize that if organizations want the
benefits and protections of citizenship, then they should carry the
accountability and exposure to punishment that citizens face.
Another contribution:
“I hope things are OK with you relating to prostate
cancer. I hope no news is good news. I have 2 comments about
your latest update.
“Concerning President Obama ‘deserves our respect.’ I
used to officiate middle school and high school sports. I remember
reading some literature relating to training football officials. This
statement was in it: ‘Nobody deserves respect.’ I think what the
author meant is that respect must be earned. If an official reports to
the field with the attitude that players, coaches and spectators should respect
him just because he is an official assigned to the game, he has a big
problem. He will have the respect of others by being
competent. The same thing goes for a Navy ensign or Marine 2nd lieutenant
reporting to his first assignment. If he thinks ‘my men should respect me
because I am their division officer or platoon leader’, just like the football
official, he has a big problem. I think that applies to everyone,
including the President.
“As for President Obama wanting to have rich folks taxed
higher than they are now, I think the President equates income with
wealth. That is a mistake. If someone makes $250,000 or more a
year, that does not mean they are wealthy. Likewise, if someone is worth
$5 million and loses $40,000 in investments and has no income from wages, he or
she is still rich even with a negative change in worth for the year. I
think President Obama wants more money going to the federal government as
opposed to state and local governments, so he will achieve that by taxing
income differently. When I pay my real estate taxes, I pay my state, not
the federal government. So the federal government does not get its hands
on the taxes from some rich person's mansion.
“I will be interested in what you think about these 2
comments. Thanks in advance for your reply at your update.”
My reply:
Also,
thanks for asking. I had my
one-year follow-up with my urologist/surgeon last week. PSA = 0.09, which he said was
“essentially zero” – a very good sign.
He pronounced me in good shape.
Next milestone is six months – 18 months post-op. So all’s well so far.
Re:
respect. Well said and spot
on. I take a slightly different
view, I will liken to the glass-half-full analogy. Respect earned means you start with zero and work up. As a general rule, I give people
respect; they have the option to remove it. We address the President of the United States as Mister
President, not hey Barack, until he gains our respect. It is all a matter of perspective and
attitude, I suppose.
Re:
taxes. Spot on, again. Someone might make millions in income
and spend every cent as fast as he receives it; he might actually have no
assets or net worth to show for all the income. I do not think the President is after wealth, but rather
income. A citizen who makes
millions per year might have to adjust his lifestyle slightly, if he pays more
in Federal income tax, but he will still be one hellava lot better off than a
person who makes minimum wage or even a modest middle class income. I know the tax rate is important to the
Democrats, but that is a symbolic conceptual idol. I think Speaker Boehner is closer to the real objective – go
after the loopholes, deductions, exclusions, exemptions and other tax avoidance
goodies that only those who can afford an army of accountants, lawyers and
connections to congressmen [and then write it all off as a business
expense]. Tax loopholes are like
earmarks . . . just another form of corruption. Folks like the Romneys can afford to pay more than his 14%
effective tax rate; I’m good with leaving the tax rates as they are and closed
those freakin’ loopholes.
“That’s just my
opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
