Update from the Heartland
No.589
25.3.13 – 31.3.13
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
President Obama
appointed Assistant Director Julia A. Pierson, 53, to be the Director, United
States Secret Service – the first female director in history. The appointment does not need Senate
confirmation.
From Tuesday’s
Letters to the Editor:
“Abortion wrong”
by Wilma Fast – Wichita
Wichita Eagle
“The writer of ‘Imposing religion’ (March 21 Letters to the
Editor) stated that current attempts to curtail abortion ‘are based upon
religious ideology.’ In fact, the
efforts to curtail abortion are based on kindergarten science.
“Are the fetal cells growing within a pregnant woman human,
animal or plant? They are human. Are the cells living or dead? They are living
(or else the question of abortion is moot). Is the fetal DNA the same as the
mother’s or unique? It is unique. What word is defined as ‘killing with
aforethought or taking away the life of a distinctly unique living human being’?
It is ‘murder.’
“No Bible verses are needed and no religious interpretation
is necessary to see that abortion is wrong.”
. . . to which,
I wrote a response (not yet published):
I
think we can all agree with Wilma Fast (March 26, Letter to the Editor) that
“abortion is wrong,” or at least an undesirable, antiquated, medical procedure
that should be relegated to the scrap heap of outmoded practice.
As
much as the landmark Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)]
case is vilified, the ruling protected a woman’s privacy in making a very
personal, intimate choice. The
fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice are two of our most
fundamental rights, and we should all defend those rights.
Prohibition
is very rarely a successful method to alter private behavior in a free
society. If we wish to alter the
private choices of individual citizens, then we must help them, convince
themselves, to alter their conduct rather than use the law to impose upon the
privacy of other citizens. Let us
use our intellect to achieve our objective, rather than the bludgeon of the
law.
A thread of
relevance given this week’s events, specifically Hollingsworth v. Perry
(the CA Prop 8 case) and U.S. v. Windsor (the DOMA case) oral
arguments, is recounted in this humble forum. This article started the thread:
“High court
skeptical of federal marriage law”
by Mark Sherman
Associated Press
Published: March 27, 2013; 2:19 PM (ET)
A frequent contributor to the Update offered his opinion to
his network of which I am a part.
“We have no way of knowing how this will TRULY be decided,
but if the reporting is accurate, and SCOTUS strikes down the federal benefits
to same-sex “married” partners, well, GOOD! I’d say the Supreme’s stopped
drinking too many Red Bulls reflective of their last major decision for the
Affordable Health Care Act.
“Next stop: Christians can reclaim the RAINBOW for what it
originally symbolizes versus the hijacking of rainbow by GAYS.
“Craig Noel in another reply on SCOTUS did say:
“‘I always thought that it should be SCrOTUmS.’
“Soon it could be a GREAT day for all of us having to endure
the alphabet news agencies because instead of 5 minutes of 50 GROWN MEN KISSING
EACH OTHER, we’ll get to see 50,000 GROWN MEN(?) CRYING.
“BTW, the GAYS only represent about 3.8% or so of the American
population, not the 150% that major media implies (especially NPR).”
. . .to which I replied:
Each and every citizen of this Grand Republic is entitled to
equal protection under the law, and among their many fundamental rights . . .
to find their path to “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.”
Freedom cannot be parsed, if any of us are to be free.
"That's just my opinion, but I could be wrong."
. . . the contributor’s
response [the internal quotes were too numerous to transpose as the Chicago
Manual of Style dictates. Please
accept my humble apologies (my inadequacy, not the original author’s).]:
“I must disagree that the so-called “equality” goal by “gays”
is to fairly distribute “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.” Let me
juxtapose in fact that many in the “gay movement” are some of the biggest
advocates of “CHOICE” for women. While we could debate the point of
beginning of life, based on our beliefs, religion, science, it is most
interesting that so-called equality is never afforded to the millions of babies
aborted, nor do they get that opportunity/capacity for “”Life, Liberty and
pursuit of Happiness.”
“Furthermore, the GAY LIFESTYLE is plagued with some of the
highest alcoholism, drug abuse, STDs, HIV, AIDS, and suicide rates of any
demographic (if in fact the GAYS are a so-called demographic subset).
“Previously I've opined that I do not think the GAYS are the
victims whatsoever. I don't see all the "hate crimes" that news
media, Oprah, Anderson Cooper and Piers Morgan attempt to condition the
mush-minds on psychotropics watching TV all night into believing. Why
does CNN not do some specials on the HATE CRIME against the UNBORN?
“You see, I believe that TELLING THE TRUTH IS A
REVOLUTIONARY ACT is truly politically incorrect, and may soon be dangerous.
“Let's face it, not all of us are created equal, nor do we
have the same intellect, color of skin, capacity, skills, physical strength,
body frame, etc.. But for some reason our nation is caught up in this obsession
and fixation on EQUALITY. It seems to me that selected minority segments
of population are promoted as VICTIMS and that the freedom of opinion,
expression, speech, is breached as to conform to the AGENDA and GROUP-THINK we
are directed to, as to not want to OFFEND whether REAL or IMAGINED, a very
small percentage of the population.
“If I own a business, why should I have to build an
expensive wheelchair ramp if I do not intend on hiring an employee in a
wheelchair? That's a whole different issue (ADA) but just about as absurd
as all this other crap. GOV needs to be out of our faces, and REDUCED, and then
we can finally lower taxes and reverse this police state and nanny PC nation.
“If you sampled CONTENT type on the major news media, and do
the quantitative analysis of how much air time, print space, word count
(including Hollywood), the MEDIA CHANGE AGENTS have been spending in the past
few years to NORMALIZE homosexuality while DEMONIZING guns, Christians, and
ohhh, let's say the WHITE MALE.
“I'd hate to be running a corporation today with all the
programs/regulations to assure everyone is treated like equals and that no one
dare offend another. We are humans, we will always offend others. What is
WAR all about? Someone is going to get offended. Our nation talks
EQUALITY yet we are the biggest ARMS DEALER in the world Cap, of all nations
COMBINED. I realize that is also off-topic, but I needed to mention
it.
“I believe all this same-sex marriage and equality talk is
largely a designed agenda to DIVIDE and DISTRACT us from what the true problems
are in America.”
. . . my
response:
I
am perfectly willing and able to debate the abortion issue; however, to do so
in this context is a simple deflection from the topic at hand. So, another day, if you please. If we do not want to debate equality,
then this thread ends here.
Stereotypical
homophobia is not based in fact, and I see no point in illuminating it any
further.
How
many non-heterosexual citizens, male or female, have you known, learned from
and tried to understand? The
depictions of homosexuals you offer are not recognizable by my experience. Further, I think you have underestimated
the population of non-heterosexual citizens, and I suspect there are more around
you than you may be aware. They
are normal, productive, peaceful, law-abiding citizens, and for those who
choose, they are good parents who are raising the next generation of good
citizens.
You
are entitled to think of yourself as less than others or unworthy of the
freedom the Founders/Framers envisioned for us all. I shall not do so, and I shall continue to resist those who
infringe upon my freedom and my equality.
The social factors you partially listed (among others) are matters of
personal choice, but they have no place in the public domain.
I
note your observation on Press bias; however, such observations have been valid
since human beings began using Johannes Gutenberg’s invention to distribute
their opinions. As always, our
task has been to absorb, filter, analyze, assess and decide how those Press
opinions affect our views. So it
is, so it shall be in a free society.
Treating
everyone equally and with respect is actually quite simple. I see no difficulty whatsoever. Further, if we remove ourselves from
the private affairs of others, we have no worries regarding the intrusion into
the lives of others.
Re:
“divide and distract.” We shall
respectfully disagree.
“That’s
just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
[NOTE: the thread continues through the end of this Updates
period, with multiple other contributors, and has become too voluminous and
with too many branches for this humble forum, I regret to say.]
A related opinion
by John Yoo:
Another local
opinion related to the marriage question:
“What are
limits to redefining marriage?”
by Paul Oborny – Bel Aire
Wichita Eagle
Published Saturday, March 30, 2013, at 12 a.m
“Where are we going with marriage? How are we going to
redefine marriage? What are the new boundaries going to be? Where will it stop?
“As legislatures and courts go about people-pleasing efforts
to change the definition of marriage, we are being told that in order to avoid
discrimination, we must allow for same-sex marriage. We are being indoctrinated
with the message that we must not ever discriminate against someone’s sexual
preference. Some states now say marriage is for any two consenting adults, thus
“ending” sexual discrimination.
“Have we solved the problem or created another one? What if
someone’s sexual preference is to live with two other consenting adults? Are we
going to discriminate against more than two people being thus married? What are
the limits? Who determines this? Are we not better off honoring our Creator’s
plan?”
. . . my reply
letter to the editor (not yet published):
Since
you asked . . .
The
State has a proper, constitutional interest in marriage, e.g., the parties are
entering freely and without coercion of any form, are adults or with bona fide
parental consent, and understand the terms & conditions of the
contract. Other than these or
other public domain factors, marriage is a personal and private matter. How the individuals involved wish to
conduct their private affairs is their business and theirs alone.
The
primary State interest in the continuing affairs of each individual marriage
rests upon no harm to any person.
I would also suggest that such contractual relationships are conditional
upon not becoming a burden on the State, i.e., the rest of us. If such need is warranted, then the
State must have authority to dictate the terms on that support; it is neither
fair nor reasonable for any marital relationship to expect State support
without conditions – the more support, the more constraints.
Where
appropriate, the State has another very important interest in the children that
may become a product of a marriage, since not all marriages involve
children. In today’s world,
offspring may be produced by a variety of means including adoption. As such, the primary focus should be on
setting standards or societal expectations of parental performance, and more
importantly, we must hold parents accountable for their performance and
specifically the conduct of their children, as the children enter the public
domain and public life.
The
real issue with respect to marriage is the proper State interests, not our
fears, foibles and preconceptions – religious or not. Each of us has a right to live our lives by our free
choices, not by someone else’s dicta.
News from the economic front:
-- The government of Cyprus implemented draconian measures
in their effort to recover from the island’s banking crisis. People are limited
to taking €3,000 (US$3,860) in cash out of the country per person, per trip. All card transactions are limited to
€5,000 per month. The measures are
intended to stem the flow of cash out of the country and are to be in place for
one week starting Thursday. They
have also suspended credit-card purchases of goods outside the country.
-- The Bank of England's Financial Policy Committee directed
U.K. banks to raise £25B (US$38B) in fresh capital by the end of the year to
cover an estimated £50B capital shortfall across the sector. Some banks may be forced to issue new
shares or step up planned asset sales.
-- Bank of Japan Governor Haruhiko Kuroda told parliament
that the government’s vast and growing debt is “not sustainable,” and that a
loss of confidence in state finances could “have a very negative impact” on the
entire economy. In January, weeks
after taking office, the Abe government announced a ¥10.3T (US$109B) spending
package while they pressured the Bank of Japan to buy more of its bonds. We have but to look at the debacle
playing out in Cyprus to validate Kuroda’s concern.
-- Core consumer prices in Japan fell 0.3% in February
compared with a year earlier, suggesting the Bank of Japan will need to take
more aggressive action to attain a goal of a 2% inflation rate in two years. The government is trying to breakout of
the grip of economic stagnation and deflation.
-- The Financial Times
[of London] reported that at least three people so far have attempted to flee Cyprus,
in recent weeks, with more than €200,000 in cash on their person. Cypriots are searching for ways to
circumnavigate the new capital controls and get their money off the island. This is the consequence of an
undisciplined banking system that must now pay the piper.
London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR)
Debacle [552]:
-- The Financial Times
[of London] reported that Deutsche Bank has set aside about €500M [US$641M] to
cover possible fines for the alleged manipulation of LIBOR interest rates. They also reported that Dutch lender
Rabobank is a likely next candidate to face large fines for their contribution
to the LIBOR scandal.
-- The New York Times
reported that U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the Southern District
of New York dismissed some of the claims that the 16 banks broke federal
antitrust laws in the LIBOR scandal, and allowed some of the claims to proceed,
including allegations the banks breached commodities laws. The judge said her ruling was “based on
the conflicting legal arguments affecting the suits, rather than whether the
underlying allegations of rate-rigging were true.”
-- So we don’t lose focus . . . the infamous 16, involved,
international banks are:
· Barclays [UK] – US$454M fine [550]
· Bank
of America [U.S.]
· BTMU
[Japan]
· Citibank
[U.S.]
·
Credit Suisse
[Switzerland]
· Deutsche Bank [Germany] – US$654M LIBOR profit [578]; set aside €500M (US$641M) for LIBOR
liability [589]
·
Lloyds TSB [UK]
·
HSBC [UK]
· HBOS
[UK]
· JPMorgan
Chase [U.S.]
· Rabobank
[Netherlands]
· RBC
[Canada]
· RBS [UK] – £390M (US$612.6M) in fines,
21 employees involved [582]
· UBS [Switzerland] – US$1.5B fine, two charged [575]
· West
LB [Germany]
·
Norinchuckin [Japan]
I trust none of us will lose sight of what these banks have
done.
Comments
and contributions from Update no.588:
Comment to the Blog:
“My version of the autopsy report on the Republican Party: ‘we
relied on middle-aged white males whose memory of the ‘good old days’ we could
distort and manipulate for so long that now they’re old (or dead) white males
and all the other groups have us figured out. The whole Tea Party thing is
backfiring.’
“As long as anyone has the ability to kill people with no
accountability, the Constitution is effectively cancelled. I find myself in
direct agreement with Rand Paul on the drone issue. And we are not at war.
“I agree that Joe Biden, in his capacity as Vice President
of the United States, ought not to kiss the Pope’s ring or defer to any other
head of state except the President of the USA.
“As I understand it, the “assault weapons ban” no longer
includes assault weapons. Does it have a new name?
“Ought not the choice of who people marry be left up to the
persons being married? Why should that choice be delegated to anyone else? This
entire issue is silly. At least one argument in use, that such freedom violates
the religious rights of churches, is utter nonsense in its own right, and
resembles the sophistry over contraceptive coverage. As clergy myself, I can
tell you unequivocally that the clergy cannot be forced to perform marriages. I
myself can and do set conditions (a small but significant level of counseling)
without which I will not marry people. Other clergy are free to exercise their
freedom of religion by setting their own conditions.”
My reply to the Blog:
Re:
your version – LOL, good one.
Re:
war. If the only definition of war
is a document passed by Congress that contains the explicit, direct words “This
is a declaration of war,” then I suppose you are correct. From my perspective and understanding
of history, that definition has not been valid since 27.June.1950. We have been legally at war since 18.September.2001,
and we remain at war. The
Constitution has NOT been cancelled.
And, I do not agree with Rand Paul.
Re:
Biden. Agreed.
Re:
assault weapons ban. Not to my
knowledge. There usually is a new
title, and it often mutates during the legislative process.
Re:
marriage. Yes, precisely; that is
my point. Marriage is a private
matter, predominately left to the individuals involved, with the proviso that
there are legitimate, bona fide, public interests in a marriage contract and
thus within the domain of the State, e.g., free choice, majority age or
parental consent, knowledge of the terms, et cetera. Personally, I believe there should also be a requirement or
limitation associated with self-support, i.e., I think it is categorically
wrong and unacceptable for the State (us) to support multiple partners,
children or other byproducts without constraints or conditions – the more
support, the more constraints. No
one that I am aware of has ever even suggested “forcing” religious organization
to perform or sanction non-traditional marriages. Their argument is hollow and moot.
Re:
PPACA. Personally, I think this
whole religious resistance to PPACA is bogus.
. . . with this retort:
“I'll only respond to the ‘definition of war’ item for now.
There is an argument of sorts for not requiring national sovereignty in
beginning a war. In theory the USA could declare a war on Communist
Parties, the Japanese Red Army, or the Boy Scouts, each of which
we can define. When no opponent can be clearly defined with or without
that national sovereignty the war is strictly metaphorical. ‘Terrorism’
is a concept and cannot be defined, leading directly to the fact that this ‘war’
cannot be won or lost. That is not a war.”
. . . to which I replied:
First,
I have never supported the notional “terrorism” focus suggested for the current
war, as terrorism is a tactic.
That said, “Islamic fascism” as the focus is not much better, yet it is
the most directly distinguishable political entity in the current war.
I
recognize and acknowledge the traditional definitions of war have changed. Islamic fascists, principally the
entity known as al-Qa’ida, have a documented and public objective of imposing
fundamentalist Islamic beliefs upon various sovereign nations by means of
violence, intimidation and coercion.
I
respectfully submit, the traditional definition of war has changed as reflected
in the AUMF [PL 107-040; 115 Stat. 224; 18.September.2001] and AUMFAI [PL
107-243; 116 Stat. 1498; 10.October.2002]. We must change, as the laws must change, as our times
change.
We
are at war.
. . . round three:
“Call it what you will. "Islamic fascism" is not
an entity either; it is a concept, as capitalism or socialism are concepts. I
have yet to hear of a war specifically on al-Qa'ida, and I believe that
would defeat the purpose of this activity for the military-industrial complex
that Eisenhower described so clearly. Ultimately this is not a legal point but
a way of understanding what is actually happening. Regardless of what happens,
the lawyers on the winning side will clean up the details.”
. . . my reply to round three:
You
are quite right. Islamic fascism
is comparable to other historic forms of fascism, e.g., National Socialism –
bad men with a malignant ideology that occupied the whole or portions of a
sovereign nation. Further,
al-Qa’ida is not the sole Islamic fascist organization involved in this war,
e.g., Taliban, Haqqani, et cetera.
Yes,
it is a means of understanding the threat we face. They are also a physical entity – bad men who espouse and
carry out violence to achieve their political objectives. The law is involved, just as it was in
the aftermath of World War II – military tribunals punished the surviving bad
men.
My very best
wishes to all. Take care of
yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
The abortion/choice debate centers on a question that cannot be answered by human beings and is rarely discussed: when does a fertilized egg attain a life separate from its mother’s? The discussions about that issue, therefore, focus on emotions and non-issues. I’ll skip that particular issue for that reason.
On the marriage equality issue, I see you as indulging in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. I will, however, indulge myself by pointing out to one of them that homosexual sex does not lead to abortions.
Were I a Cypriot with large economic resources, my money and I would have left the island at least a month ago. I expect that smugglers will thrive by helping people get away, but I doubt that anyone else will get much benefit from this piece of ugly government maneuvering.
Those once-beloved “free market” economies continue falling. The UK, however, has found a beginning of a healthy response by requiring (not just asking) its banks to have healthy capital reserves.
The LIBOR scandal continues. Apparently Deutsche Bank has a clear idea of its penalty and no trouble paying it. Nobody there seems to fear the more appropriate consequences of jail.
Calvin,
Re: abortion. Indeed. The con-side claims life begins at the nanosecond a sperm cell penetrates the membrane of an ovum – a moment in time that cannot be scientifically determined, I might add. The pro-side seeks a definition of birth, as in exit from or removal from the host mother’s uterus (womb). Back in the archaic days of 1973, the Supremes used the best legal and medical definition of the day – sustainable life outside the womb {Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)]}, i.e., 3rd trimester, >26 wks. I have a difficult time grasping the mythical instant in molecular biology when a woman is no longer a free and independent citizen, but rather relegated to a biological incubator under the direct control of the State. Debating such nonsense, like so many societal (moral) issues of our day, focuses on symptomatic phenomena rather than the root cause.
Re: marriage equality. Good point; homosexual sex cannot lead to abortion . . . perhaps that is a benefit, then.
Re: Cyprus. A sad state of affairs . . . all because of greedy bankers who were happy to look the other way with less-than-clean money in order to make a profit. Even sadder, those bankers apparently had a wink & nod from the government. And the worst, none of the perpetrators – bankers or government officials – will likely face judgment before the bar and appropriate punishment.
Re: capital reserves. I believe most, if not all, of the advanced economies have required banks to increase their capital reserves as part of the actions to prevent a repeat of the financial meltdown of 2008.
Re: LIBOR. Some of the culprits will face justice, but certainly not enough.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment