Update from the Heartland
No.590
1.4.13 – 7.4.13
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
With a goodly dose of reticence, I acknowledge
the existence of this opinion article:
“Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then
Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality”
by Dennis Prager
OrthodoxyToday.org
Published: date unknown [received from secondary source:
1.April.2013]
Reprinted from “Crisis”
magazine, vol.11, no.8, September 1993
First,
who is Dennis Prager, you may ask?
Well, apparently he a “writer, theologian, and daily talk show host on
KABC Radio in Los Angeles,” which makes him as much of an expert on such things
as any of the rest of us. So, here
we go.
For the homophobes among us, this is red
meat. Yet, I believe such opinions
are important to discuss in any balanced debate forum. I am certain there are more than a few
citizens who believe Prager’s perspective without doubt or question, and
frankly, that is their choice entirely.
As
for me, there is not much I can agree with intellectually in the Prager
opinion, yet, to be true to the ideal of open debate, I have chosen to
illuminate his perspective and to point to one sentence in particular. He based his opinion on and pronounced:
“When
Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it
changed the world. The Torah's prohibition of non-marital sex quite simply made
the creation of Western civilization possible.”
While we have no means to know exactly how the religious
dictum evolved, I believe there is little doubt regarding its contribution to
civilization. We can surmise many
supportive factors, e.g., reduction of intra- and inter-familial conflicts,
establish clear heritage and transfer of property, orderly family doctrine, et
cetera. Yet, to claim monogamous
marriage was the keystone to Western civilization ignores multitudinous other
contributing factors like communications, weaponry, science, philosophy, et cetera ad infinitum. Prager then stretches the dictum,
adding selective fact presentation, to declare:
“Accepting homosexuality as the social, moral, or religious
equivalent of heterosexuality would constitute the first modern assault on the
extremely hard won, millennia-old battle for a family-based, sexually
monogamous society.”
Pardon me, I
continue to struggle with the notion that my neighbors private relationship
choices can adversely affect my marriage or anyone else’s marriage. I do understand the moral
disapproval of any behavior outside The Box – “family-based, sexually
monogamous society” – however, I cannot reconcile religious dicta with the spirit
of individual freedom that is the basis of this Grand Republic. Free, open and candid debate remains
the principle tool of influence in a free society, not the imposition of moral
choices via the law, even if dictated by the majority.
The United Nations General Assembly
passed the Arms Trade Treaty [A/67/L.58] by a
vote of 154 in favor, 3 against and 23 abstentions. While I can support the principle objective of the treaty,
other elements as they have been reported appear to be contrary to free
commerce and other elements of freedom.
I have not read the full text as yet, and the treaty will not be binding
on the United States until ratified by the Senate.
Here is
another intriguing opinion for debate:
“GOP should stand firm against drug legalization”
by Peter Wehner
Washington Post
Published: April 2, 2013; 11:32 PM EDT
Where do I
begin? Allow me to cut right to
the chase. If the
Republican Party seeks to further marginalize itself, I would encourage them to
accept Wehner’s counsel. The Grand
Old Party likes to self-anoint themselves as “conservatives,” as proponents of
small government, as spend thrift fiscal conservatives, and staunch defenders
of “family values.” I cannot see
the path to reconciliation of espousing small, un-intrusive government with the
vast, multi-layered bureaucracy and bleeding precious treasury, imposing our
moral condemnation on those who seek the oblivion of psychotropic
substances.
Once
more into the fray . . . like Wehner, I am also against simple legalization, as
it would be like throwing gasoline on an open fire. No!
Legalization is not the answer.
If we have any hope of finally ending the so-called “war on drugs,” we
must regulate public access to psychotropic substances at least to the degree
of alcohol. As I have espoused
before and will continue to do so, we must take a variety of legal and societal
actions to allow those citizens who seek the stimulation (or lack of same) of
psychotropics to have quality material in purity, additives, dosage, packaging
and labeling. They need a means to
obtain their preferred substance(s) without resorting to person or property
crimes. And, most importantly, we
must insulate the abusers to avoid any collateral injury or damage. By prohibiting drug acquisition,
possession and use, we have created an entire plethora of criminal subculture
from the addict who breaks into a home to steal for fence-money to the
narco-cartel drug lord who produces, smuggles and distributes his product to
satisfy consumer demand and literally kills innocent people who happen to muddy
the process. As long as we keep
drug use illegal and relegated to the shadows of our communities and society,
we will continue to have associated crime and inordinate collateral
damage. Further, we stand little
chance of helping those who truly seek help, who made a youthful mistake and
want to break the dependency. Lastly,
the practical, realistic side of all of us must accept there is absolutely
nothing we can do to stop the addict from doing whatever he must do to feed his
addiction; an addict has NO morality or respect for other human beings or
property. So, let us get the
addict into the daylight and help those who truly want help and insulate the
abusers from harming another living soul.
A
classic and all-too-common ploy by those who seek to intrude upon our private
lives involves a well-constructed circular argument that appears more like a
Gordian knot. The technique is
used for such hot-button issues as abortion, prostitution, and in this
instance, psychotropic substances.
The argument goes, we must prosecute the crime, therefore we prohibit
the drugs that cause the crimes, without regard to breaking the cycle by
disconnecting the linkage between the need for the addict to find the drugs he
wants/needs and the crime that supports his habit.
Bottom
line: Wehner is wrong, and I would encourage the GOP to move back to its
heritage and get government out of our private lives. They should focus on letting do what the addict wants and protecting
the rest of us from collateral damage.
Connecticut lawmakers approved a
wide-ranging, gun-control bill that ban the sales of large-capacity ammunition
magazines and more than 100 weapons that previously had been legal. I have not read the law, as yet;
however, I suspect it mirrors the original Feinstein bill that has since been
diluted and sidelined in the Senate.
I do not believe the Connecticut law is consistent with the
Constitution. Yet, there is nothing
the rest of us can do. A
Connecticut resident must challenge the new law as unconstitutional, since
non-residents do not have standing to engage.
As
an ancillary comment, the correct moment to buy more time for a law enforcement
response to a threat is before the first shot, not at the magazine
changes. Further, if we want
universal background checks, let us also protect every citizen’s fundamental
right to privacy. We must go after
the root causes of gun violence, NOT treat the symptoms in some emotional, lame
attempt to make ourselves feel better about the nauseating tragedies of Sandy
Hook and all the others. Where is
our initiative to intervene with the seriously mental ill among us? We are still focused on the wrong
things? We will not alter the
outcomes by these foolish superficial actions . . . just because we can.
U.S. District Judge
Edward R. Korman of the Eastern District of New York issued a Memorandum &
Order in the case of Tummino v. Hamburg [USDC NY ED no. 12-CV-763 (ERK)(VVP) (2013)], in
which he directed the United States government to make the most common
morning-after pill available over the counter for all ages, instead of requiring
a prescription for girls 16 and under.
I have not read the ruling as yet.
Nonetheless, the judge’s order has the potential to be a game-changing
decision. I suspect the appeals
will make their way to the Supremes.
“The politics of Roe v. Wade and gay marriage”
by Ruth Marcus
Washington Post
Published: April 4, 2013
An interesting opinion, if you ask
me. Regardless, the larger
over-arching issue in all these moralistic legal debates seems to be
missed. This is not state’s-rights
versus federalism; it is most emphatically individual freedom of choice and an
individual’s fundamental right to privacy. North Dakota, Arkansas and soon
Kansas are wrong and represent the worst of intrusive government. Passing oppressive laws is not how we
should affect the private choices or behavior of free citizens.
A
largely overlooked, recent Supreme Court decision has potentially very serious
implication for all of us – Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
[568 U.S. ___ (2013); no. 11-1025].
The case dealt with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act
of 2008 (AKA FISA Amendments Act of 2008) [PL 110-261; 122 Stat. 2436;
10.July.2008] [344, 565] and the controversy of warrantless
electronic surveillance within the War on Islamic Fascism. Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote
for the majority of a 5-4 divided court, and reversed and remanded the appeals
solely upon the legal lack of standing by the originators of the action. The critical element in this position
rests upon the historic principle of demonstrable injury. Since Amnesty International and others
could not produce evidence of injury in a secret, government, surveillance
program, they had no standing.
With this decision, the Supreme Court set the threshold very high for
recourse regarding the government’s warrantless surveillance program. My opinion lays somewhere between the
majority and the dissent in this instance.
News from the economic front:
-- The Central Bank of Cyprus announced that 37.5% of all
deposits over €100,000 in Cyprus banks will be converted immediately into a
special class of shares at the their respective banks as part of its
recapitalization plan and the deal with the troika for financial support. The central bank also said an
additional 22.5% will be frozen in non-interest bearing accounts until the
restructuring plan is completed – a process expected to take several
months. This is a smidgen short of
outright confiscation, which is only a small step above total loss. The bankers chose short-term survival
at the cost of any form of confidence in the banking system in Cyprus, i.e.,
slow death.
-- The People’s Republic of China reported its Purchasing
Managers' Index (PMI) rose to 50.9 in March from 50.1 in February, the fastest change
in 11 months.
-- Bank of Japan Governor Haruhiko Kuroda announced a “new
phase of monetary easing,” expected to double Japan’s monetary base over a two-year
period, through aggressive purchases of long-term government bonds and risk
assets.
-- The European Central Bank (ECB) President Mario Draghi
indicated the bank’s intention to keep its main refinancing rate steady at 0.75%,
despite the Bank of Japan’s stunning easing plan. The Bank of England kept its primary rate steady as well at
0.5%. The EU’s inflation rate has
been falling below the bank’s 2% target, while unemployment is at a record high.
The 17-nation euro-zone remains in
recession.
-- The Labor Department reported the nation’s employers
increased their payrolls by a lower than expected 88,000 in March, compared to
268,000 in February. The
unemployment rate, which comes from a different survey, ticked down to 7.6%
from 7.7% in February.
London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR)
Debacle [552]:
-- According to the Wall
Street Journal, despite Judge Buchwald’s ruling last week [589], 30 state attorneys general are
pressing on with their investigations of banks involved in the LIBOR
interest-rate rigging fiasco. The
number of states involved in the coordinated probe has grown substantially in
recent months and could result in enforcement actions seeking billions of
dollars in damages.
-- 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.589:
Comment to the Blog:
“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.”
My response to the
Blog:
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.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“The only item in this response that I question is the
assumption that the advanced economies have increased capital reserve
requirements for their banks. A blog I follow, Baseline Scenario, has repeatedly advocated for the US to do that
but has not achieved any results, if I'm correct. From your blog item, I assume
that the UK is just now getting around to it.”
. . . my follow-up response:
The
Obama administration carried out a series of banking system stress tests
beginning in 2009 [383 & sub]
that resulted in various changes to improve the capacity of banks to endure
financial trauma. I make no claim
that the U.S., UK, EU, or any other government entity has done a good job
reforming the banking system, but they have tried to make it less likely we
might suffer a meltdown like 2008.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
Cap,
That article on Judaism’s and Christianity’s rejection of homosexuality and demand that sex be confined to marriage falls short in many ways. First, consider the source. “Orthodoxy Today” is not a scholarly source, as the ensuing load of nonsense demonstrates. I would almost buy as much of the argument as you do, except I study history. The Greek and Roman Empires subscribed to none of that Judeo-Christian morality, as you well know. The Romans (at least the Imperial Court) eventually converted to Christianity, but by that time they had already begun to decline. The “barbarians” put them out of their misery. The Jews were a conquered people and remained that most of the time until the United Nations finally granted them Israel. I cannot subscribe to the notion that their specific morality somehow gave rise to what Prager sees as civilization. How, then, does Prager explain China’s and India’s empires or the modern-day success of Japan? I find his assumption that Judeo-Christian religions are “higher” religion offensive, as I do his dismissal of others’ sacred sexual practices. Prager’s article is ranting, not reasoning.
Wehner’s article encouraging the Republicans to oppose drug legalization seems intended as a strategy point rather than a real discussion about drugs. He gives all the same claims I have been hearing for decades about the damage he says drugs do, but does not offer any evidence for success of the same old strategy that goes back to Lyndon Johnson. If Wehner intends to influence Republican strategy, as I believe he does, he ignores the tide of public opinion. The primary people who favor continuing the “war” on drug users are those who make money on it: people who operate private prisons and public agencies pursuing, prosecuting or imprisoning users. We cannot know whether the criminals currently controlling the markets for illicit drugs financially support their continued prohibition, but they would not be breaking new ground if they did. Al Capone was a major supporter of the Prohibition against alcohol, and that paid off very well for him.
“The Politics of Roe v Wade and Gay Marriage” is a good article. I share the position that individual freedom is the central point of this discussion.
As you may have noticed, I do not support warrantless surveillance. FISA, the so-called PATRIOT Act and anything else that gives the government unrestrained control over the lives of Americans is just simply wrong.
I do not know how you can call the Central Bank of Cyprus’s decision “slow death.” There’s no reason to believe it will be prolonged.
The US “stress test” a few years ago was widely criticized and had no concrete results.
Calvin,
Re: Prager. I believe he used the term “Western civilization,” which can be generally thought of a Euro-centric and would thus exclude the Eastern civilizations of Japan, China and India. We are agreed; the fall of the Greek and Roman empires came on reasons far broader than hedonism.
Re: Wehner. Yes, precisely; his suggestion is a proposed political strategy to differentiate the Republican Party from the other political parties. He clearly does not understand or even comprehend the demand for use of psychotropic substances or the criminal sub-culture that feeds that demand. I would not be surprised in the slightest that the drug lords and their production/distribution infrastructure encourages and supports continued prohibition – it is their business. Regulation of the drug trade would almost overnight supersede their business.
Re: individual freedom. Sadly, the Republican Party appears to have been blinded by the conservative religious right and the dictation of their moral oppression, which has made them incapable of appreciating the essence of individual freedom. The Republicans have garnered sufficient majority in Congress and shamed/coerced enough Democrats to pass the myriad of morality laws attempting to prohibit private conduct. They have created a massive government bureaucracy and deeply intrusive laws to enforce their professed morality, and then they spit epithets at Democrats (actually, anyone who does not agree with them) about being tax & spend liberals, socialists and worse. Even sadder for me personally, there was a time when I swallowed that bitter pill. So, I say let them adopt Wehner’s proposal and continue to fantasize about a nation at their mercy and dictation. Virtually all of the morality topics – drugs, abortion, prostitution, gambling, non-heterosexuality, et cetera – are simply and solely about individual freedom versus the oppression of a moralistic majority.
Re: warrantless surveillance. In general, I agree; warrantless surveillance is the antithesis of the freedoms we cherish. Yet, in the War on Islamic Fascism, the enemy has effectively used our commitment to freedom and the restraint of government. While I am quite uneasy with the extraordinary power FISA, PATRIOT and other laws have given the Federales, and even more so the known abuses, I think they must have those tools to wage war successfully. The laws should be amended to insulate the intelligence apparatus from the law enforcement and political systems; it is simply too easy, and way too tempting to use war information for political gain, as I believe we witnessed in the Elliot Spitzer travesty.
Re: Central Bank of Cyprus. Slow is a relative term . . . as compared to what? They could prolong it as long as their captured funds last, or until the EU/ECB inject significant funds. Generally, banks do not survive long with really angry, betrayed customers.
Re: stress test. Perhaps, but that is matter of perspective and opinion. Regardless, the necessary banking industry reform that is needed has not occurred for a host of largely political reasons.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment