Update from the
Heartland
No.631
13.1.14 – 19.1.14
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Oklahoma has now joined the growing list of states that
have had their same-sex marriage prohibition laws [363 et al] declared
unconstitutional by a federal court. U.S. District Judge Terence C. Kern of Oklahoma, Northern
District, declared the state’s marriage law was a violation of the 14th
Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause – Bishop v. Oklahoma [USDC
OK ND no. 04-CV-848-TCK-TLW].
Judge Kern also issued a concurrent stay of his ruling, pending appeal. Since these cases are mounting up
faster than my reading throughput capacity can keep up with, I will probably
not review this case either, unless there is a specific request to do so.
-- The hits just keep coming! Congress passed by a substantial majority the US$1.012T Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014 [PL 113-xxx;
H.R.3547; Senate: 72-26-0-2(0); House: 359-67-0-7(2); 127 Stat. xxxx].
The bill restores some of the sequestration spending cuts. As of this Update, the President has
not yet signed the bill into law, and the text of the bill was not yet
available. The long drought in
proper appropriations bills is finally over [630]. Perhaps there is
hope for Congress after all.
On Friday, President Obama addressed the
nation regarding the NSA surveillance kerfuffle. In the main, he defended the NSA warrantless, electronic
surveillance efforts as essential to national security, while he condemned
leaks of highly classified material, and also suggested some restrictions and
reforms are needed. There are
those who believe the President went no where near far enough in reining in the
NSA, just as there are others who believe he did go too far and hobbled a vital
segment of our national security apparatus. I thought he gave us a contemplative assessment as he walked
a very fine and sensitive line with respect to our national intelligence capabilities.
The
President also issued Presidential Policy Directive 28 (PPD-28) regarding
Signals Intelligence Activities.
It is not clear whether the President may issue Executive Orders or
whether Congress will amend the relevant laws. While PPD-28 does offer some refinement and guidance, it is
not law. Further, the real
lynchpin in all this rests with how the IC responds to the presidential
guidance and reformation of the law, if any should come.
Lastly,
in going through my notes on this topic, I think it is important to illuminate
the Intelligence
Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 [112 Stat. 2414], which
is actually Title VII of
the Intelligence Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1999 [PL 105-272; 112 Stat. 2396; 20.10.1998], and specifically
§702 of the act titled: Protection
of intelligence community employees who report urgent concerns to Congress. That fugitive under asylum in Russia
had the legal means to alert Congress to what he believed was the NSA’s violating
of the Constitution and other laws without compromising national security. He chose to ignore that law and violate
a myriad of other laws for what appears to be narcissistic self-aggrandizement.
A
relevant opinion for your further cogitation:
“Obama’s NSA reforms could create more Snowdens”
by Ryan Cooper
Washington Post
Published: January 14 [2014] at 2:50 pm
The U.S. Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence issued a declassified, redacted version of its investigation report
on the Benghazi attack the killed Ambassador Stevens [561, 568] – Review of
the Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012. As has been widely reported, the
Committee concluded the consequences of the attacks were preventable. In this context, World War II was
preventable. Also, there is no
perfect security. Of particular
note to me, we see yet again the all too familiar weakness of the U.S.
Intelligence Community (IC), namely the paucity of actionable Human
Intelligence (HumInt), and the failure to disseminate tactical intelligence to
operational units. While our
HumInt capabilities are improving, they are a long way from where they should
be. As the report illuminates,
there were plenty of failures at State, National Intelligence, Defense, and the
Executive, and a serious overestimation of local security by the in-country
diplomats. I acknowledge more than
a few among us see a bevy of nefarious conduct in the Benghazi attacks and its
political aftermath. I am not one
of that group.
Could it be . . . perhaps, the Dutch have
been reading this humble Update forum?
I have consistently advocated for respecting the fundamental right to
privacy of every citizen, including drug addicts and alcoholics. As is often the case, the Dutch have
the foresight and courage to attempt a paradigm shift that respects the
autonomy of the individual while minimizing the collateral damage in the public
domain.
“Alcoholics work for beer in Amsterdam program”
by Toby Sterling – Associated Press
Wichita Eagle
Published: Thursday, Jan. 16, 2014, at 6:17 a.m.; Updated
Thursday, Jan. 16, 2014, at 12:32 p.m.
We have tried prohibition. We have tried criminalization. We have put masses of citizens in prison for exercising
their freedom of choice without causing any injury to other persons or
property. We have created
expansive, international, violent, criminal sub-cultures to feed the demand we
are impotent to quash and retain our freedom. On the plus side, we have taken a far more intelligent
approach to tobacco addiction. Why
can’t we see the path to a more humane and respectful effort to other
addictions? The Dutch have made a
bona fide attempt to improve the public domain for all citizens rather than
fill jails or prisons with alcoholics and addicts. Americans have a long, sordid history of condemning other
citizens for their weaknesses, their perceived immorality, and for their
actions of self-destruction. We
must find the courage to abandon our tendency toward moral projection, accept
every citizens fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice, and amend
the laws to focus on minimizing the collateral damage induced by those citizens
who seek the oblivion of substance abuse.
London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR)
Debacle [552]:
-- The U.S. Justice Department charged three former Rabobank
traders with fraud in connection with the LIBOR Debacle. The three derivatives traders allegedly
manipulated the ¥ LIBOR by submitting false borrowing rates. The three men are
charged with wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud.
-- So we don’t lose focus . . . the infamous 16, involved,
international banks are:
- · Barclays [UK] – US$454M fine [550];
Singapore sanctions [600]
- · Bank of America [U.S.]
– Singapore sanctions [600]
- · BTMU [Japan] – Singapore sanctions [600]
- · Citigroup [U.S.]
– Singapore sanctions [600]
- ·
Credit Suisse [Switzerland] – Singapore sanctions [600]
- · Deutsche Bank [Germany] – US$654M LIBOR profit [578]; set aside €500M (US$641M) for
LIBOR liability [589]; Singapore sanctions [600]
- ·
Lloyds TSB [UK]
- · HSBC [UK] – Singapore
sanctions [600]
- · HBOS
[UK]
- · JPMorgan Chase [U.S.]
– Singapore sanctions [600]
- ·
Norinchuckin [Japan]
- · Rabobank
[Netherlands] – fined €774M (£663M, US$1.06B); CEO resigned; 30 others censured
[620]; three charged {Robson,
Thompson, Motomura} [631]
- · RBC
[Canada]
- · RBS [UK] – £390M (US$612.6M) in
fines, 21 employees involved [582]; Singapore sanctions [600]
- · UBS [Switzerland] – US$1.5B fine, two charged {Hayes, Darin} [575]; Singapore sanctions [600]
- · West
LB [Germany]
Added to the list by the Monetary Authority of Singapore [600]:
- ·
ING [Netherlands] – Singapore sanctions [600]
- ·
BNP Paribas [France] – Singapore sanctions [600]
- ·
Cr̩dit Agricole [France] РSingapore
sanctions [600]
- ·
DBS [Singapore] – Singapore sanctions [600]
- ·
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation [Singapore] –
Singapore sanctions [600]
- ·
Standard Chartered [UK] – Singapore sanctions [600]
- ·
United Overseas Bank
[Singapore] – Singapore sanctions [600]
- ·
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. [Australia] –
Singapore sanctions [600]
- ·
Macquarie [Australia] – Singapore sanctions [600]
- ·
Commerzbank [Germany] – Singapore sanctions [600]
Others involved:
- ·
ICAP [UK] – fined US$87M + three executives charged {Read, Wilkinson,
Goodman} [615]
I trust none of us will lose sight of what these banks have
done. Lest we forget!
Continuation
from Update no.629:
“I’ve thought about your reply and have considered dropping
the discussion, but I feel it is such an important issue and I feel that so
many folks don’t really appreciate the seriousness of the point that I feel
compelled to revisit it at least one more time. If I can’t convince of all
people, you, who actually spends time to think things through far, far more
than most, then I fear the long-term implications of our national collective
failure to acknowledge this.
“So let’s start with the organization. In your reply you
associated the organization with the State. In my view, that is the wrong place
to associate it. In this case, the organization is a collection of religious
sisters who all share a particular belief. Organizations have rights, as the
Supreme Court has held in a recent case regarding free speech, and to therefore
equate an organization with the State, I feel, is a mischaracterization –
the State in this case is taking away a right of the organization to its
exercise of freedom of religion – and in fact requires them to violate their
deeply held beliefs – by paying for something they find morally objectionable.
“Sometimes, we can, freely by our own choice, surrender a
particular right. The classic – you surrender your right to free speech (to
shout “Fire”) when you voluntarily purchase a movie ticket, and as (a more
serious example) you do when you accept employment that gives access to
privileged or classified information. In this case, the individual would
surrender the right to receive a particular medical benefit paid for by the
employer as a condition of employment with the particular organization.
“And one could argue for a hierarchy of rights – those in
the Constitution’s Bill of Rights perhaps trumping the right to a certain “paid
for at least partially by the employer” medical service that the employee would
have acknowledged would not be covered by the employer’s group health plan as
it violated the organization’s (as a group of like-believing individuals)
religious beliefs.
“Cap, one of the reasons this is so important is that it is
a ‘first step’ in the government being able to override religious beliefs to
further the social agenda of the State – it is a precedent setting issue and must
be recognized as such.
“Regarding where do we draw the line, there is a danger here
perhaps regarding some organizations arbitrarily declaring themselves to be
opposed to something they just decide they don't want to pay for, but the issue
in this case is not a modern day whim. This is a value held
consistently for a very, very long time. It is certainly worth a discussion on
how this can be avoided, but the principle is too important to be cast aside by
a possible frivolous use of it.”
My reply:
First
and foremost, thank you very much for not dropping this topic. I absolutely agree, the topic is far
too important to the evolution of our society.
I
use the term “organization” in the general sense of a group operating under
some common set of rules. Thus, my
definition applies to any group from the State to a group of nuns, including
corporations, sports teams, any group.
I
am well aware of the Supremes recent rulings, and specifically Citizens
United, which gave corporations (or any organization, for that matter)
virtually the rights of citizenship.
So, yes, you are quite correct, organizations have rights because the
Supremes said so.
Conversely,
as I understand your perspective, you see this contraception debate as a
contest between the State and the rights of organizations. I see this debate as conflict between
an organization and the individual; I see it as the most fundamental of our
rights as citizens. This is the
question of a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy.
I
respect every citizen’s freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to bear
arms, and especially every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy . . . to live
his/her life as he chooses without interference from the State, any
organization, or his neighbors.
Yes, there are conditions on those rights, e.g., the exercise of my
freedoms cannot cause injury to others, or when I put on a uniform I no longer
have the right to speak my mind.
Yes, one could argue for a hierarchy of rights. As I read the preamble of the
Constitution and the Declaration, as foundational documents that put the
Constitution into context, We, the People, grant limited rights to the
State. The State is chartered to
maintain law & order, to protect the public domain, and protecting the
rights of the individual citizen. To
me, the individual citizen is at the top of that hierarchy; the rest boils down
to good order & discipline in the public domain. So, if the State or any organization seeks to intrude upon a
citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, there must be a substantial public
domain reason for that imposition.
This is where the debate centers for me. Does the organization’s religious beliefs exceed the
individual’s fundamental right to privacy. So, in this instance, is contraception a proper public
domain issue? My answer: I can see
no rationale for that intrusion.
I
absolutely agree, this debate is certainly worth an exhaustive discussion. I am certainly not trying to cast aside
any arguments. I struggle to
reconcile the rights of various elements of our society – the State, associated
organizations, and the individual.
I
understand, appreciate and respect the moral question with contraception,
abortion, marriage, divorce, all of those elements of life. The moral debate should be conducted at
the individual level, not at the organizational or State level. If the nuns disapprove of
contraception, then help the individual appreciate the moral issue and make the
correct decision for them. You
make good points. Yet, to
illustrate the dichotomy, if it is acceptable to make rejection of
contraception a condition of employment, would it be acceptable to make gender,
skin pigmentation, height, hair color, whatever, a condition of employment? Where do we draw the line? If all I have to do is make whatever
religious objection, does that give an organization license to discriminate against
an individual? The dichotomy and
the very personal, intimate nature of the issue that convinces me the rights of
the individual exceed the rights of the organization.
At
the end of the day, it does not matter what I think or my misgivings. I believe the Court will sustain the
rights of the organization based on religious objections over the rights of the
citizen. I think the Court will
validate your arguments. Regardless,
I place the rights of individuals over the organization. I suppose the only solution is
pre-employment disclosure that certain medical services will not be available.
Thank
you for continuing our exchange. I
just worry about the rights of the individual.
Postscript:
An
interesting article in this continuing debate:
“Exemptions from the ‘contraception mandate’ threaten
religious liberty”
by Frederick Mark Gedicks
Washington Post
Published: January 15 [2014]
. . . a further follow-up comment:
“Thanks for your reply. In the interest of getting to the
root of one of the issues we seem to be on different sides of, let me ask where
you come down on this question:
“Say a single individual, a religious sister, decides to
open a food bank – and for the purposes of this example, let’s just say that
she has an inheritance that means she has no requirement to do any
fund-raising. She is passionately committed to pro-life issues and feels that
contraception is truly morally objectionable. She can’t do all the work
herself, so she needs to hire people to help run the food bank. She is the
“sole owner” of the food bank. The other sisters of her order have nothing to
do with her food bank.
“Can she, herself, hire someone on the condition that the
health insurance she provides them will not cover contraceptive services?
“You, of course, see where this is going. If you don’t agree
to the above question, I haven’t made any progress…but if you do agree that a
single, solitary, individual can hire someone on those conditions as an
individual, what about two individuals who form a non-profit… Do they have
collective rights to their individual beliefs? Then three…etc.
“Employees are not forced to seek employment with any
specific organization. Potential employees would know the conditions of
employment before they agree to an employment contract. No one holds a gun to
their head to make them agree to those conditions of employment. They are free
to seek employment with organizations, which do not have such restrictions.
“I agree that the moral debate is at the individual level,
but these nuns have decided for themselves this question and on their part they
have all agreed what side of the issue they are on. Should the State then have
the power to require them to act contrary to that decision they have freely
made?
“No one is requiring employees to make rejection of
contraception a condition of employment, as you have correctly said, that is a
private matter of individual conscience. And issues of “gender, skin
pigmentation” etc. are red herring arguments. They could never be remotely
reasonably defended.
“Thanks for the time to listen. (Refer to the first
paragraph of my last reply!)”
. . . along with my follow-up:
You
make a very valid and apropos argument.
There are many conditions of employment. Some organizations require employees to wear uniforms, or a
coat & tie, and not all medical insurance programs are the same. An employee-prospect should make an
informed decision regarding acceptance of those conditions of employment. So, yes, I do agree that as a condition
of employment, denial of contraceptive services is just another feature.
What
the USG is attempting to do with PPACA is to define a minimum threshold of
coverage. You and like-minded
folks are saying contraception should not be part of that threshold, while
others including me believe it should be included as a basic level of care.
As
with so many of these tipping point issues, they can go either way. In such cases, I extend positions to
their extreme to understand and appreciate the sensitivities of the
question. Further, when it is a
toss up, I will come down on the side of the individual and her fundamental
right to privacy. Contraception is
a very private, personal and individual decision. It is not a business or religious decision. The employee is dealing with that
private decision. The organization
is making a collective (business) decision, in that question I must tip the
scale for the individual rather than the organization.
As
I said earlier, I think my opinion is moot. I think the Supremes will side with religious
organizations. However, it will be
a toss-up whether they will allow non-religious, commercial organizations to
use a religious argument to deny basic medical coverage.
. . . one more pass:
“Just a point to your reply. It is absolutely a religious
decision -- because it a moral consideration not a financial consideration. If
it were a dollars and cents issue, there would be absolutely no leg for the
sisters (or any other organization) to stand on.”
. . . my response:
So,
in essence, every employer has the right to declare anything they wish as a
religious objection and impose their beliefs on all of their employees.
To
extend the argument even farther, if a single nun can impose her beliefs on
employees, then any organization including the State can impose their beliefs
on all members or citizens.
Further, no organization, including the religious variety, has a right
to discriminate based on any of the social factors.
This
is where the argument breaks down for me.
No one is even remotely asking the nun to avail herself of
contraception. However, inversely,
the nun is imposing her morality on her employee. The nun is not involved; the employee is; and, that decision
is a private one, not an organizational one.
Comments
and contributions from Update no.630:
“You didn’t mention the Christie imbroglio. Perhaps a
matter of timing.
“One thing to consider, something that has been overlooked.
The bridge blockage was done on the anniversary of 9/11, and pulling this stunt
had major national security implications. This is the bridge with the
biggest car volume in the USA, if not the world. DHS has considered it to be a potential terrorist target on
9/11 anniversaries, and thus to close the lanes on the anniversary of 9/11 was
even more irresponsible than at first glance. In addition to everything
else, that makes the whole exercise even worse.”
My response:
Yes,
you are quite correct. My absence
from opinion on the so-called bridge-gate episode is not timing, rather
ambivalence. Just as there is
broad disgust with congressional, partisan intransigence and political retributive
nonsense, this is just business as usual, like petty common crime, except in
this case it was more like major felonious crime.
What
happened on the New Jersey side (Ft. Lee) of the George Washington Bridge last
September was a crime. I hope and
trust they prosecute those who caused it to happen. If it gets tied back to the governor, then he should be
impeached, tried, convicted and removed from office – rendered to the scrap
heap of failed politicians. You
offered several reasons. It was a
tragically foolish stunt to do.
The perpetrators must be held accountable for their crimes. I have seen no connection to the
governor, except by his neglect.
To
me, when the traffic began to back up, why didn’t someone responsible
investigate what the problem was and resolve it . . . in hours, if not minutes? Five days meant many others failed to
perform their duties, failed to see the illegality. The GWB, like all other infrastructure we are dependent
upon, is a vital public safety necessity, set aside essential commercial
enabler. What would have happened
if the perpetrators had attacked electricity, water, gas or any other essential
infrastructure element? How much
money was lost? Unfortunately, for
those innocent citizens caught in the event, traffic jams are a common
occurrence due to common happenings like accidents and such; I doubt very few
even imagined an intentional, political, retributive occurrence.
Round Two:
“You are right and you see the ramifications of this
stunt. Your questions are exactly the ones people are asking- especially
in view of the ‘hands on, know everything’ nature of the Christie
administration.
“What is coming out now are more connections to the Governor
and refutations of his statements of denial. Yesterday, even during his
state of the State address, the WSJ (not a ‘liberal rag’) came out with a story
that puts the Gov right on the bridge on 9/11- three days into the
stoppage. And he is with some of the people that he fired or said that he
had little contact with. The guy standing next to him – just to his left,
is the guy that he said he hadn’t “encountered him in a long time.”
“Equally unsettling is the story – reported by the WSJ last
month- that Christie had phoned Gov Cuomo of NY to complain about the stoppage
of the ‘traffic study’ and complain about the NY part of the Port Authority
(bi-state operation of GWB, among others) investigating the traffic
stoppage. That totally blows apart Christie’s denials. Coumo
has been quiet so far,- but there has been a ‘war’ between the NY
and NJ parts of the Port Authority over this. Stay tuned.
“Here is part of a comment that underscores the 9/11 point:”
Now, one of the ambient things about
the New Jersey bridge scandal that has always been particularly disgusting is
the fact that the bridge shutdown happened on the week of September 11th. I
mean, if there are dirty tricks going on in politics somewhere, even in the New
York City area, it's not like everybody expects September 11th to be an
Armistice Day for politics or anything. But grid locking a town in northern New
Jersey and portions of the George Washington Bridge on September 11th was
particularly nasty. Not only for people in New Jersey who might have wanted to
use the bridge to get to 9/11 commemorative events, this was, after all, a very
hard hit area of the country; but also because, frankly, the bridge, itself, is
seen as a potential terrorist target. It's not just a landmark. It is the
busiest bridge in the world. And on the anniversary of 9/11, you worry, right?
The mayor of Fort Lee told The New York Times this week that while
the bridge lanes were closed, quote, his blood pressure rose “two ticks
each day.” But he says it, quote, went up twice that on September
11th, specifically.
[See A Bridge to
Scandal: Behind the Fort Lee Ruse by N. R. Kleinfield, The New York Times, 12 Jan 2014]
My response to Round
Two:
Jan,
Thanks
for the additional information.
Democrats,
liberals and anti-Republicans smell blood in the water. I will probably not join the feeding
frenzy. That kind of mindless
political retribution will not endear moderates and independents. If this debacle does castrate Christie,
I suspect we will have further polarization of the political landscapes, which is
very negative in my book. And so
it goes.
Comment to the Blog:
“You give us a great deal of information about the spy
community and those who seek to limit it without clarifying your opinion. Let
me see if I can boil down the possibilities. Do you believe (1) that the spy
community should be allowed unlimited powers so long as it claims national
security as its objective, (2) that somehow the spy community is appropriately
limited despite the revelations of Snowden, Wikileaks, et al, or (3) that
someone should be watching the watchers?
“I see no clear value in reviewing these cases prior to the
Supreme Court ruling.
“For me, call it what you will, I do not want people to have
access to my phone calls and emails. I am not violating any laws or plotting
any terrorism, and unless someone can at least show a suspicion that I am,
those activities constitute an unreasonable search in my mind. I have enough
self-consciousness to want my private life to be private, and I believe these
systems are subject to far more abuse than the few dozen cases to which the NSA
has admitted.
“Of the movies you named, I have seen only The Deer Hunter.
I remember nothing of the plot, only that it was a major part of my decision to
watch no more violent movies.
“The Governor of Utah has found a way to stress married
same-sex partners, but the momentum continues to favor marriage equality.
“I understand that JP Morgan Chase will continue to pay
fines, even if they seem very large to those unacquainted with high finance.
Like you, I want to hold flesh-and-blood perpetrators responsible for the
actions of the paper creature, the corporation.
“The economy continues to baffle the experts and pundits.
Perhaps they do not study some of the important factors, such as the simple
fact that the unemployed spend less because they have less to spend.
“Contraception has become a battlefield in civil rights. You
and I share a belief in the right of individuals to control their own medical
lives.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
intelligence Community (IC).
Addressing your options:
(1) No! The
word “unlimited” should and must be an anathema in any free society, for any
reason.
(2) A qualified no.
I am not yet convinced the BTMP violated the 4th Amendment or any other
provision of the Constitution.
Judge Leon offered strikingly shallow evidence to substantiate his
opinion in Klayman. However, at
an elemental level, I agree with the judge – the opportunity for abuse and
especially undetected abuse is astronomical. I believe we have at least one known abuse – the Spitzer
disclosure [327]. I also believe I have been consistently
in favor of and a vocal supporter of relevant, comprehensive reforms of the IC
and specifically NSA products, if not means & methods, to reduce the
opportunity for abuse and to punish harshly those who do misuse IC materials.
(3) This could be part of the reforms. I think the FISC was the correct
approach, but there must be a better, more effective, way to safeguard our
constitutional rights while enabling the IC to respond and adapt to future
situations.
The bottom line, as Judge Leon wrote, is the opportunities
for abuse are dreadfully close.
Whether appropriate safeguards are possible is yet to be
determined. However, I am not
particularly interested in hobbling the IC, either; we were not in a war in
1978, we are today.
Understood. I do. The process helps me understand the eventual
conclusion. Each judge or judicial
review adds knowledge to the topic.
Re:
privacy. I share you desire and
expectation. The BTMP did not
access text, only the address information on the “envelope.” Yet, I must add, the BTMP alone would
not have discovered Spitzer’s indiscretions; someone in the USG read his eMail
and/or text messages, or listened to his conversations under some warrantless
surveillance operation. No
contradictory evidence, information or even hearsay was ever disclosed to
justify the disclosures that led to his resignation. We have reason to be concerned, suspicious and skeptical;
but, that is not sufficient to blind or even partially blind the IC.
“The
Deer Hunter” was a brutal movie illuminating the darkest corners of the Vietnam
War – a good reason to avoid violent movies.
Re:
equal rights for all citizens.
Yes, you are quite correct.
The governor or attorney general of Utah or any other state will not
deter the inexorable march toward freedom for all. Now, we have another court ruling in Oklahoma to the same
effect, and the governor decries the judge’s failure to recognize “the will of
the people.” That argument was not
sufficient in 1861, and it is not sufficient today. The majority does NOT have the right to impose upon a
minority with whom they morally disapprove, without substantial justification
for the public good.
At
lease some modicum of pain is being inflicted upon these damnable “to big to
fail” banks. I fear we have missed
the motivation to break up and reform those banks. Heck, they are already trying to unravel what reform has
been attempted – Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act [PL
111-203; 124 Stat. 1376; 21.7.2010] [468,
544].
Re:
unemployment. Perhaps.
[Part B]
Re:
contraception. Yes, we do share
that belief. Yet, there is a
substantial portion of our citizenry who claim they are advocates for smaller
government at the very same time they demand the State intrude upon the most
private and intimate of our affairs.
The Texas case of Marlise and Erik Munoz is a current and graphic case
of the inappropriate intrusion of government into the most private, tragic and
intimate of decisions. Texas law
places the state above the individual; the state is using Marlise’s dead body
as an incubator to get her fetus to viability without regard to the
consequences of their actions. The
Munoz case brightly illuminates the dreadful dichotomy in our political debates
about contraception, abortion, childhood sex education, et al. If those who are so bloody convinced
the interests of a few dividing cells exceeds the rights of an individual
citizen were more focused on the plight of unwanted, neglected or abused
children, I might be a little more sympathetic. Conception and fetal development is not where this debate
should be fought; the consequences and violations of our fundamental right to
privacy are incalculable and otherwise not acceptable.
. . . follow-up comment:
“I'd like to start by picking on the statement that the NSA
collects "only" the envelope information from emails and phone calls.
For a personal example, I am separated from my wife. She's a decent person, but
what if she were vindictive or interested in punishing me? The "envelope
information" from my phone calls or information from Facebook would tell
her that I'm talking to a single lady here. A good lawyer could make that very
expensive and embarrassing. What if I were in touch with openly gay
organizations? Or ‘radical’ (Green Party) political operatives? Those things
can be abused. In my case, I am clergy, protected only by not being mainstream.
The fact, if it is true, that the NSA collects only envelope information does
not justify the collection. Besides, spies notoriously lie. It's part of the
job. They may well be collecting much more information.
“We are not in a war. We are experiencing a thoroughly
ordinary method of controlling the population as employed worldwide now and
throughout history.
“The case of Marlise Munoz sickens me, and I think I have
something to add. Both survivors of lengthy comas and children who are born in
extreme medical circumstances tend to have handicaps, often severe ones. My ex
worked in a place that houses multi-handicapped people. I guess someone could
argue that we cannot read the minds of people who cannot speak or leave this
specialized care environment except by ambulance, but I think if we required
the those who insist on keeping Marlise's body alive to spend a week or two
working in such a facility they would cease arguing that any means whatever
must be used to keep people physically alive.”
. . . my follow-up response:
In
both world wars, the USG physically read letters posted by servicemen,
regardless of location or assignment.
They actually blacked out or cut out parts of letters they believed
compromised operational security.
That degree of intrusion was far more intrusive than BTMP.
To
fulfill your scenario, the USG would have to go well beyond the BTMP, as I’ve
said, I think the USG has done that at least once. A plausible similar scenario might be an intentional,
al-Qa’ida, saturation campaign where they randomly call telephone numbers in
the U.S. from known al-Qa’ida telephones in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan, et
al. They would be “hits” in the BTMP,
which in turn could compromise the privacy of innocent citizens, who are even
unaware that they have been engaged.
It would also occupy substantial investigative resources to find the
real operatives among all the distraction “contacts.” There are a myriad of possibilities.
We
do not share the same view of the War on Islamic Fascism. I do not see evidence of the USG trying
to control the American citizenry – risk, yes, but no action, as yet.
I
will argue that Marlise Munoz is NOT alive. The State has made her a biological incubator. When the fetus is delivered, her dead
body will be discarded. What is
going on in Texas in this case is far worse and more threatening to me than the
NSA BTMP threat. The State has
taken over a woman’s dead body and forced her husband and family into a
situation of incalculable consequences with absolutely no accountability for
those imposed decisions. The Munoz
situation is wrong on so many levels it boggles the imagination . . . all
because of a near mindless obsession with a symptom rather than a root
cause. We can only hope saner,
more logical minds will eventually prevail. Unfortunately, Erik Munoz and his family must suffer the
burden of this insanity.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
