Update no.650

Update from the Heartland

No.650

26.5.14 – 1.6.14

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

Both Russia and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) are acting like common street bullies as they continue their aggressive campaigns to dominate their neighbors.  The Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV) accused the PRC of sinking one of its fishing boats in the disputed waters of the South China Sea.  The SRV has made overtures toward the Republic of the Philippines in an effort to find support against the expansionist efforts of the PRC.  People's Liberation Army National Defense University Dean Major General Zhu Chenghu admonished the United States for poor strategic choices and said, “If you take China as an enemy, China will absolutely become the enemy of the U.S.”  Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced his country’s intention to step up broad assistance to the SRV and stiffen Japanese resistance to the PRC’s efforts.  Russia continues stoke the fires of rebellion in Eastern Ukraine, as Putin claims he is withdrawing Russian forces massed along the border with Ukraine.  Yet, he has done nothing to dampen the ardor of separatist activities in the eastern provinces of his neighbor.  It must be quite a bit more than coincidence that both the PRC and Russia are carrying out protracted saber-rattling campaigns against their neighbors.  The similarities with events 80 years ago are striking.

            A supplemental note: what General Chenghu fails to acknowledge: those accusations are a double-edged sword.  If the PRC acts like an enemy, the United States will have no choice but to treat the most populous nation as an enemy.  Perhaps he is incapable of recognizing the costs of being a common street bully.

            If two countries freely choose to transfer territory from one nation’s sovereignty to another, that is their choice entirely.  There are peaceful, legal means to do so.  However, what happened in Crimea was wrong in just about every way.  What Russia did was one step short of war or force of arms.  Putin’s actions in the Crimea situation were so bloody similar to March 1939 (since I must discount the September 1938 event), as Great Britain and France were in collusion with Hitler.  In the later month, Germany used only the threat of force and the reflection that the remainder of Czechoslovakia (after Sudetenland was carved off) was alone, unsupported by any of the Allies, and had virtually no defense or military power left to withstand the Wehrmacht. Czech President Emil Hácha capitulated to Hitler’s demands without a single shot being fired.

            For our public debate, I ask some relevant and appropriate questions.  Why did Finland, Hungary, Rumania, and Bulgaria join the Germans in Operation Barbarossa [1941]?  BTW, a little known historic factoid: Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary declared war on the United States in June 1942, and the United States obliged – the last time in history to date that the U.S. formally declared war on a sovereign nation [5.June.1942].  To continue, why did Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Ukrainians, Circassians and many others aid the Germans in their battle against Russia?  Was it because they collectively sought domination by Hitler’s Germany and the Nazis?  No!  They despised the Russians and the long oppression of their countries by Tsarist and then Soviet governments.  They hated the Russians more than they feared the Germans.  Those attitudes took centuries to take root and grow.  Russian tsars, dictators and strongmen were only interested in protecting their power, and they usually fanned the flames of nationalist pride to do so.  I see events in Eastern Europe and Asia in the bright illumination of history.  I also wonder whether we are Chamberlain or Churchill?

On Wednesday, 28.May.2014, NBC News broadcast an edited interview by Brian Douglas Williams of the fugitive from justice in Russia [599].  I recorded the program and carefully listened to the content.  First, I must say, it was an interesting choice of broadcast times . . . just two days after the Memorial Day holiday – our remembrance of all those who sacrificed their lives for the protection of the freedoms we enjoy.

            For what it is worth, I have a number of impressions from the interview.  To his credit, the fugitive was calm, thoughtful, articulate and focused.  Again, to his credit, he offered compelling arguments in his defense.  Unbeknownst to me, he claimed far more, extended involvement within the Intelligence Community (IC) than I previously understood or knew.  Taken from a distance, I certainly share, as I think all thinking American share as well, the serious concern and apprehension regarding the U.S. Government’s (USG) warrantless surveillance programs carried out primarily by the National Security Agency (NSA) with the direct involvement of the FBI, CIA, DHS, and other USG agencies.

            At the end of the day, the fugitive in Russia claims righteous indignation in his challenge of the USG and as rationale for his illegal theft of many, highly classified documents that did not belong to him.  He stated several times that “sometimes doing the correct thing is illegal” – perhaps, his form of civil disobedience.  I am disappointed that Williams did not go after him regarding his implied superiority over the USG, regarding what is right, or appropriate, or whether disclosed information is harmful to national security.  The fugitive also claims he tried multiple times, through various legal offices, to draw attention to what he believed was wrong within the warrantless surveillance programs.  He is too young to know about precedents, history, prevailing intelligence means and methods.  In essence, he placed himself in the position of judge, jury and executioner with the USG’s conduct in the War on Islamic Fascism.  To have a public debate about the authority and usefulness of electronic and warrantless surveillance intelligence programs both outside and inside the United States is and should be a valuable exercise.  What I cannot accept is his method for drawing out that public debate.  I will give him the benefit of the doubt in that multiple sources reported at least one attempt to notify the Inspector General of his organization.  The group that should have acted did not.  To the fugitive in Russia, the paucity of positive response meant collusion rather than weakness in his argument.  To my knowledge, he never attempted to engage Congress or the Judiciary.  He did not have to sacrifice the national security for the entirety of this Grand Republic.  All in all, I think his ego got the better of him and grossly inflated his sense of self-importance.  If he really believes his actions were patriotic rather than treasonous, then he should man-up, stand before the bar and present his case for scrutiny and judgment.

News from the economic front:

-- The Commerce Department reported the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) decreased at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.0% in 1Q2014 – the latest recovery stumble since the Great Recession technically ended almost five years ago.  This is the worst performance since the 1Q2011, when the U.S. GDP declined at a 1.3% pace.

Comments and contributions from Update no.649:

Comment to the Blog:

“I am still considering the issue of prayers at meetings of public bodies. As a member of a non-Abrahamic religion and as a person who believes that religion is a private matter, I still object to prayers in that setting, and I believe that the systematic exclusion of non-Christians aggravates that issue tenfold. I, by the way, fit your term “cleric” and I want to note that a significant number of exceptions exist to your description of us as power-seekers.

“Beyond that, I am seeing a requirement of officials to make a public, personal commitment to the unity and well-being of the people they govern as a more desirable outcome. Imagine what could happen if a person in a city council meeting, for one example, could call attention to a council member's self-serving position differing from his statement of an hour earlier.

“Your other commenter and his kind need to study the early history of this Republic. Many of the Founders were Deists, which most modern-day Christians would not see as Christian. Deism thrived as part of the Age of Reason. Clearly, the Age of Reason is long over. Also, searching the phrase “tyranny of the majority” and reading the results with as much of an open mind as they can summon would enrich this person's view. The Bill of Rights belongs in the Constitution to cover that set of issues.

“Anything like a gift shop at the 9-11 memorial was bound to be tacky. However, current American outlook permits nothing to be truly non-commercial.

“I understand that the Credit Suisse conviction can be seen as progress in prosecuting large-scale financial wrongdoing. However, at this pace effective change cannot occur before at least one more worldwide economic crisis brought on by exactly the same group of people and the corporations they control. “Someday” is not an appropriate goal for jailing criminals, be they teenagers stealing electronics from unattended cars or financiers removing billions of dollars from the pockets of people worldwide. Certainly legislators have much to account for in this. That, to me, is part of a progressive outlook. I expect government to be more than a hand-wringing spectator to large-scale criminality.

“As you have pointed out, the intelligence reform bill is extremely watered down. Any such bill that covers only two agencies cannot be considered useful. I'd be interested in knowing who did what to whom behind the scenes, but those stories will never be available.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: public prayer.  Systematic exclusion of non-Christian religious denominations from rendering an opening, non-denominational, legislative session invocation makes the whole process suspect and thus unacceptable.  Conversely, inclusion of non-Christian clerics does not offer license for them to proselytize for their particular sect or theology.

            Re: power-seekers.  My representation was not intended to be all-inclusive or even definitive. 

            Re: “unity and well-being of the people.”  Spot on, brother!  Unfortunately, contemporary politicians are far more driven to impose their particular ideology on We, the People, rather than seek compromise and moderation for the common good.  There is far too much meddling in private affairs and conduct rather than addressing the common good in the public domain.

            Re: history.  There were many forces at play during those years of the founding of this Grand Republic that we would not recognize today and certainly would not tolerate or support, e.g., “men” in those days meant something fundamentally different from what it means today.

            Re: “tyranny of the majority.”  The term and principles to avoid that tyranny remain just as valid today as they were at the founding; yet, we all too often forget that important history.

            Re: gift shop.  I have not seen the gift shop at issue, but from the Press reports, it sounds like it was respectfully and tastefully done.  I simply sought to remind folks that the memorial and gift shop are intended for the general public as a whole, not just a special fraction.

            Re: Credit Suisse.  Good points, all!  This particular issue had more to do with the governmental disagreements and sovereignty than it did violations of the law.  Swiss banks have a long and storied history of secrecy and insulating their clients from governmental intrusion.  Credit Suisse deserves some credit in that they are one of the very few corporate entities to admit their guilt in violating the evolved law.  The Swiss government no longer protected the banks that chose to do business outside the country, e.g., in the United States and thus subject to our laws.

            Re: intelligence reform.  The H.R. 3361 deals more with the symptoms rather than the root cause.  Like banking reform, half steps are better than no steps.  I imagine Congress is attempting to do the minimum possible to affect sufficient change to placate public apprehension.  I doubt H.R. 3361 does even that minimum amount.

Another contribution:

“Re: the Chesterfield County case, it's not just a case of them only wanting Christians giving prayers, but Christians of the ‘right persuasion.’ The majority of the prayers will be from evangelical Protestant sources.  Just recall the mess at USAFA.”

My reply:

            Re: Chesterfield.  I was not aware of that aspect from the Press reports.  Such conduct by a public governance institution makes the process all the more suspect and offensive.  I suspect Chesterfield will not fair well in the judicial review process.

A different contribution:

“Re: Prayer.  If we cannot listen to a prayer of another faith, why should we expect non-Christian folk to listen as we pray in the ‘Name of Jesus.’  If we are willing to listen to another’s prayer, then we can expect God to touch a non-Christian as we Pray.”

My response:

Frank,

            Excellent point!  Further, is our religious faith that shallow and fragile we cannot tolerate even the hint of a different perspective?  In addition, I have always found different views and opinions broaden my understanding and strengthen my opinion of any particular issue or topic.  We need diversity, not uniformity.

Yet, another contribution:

            “Here is some input for your update from the heartland if you choose to use it.  Feel free to cut and paste, or edit, it as you see fit.  It is on the topic of public prayer.

            “You mentioned your use of the pronoun Him and that it was not gender specific.  Here is the last stanza of ‘My Country ‘Tis of Thee,’ or ‘America,’ written by Samuel Smith.

Our father's God to Thee

Author of liberty, to Thee we sing

Long may our land be bright

With freedom's holy light

Protect us by Thy might

Great God, our King

            “I say this and other patriotic songs are prayers set to music.  I think the author meant a human with a penis and lots of XY chromosomes when he wrote King.  So he would disagree with you, I think, if he used the pronoun Him.

            Here are words from "Battle Hymn of the Republic".

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea

With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me

As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free

While God is marching on.

Again, if a hymn is a prayer set to music, then I presume you would take issue with this stanza being sung at a public gathering in any of the 50 U.S. states, since it mentions Christ.

            “I agree with you that using the word God in a public prayer is not a violation of the idea of separation of church and state.  Here some more examples of patriotic songs mentioning God and heaven.

From the 4^th stanza of ‘The Star Spangled Banner’:

Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land

Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just

And this be our motto:  "In God is our trust."

From ‘The Marine's Hymn’:

If the Army and the Navy

Ever look on heaven's scenes

They will find the streets are guarded

By United States Marines.

Some U.S. taxpayers would not like U.S. Marines doing that.  ‘America the Beautiful’ mentions God in every stanza.  ‘God Bless America’ even has God in the title.  It sure sounds like a prayer to me.

            “Hey, I found a patriotic song that's safe to sing at public gatherings.  ‘Yankee Doodle.’

Yankee doodle, keep it up

Yankee doodle dandy

Mind the music and the step

And with the girls be handy.

No mention of God in this song.  So no atheist could object to this, except I am not sure to what "keep it up" refers, although it has something to do with being handy with girls.

My reply:

            Re: public prayer.  An interesting perspective.  First and foremost, I encourage disagreement and opposition opinions. 

            So, let us examine this premise a bit.

-- "America,” written by Samuel Francis Smith [1832],

-- "Battle Hymn of the Republic,” written by Julia Ward Howe [1862],

-- "The Star-Spangled Banner," written by Francis Scott Key [1814],

-- “The Marine’s Hymn,” written by W.E. Christian [1917],

-- "America the Beautiful," written by Katharine Lee Bates [1895],

-- "God Bless America," written by Israel Isidore Beilin (AKA Irving Berlin) [1918],

-- "Yankee Doodle," often attributed to Richard Shuckburgh [circa 1770].

All of these historic and traditional songs – celebratory hymns, i.e., prayers to music – came to fruition prior to the legal rejection of the Doctrine of Coverture [1981] or even women being recognized as citizens with the right to vote [1920].  As I have said, our interpretation of the meaning of “men” in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence has evolved over time, but the principles espoused remain the same.  We must not deny our heritage, our history; but, we must understand that history in proper context and perspective.  The writers, singers and aficionados of these patriotic songs may have understood explicitly that God meant Jesus of Nazareth, and thus were Christian songs.  There are some of us who sing (or try to sing) the words of these historic songs with a much broader view.

            I suppose the point of all this is, being confined or restricted to the original context and perspective eliminates our ability to evolve, mature and grow.  I accept God, as in there is only one God; He may be referred to by many names and worshipped in many forms by myriad practices and procedures; but, God is still God.  Limiting the definition of God to the Protestant, or even Christian perspective, is NOT consistent with the founding principles of this Grand Republic.  We can sing all of the songs you cite, as I do in my simple way, and feel the intention of the song and “see” God in those words, in whatever form is most meaningful to us, without imposing upon the views of others.

 . . . round two:

“You wrote in your last update:  ‘The founding principles of this Grand Republic are inclusive, NOT exclusive, of all, not just the chosen some...’  I thought about this after I wrote my first e-mail.  Please consider the word 'posterity' from the preamble of the U.S. Constitution:  ... and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, ...  I think 'posterity' is exclusive.  A dictionary I have defines 'posterity' as all descendants, as opposed to ancestry.  Ancestry and posterity go in different directions from you, for example.  Your mother, grandmothers, great-grandmothers and so forth are ancestors.  Sons, grandsons, great-grandsons and so forth are your posterity.  I don't think the signers of the Constitution and the folks they represented meant for 'posterity' to include slaves and Indians.  Just like Dred Scott was not a citizen since he was a slave.  I think Chief Justice Taney was right about that, that the signers did not intend for slaves to be citizens.

“Feel free to include this or not in your next update from the heartland.  I am interested in your take on this.”

 . . . my reply to round two:

            Re: exclusivity.  Interesting perspective, I must say.  In the spirit of a vigorous public debate, please allow me to offer a contrarian opinion.

            Re: posterity.  Your choice of definitions is in itself not inclusive.  The American College Dictionary we were issued at the Little Boys Boat and Barge School defines “posterity” as:

1. succeeding generations collectively

2. descendants collectively.

The Collins English Dictionary defines “posterity” as:

1. future or succeeding generations

2. all of one's descendants.

Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines “posterity” as:

1. all of a person’s descendents: opposed to ancestry

2. all succeeding generations; the future.

I could go on to make an exhaustive dictionary search; however, this should suffice for our purposes.  What I glean from these slightly different perspectives is individual versus collective.  We can debate whether the Founders meant a particular version in the Preamble of the Constitution.  The document begins “We, the People,” which is a plural pronoun, not singular.  Even the particular phrase in question, “. . . and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” uses the pronoun “our,” which could be interpreted as singular possessive or plural possessive.   Given the opening of the Preamble, I believe the intent of the Preamble is indeed the collective, NOT the individual possessive.  Thus, I do not agree that “Posterity” in the preamble context is exclusive, but rather is inclusive via the collective.

            Re: sons versus daughters.  The perspective you articulated is quite consistent with our historic, paternalistic traditions and law (common in 1775 and 1787).  Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 clearly excludes slaves or indentured persons from the rights and privileges of citizenship.  Further, the common law definition of “men” or “citizen” of that era meant only educated, landowners, and in some states, only Protestants in good standing, with an even smaller subset in some locales that narrowed the qualifier even farther to Episcopals only.  That exclusive constitutional foundation vanished with the ratification of the 14^th Amendment [9.July.1868].  The Doctrine of Coverture was clearly defined by Sir William Blackstone in 1765 (vol. I, sec. 15, para.430).  The principle was accepted in the Colonies at the time of the Revolution, and remained the basis for lord & master laws in the United States until 1981 {Kirchberg v. Feenstra [450 U.S. 455 (1981); no. 79-1388]}.  The paternalistic perspective is no longer valid or appropriate.  It may be a personal choice, but it has no basis in law anymore.

            Re: Dred Scott.  Your representation of Dred Scott v. Sandford [60 U.S. {19 How.} 393 (1856)] was of course quite correct as history and my reading of the decision validates.  The Supremes were bound by Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution at the time; in essence, they had no choice, despite their personal, moral objections.  The Dred Scott ruling was essentially superseded and invalidated by the 13^th Amendment [6.December.1865].

            All that said, surely you are not suggesting we return to those days of implied exclusivity?

. . . round three:

“As you requested, I am coming back at you.  To answer your question about returning to days gone by of implied exclusivity:  No, I was not advocating that be done.  But then, I was not trying to advocate anything.  I was trying to explain why I thought the early years of the U.S. of A. were exclusive.  So I will gladly discuss this further, but I will have to be a sea lawyer to some degree.  I will try not to ramble a lot.

“Abraham Lincoln, about a sixth of the way thru his first inaugural address said this:   ‘... and the intention of the lawgiver is the law.’  If I remember right, Robert Bork wrote and said that this was the proper way a judge should arrive at a decision and the reasoning for the decision.  I like that, as opposed to a judge trying to further some agenda by legislating from the bench. Opponents of this method argue that sometimes it is impossible to know what was intended since a governing law is so old that the lawgivers are all dead.  Robert went on to say that in most cases, with some research, a judge could arrive at a decent conclusion regarding intent.  Something like that.  I have not done much research about inclusiveness/exclusivity.  I am not claiming that I know what Ben Franklin, John Adams and others intended.  I claim that I am guessing what their intent was.  As it turns out, my guess differs from your guess or knowledge.  I have never been mistaken for a scholar, but I like to know what scholars have to say about some things.  That does not prevent me from guessing.  You know the saying, your guess is as good as mine.

“You used the words 'implied exclusivity'.  There is a place in the Constitution that I think is explicit, not implicit, about exclusivity.  The place is the 3rd paragraph of Section 2 of Article I about taking a census.  ‘... excluding Indians not taxed, ...’  Some folks interpret things narrowly, others interpret broadly.  I interpret narrowly, or specifically, I think.  I don't try to read between lines because I have a hard enough time reading lines.  Like I wrote earlier, I have never been mistaken.  So when I see the word 'excluding', I think exclusivity.

“I don't think I have a closed mind on this topic.  Ajar, maybe, but not closed.  If you have some knowledge about the intent of the signers of the Constitution that you think I don't have, please let me know what that knowledge is.  If you disagree with Honest Abe and me about intent, I am interested in your explanation of why you disagree.

“You lost me about 'sons versus daughters'.  I presume you were referring to my words about ancestry going one way and posterity going the other way from a person.  I could have used 'father' and 'daughters' instead of 'sons' and 'mother' or I could have used just male terms or just female terms.  I meant to show that I interpret narrowly, not broadly.  That is, the intent of Ben, John and the others was only their kin, not the kin of slaves and Indians.  I meant nothing about one gender or the other.”

 . . . my reply to round three:

            Ahso.  I think I understand.  The issue in this thread, when boiled down to its essence, is strict constructionist versus an adaptive, living interpretation of the Constitution and the law.  The interpretation of the law was the domain of the Judiciary. 

            I do agree with your view of the prevailing mores at the time of the Founding.  Only white, educated, Protestant landowners were considered citizens.  Women and children were considered property, as were slaves and indentured servants.  Those were the norms of their day.  We can argue, as the strict constructionist like Bork, Scalia and Thomas profess, that the only viable interpretation intended by the Founders was through the lens of 1787, and anything else requires an amendment to the Constitution.  As I read significant founding documents, I see a far more robust and enduring document.  The Framers provided a framework by which laws would be created in a collective system of checks & balances.  They intentionally made changes to the Constitution laborious and difficult, which means they intended the Constitution to remain stable, as the basis for the common law.  Given the visionary perspective of the Founders & Framers, and the context of contemporary society of their day, I cannot imagine they believed they were perfect and there was not another way in perpetuity.  They knew the Constitution had to adapt to the unknown future.  They purposefully and intentionally did not define terms like what is a man under the Constitution, or what is privacy, et al?  If the Framers had believed they were perfect and there was no need for evolution, they created a society where they were the new royalty, the new elite, with the power of divine providence.

            Re: “the lawgiver is the law.”  As you know, Lincoln was reflecting upon Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, and in fact, Chief Justice Taney’s rationale in Dred Scott.  It was his way of arguing the law must change, and the Constitution must change, for the reason he cited.

            My point in the male-female topic was the traditional paternalistic perspective versus the modern evolved equality state.  The Framers never envisioned the world we live in today; however, they created a Constitution and form of governance that adapted to changing conditions and expectations.  They clearly believe society would evolve under a broad Constitution.  I also think they would be pleased with how we have evolved under the Constitution.  While Coverture defined inheritance, ownership, even family law at the time of the Revolution, the evolution of the law in this area took nearly 200 years to change.  Even when the 13^th and 14^th Amendments abolished slavery and established “male” citizenship, it took another 100 years for some states to get even remotely close to the Constitutional definition.  Heck, even the Supreme Court believed “separate but equal” was a stable, appropriate state under the amended Constitution.

            The status of Native Americans is a rather unique issue, since by treaty they maintain some degree of autonomy . . . however tenuous it may be.  Their status in American society is a more complex answer.

            All that said, I am not a strict constructionist, and further, I can see no evidence the Founders and Framers intended that position in perpetuity.  As I said, to do so implies the original was perfection, and I do not believe they were that arrogant or egocentric.

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)