Update from the
Heartland
No.654
23.6.14 – 29.6.14
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
A continuation
of the water rights thread from Updates no.652 & 653:
Round seven:
“While there may still be real reforms available in the
Federal budget, thirty years of blindly cutting social programs has resulted in
the U.S. losing its lead and prestige in many important areas and in harm to
many of our citizens. In the meantime, a bloated military budget used to
support Eisenhower's military-industrial complex combined with a variety of tax
breaks (same as spending) for various profitable industries in no danger of
failure still runs up the net cost of government with no benefit to the U.S. as
a whole or to 95% of individual Americans. Add to that privatization of
functions appropriate to government, such as prisons, and the bottom line
doesn't really require in-depth analysis by this time. The only fault with
Eisenhower's analysis is that he didn't see the rest of the economy following
suit. Teddy Roosevelt saw it and made a good beginning of changing the
situation.
“Farmers have migrated in the past and they will somehow do
so again if they see it as necessary. It would be wise to somehow prevent their
needing to do that, but industry does not tend to wisdom and government often
fails as well. We shall see what happens. The situation will change somehow to
fit the need. As always, most will not see it coming, whatever ‘it’ means for
this situation.”
My response to round seven:
Re:
reforms. The reforms of which I
speak go far beyond the budget; nonetheless, the budget is a good start. The Federal government took on massive,
infrastructure projects that have had and will continue to have incalculable
public benefit – interstate highway system, hydroelectric dams, river locks, et
cetera. Unfortunately, the
electric grid evolved under largely private and state regulation, so inclusion
of desalination cooperative inclusion would not be quite so easy, but I do
believe still do-able.
Re:
farming migration. Agreed! Hopefully, our survival will not come
to that societal disruption.
With the deteriorating situation in Iraq,
Tom Ricks offers us a simple, succinct opinion regarding the reasons why.
foreignpolicy.com
Published: JUNE 24, 2014 - 11:01 AM
This moment has been suspected and forecast for more than a
few years since Prime Minister Nouri Kamil Mohammed Hasan al-Maliki was elected
to lead post-war Iraq. Maliki has
shown little interest in reaching out to Sunni and Kurd factions within the
country. ISIS (or ISIL) has been successful
in predominately Sunni regions, as they are Sunni based and at least tacitly
supported by the northwestern Sunni tribes. The religious civil war predicted and feared for Iraq may
finally have bloomed. Let slip the
dogs of war.
As is so often the case, the U.S. Supreme
Court issued a bevy of rulings in a series of important cases at the end of
their current session. Among those
decisions and on my reading list are:
-- American
Broadcasting Cos., Inc., et al. v. Aereo, Inc., fka Bamboom Labs, Inc. [570 U.S. ___ (2014); no. 13–461]
– a pivotal copyrights decision (very important for creative folks including
authors); a few days later, Aereo suspended operations.
-- Abramski
v. United States [570 U.S. ___ (2014); no. 12–1493] – another important
2nd
Amendment ruling; this one deals with straw purchases of firearms.
-- Riley
v. California [570 U.S. ___ (2014); no. 13–132] –may become a
monumental decision regarding privacy in the digital age; cellphone data is
protected by the 4th Amendment.
-- Utility
Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. [570
U.S. ___ (2014); no. 12-1146] – limited the authority of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gases.
-- National
Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning et al. [570 U.S. ___ (2014); no. 12-1281]
– reined in the President’s authority to make recess appointments.
-- McCullen
et al. v. Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al. [570 U.S.
___ (2014); no. 12-1168] – invalidated a Massachusetts law that required
35-foot buffer zones around abortion clinics; I guess public safety does not
trump freedom of speech.
I have a lot of reading and study ahead of me, as well as
finishing books. Life is good.
From a frequent contributor to this
humble forum:
“Cap, you know I believe the study of history matters a
great deal. Here's an interview with someone who has studied the history of the
Second Amendment.”
The article is an interview with the author of a new book.
“The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does –
Michael Waldman pokes holes in claims that the Constitution protects an
unlimited right to guns.”
by Hannah Levintova
Mother Jones
Published: Thu Jun. 19, 2014; 6:00 AM EDT
The book:
Waldman, Michael. The Second Amendment: A Biography.
New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014.
My response:
I suppose we should resign ourselves to the reality that the
2nd
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a Gordian Knot. I cannot and do not argue with Levintova’s
reflection of Waldman’s rendition of the 2nd Amendment. I have not read Waldman’s book, so it
is not possible for me to appreciate whether he provides a more expansive
treatise in his 272-page book. At
least in the Levintova review, she acknowledges the different times. In fact, she seems to focus more on an
attack of Justice Scalia’s originalism perspective of constitutional
interpretation than on gun rights.
What is missing from the article, review and apparently the book is the
overriding necessity of demonstrated public good in constraints on
constitutional rights.
Restrictions simply because we do not like guns is not a
constitutionally sustainable argument.
I believe most Americans can and will support firearms restrictions, if
a clearly defined public good is articulated, e.g., falsely shouting fire in a
crowded theater is NOT freedom of speech.
Further, I also think it will be difficult to make that argument without
addressing the root cause of gun violence (against innocent citizens). Our laws cannot be out of context, and
the 2nd
Amendment is no different.
Round two:
“The issue with Justice Scalia's ‘originalism’ is that he
makes no real effort to discern the original intent. He ignores, dismisses, or
never detects the lengthy debate that went into the phrase ‘a well regulated
militia.’ The early United States had good reason to mistrust standing armies;
therefore, militias were a necessity. He also ignores that the Framers
themselves lived in times when gunpowder and firearms were regulated. They made
no objection to such regulations in their times, giving no reason to believe
they sought broad freedom in weapons ownership. Finally, the entire subject of
the debate is whether the Constitution actually grants a ‘right to bear arms’
outside of the context of a ‘well regulated militia.’
“The ‘demonstrated public good’ you request seems a bit
obvious. The United States has far higher rates of homicide and assaults with deadly
weapons than the more advanced nations of the world. We need to have less
people die from firearms rather than seeking ‘bad men’ to blame.”
My response to round two:
Re:
Scalia. I do not think your
criticism of Justice Scalia regarding the history of the 2nd Amendment is quite fair.
Re:
militias. Yes, the suspicions of a
standing federal army by the Founders and Framers were quite appropriate and
well documented. Reliance upon state
militias for federal defense was considered a reasonable compromise to avoid or
lessen the risks associated with the powerful standing federal army. They also had plenty of experience with
the threats of armed local militias, e.g., Shay’s Rebellion (1786) and Whiskey
Rebellion (1791). Yet, Congress
passed two bills – the Militia Acts of 1792 [1 Stat. 264 and 1 Stat. 271]
that required “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the
respective states” between 18 and 45 years of age to purchase and maintain a
“musket or firelock,” despite their experience with local armed militias. All those muskets were not regulated,
controlled or otherwise even accounted for by the federal or state governments
. . . and a long way from a “well regulated militia.”
Re:
“demonstrated public good.” The objective
is quite clear. Yes, the objective
is protection of innocent citizens from random gun violence or even the threat
of gun violence. Where the debate
lays is our path toward the objective.
I cannot support actions that deal with symptoms and do not address the
root cause(s).
So,
what do you propose? Can we agree
on the root cause(s)? If so, how
do we attack the root cause(s)?
Round three:
“We can attempt to trace root causes back to Adam or we can
admit that we cannot yet detect either severe mental illness or dangerous
criminal intentions well enough to prevent either random firearm violence or
the deaths of innocents during criminal enterprises. (Even if we could develop
such methods, the Congress refuses to fund such enterprises.)
“Rather than spend another couple of generations attempting
to determine who has final responsibility for whatever we eventually come to
believe is the root cause, we need to prevent needless deaths by the most
effective method. Given the extreme ease of killing with firearms versus almost
any other method, that is a point where the process can be slowed. We regulate
other potentially dangerous products such as medications and automobiles; we
need to regulate this one too.”
My response to round three:
As
I stated . . . a Gordian Knot.
OK,
so for the moment and this debate, let us avoid the root causes and focus on
the symptoms.
What
is your proposal? What regulations
should we implement to treat the symptoms? And, more importantly, how do we ensure some zealous
bureaucrat, politician, or prosecutor does not abuse your proposed regulation?
News from the economic front:
-- The U.S. Commerce Department reported its third and final
assessment of the nation’s economy for 1Q2014. The economy contracted at a 2.9% annual pace, worse than the
previous 1% estimate – the worst quarter for the U.S. since 1Q2009, when the
economy was staggered by the mortgage and financial crises.
Comments
and contributions from Update no.653:
Comment to the Blog:
“We will continue our various discussions, but not at this
very moment. I write this particular comment to clarify what I have said is the
underlying difference. When I wrote the prior comment, my brain had misplaced
the terms I wanted. That would be "duality" versus
"non-duality." That is the underlying distinction that makes me not
want to be associated at any level with the Abrahamic religions or any other
similar belief systems. It is also what I believe to be the fundamental
difference that affects all political discussion among other things.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
religion. I am not sure where
“makes me not want to be associated” came from? I am not aware of anyone trying to associate you with any
religion or inversely disassociate you from your current religious faith. Whether you choose to associate with
any religion is entirely your choice – no one else’s. Certainly, there are bad folks out there who are perfectly
willing to use force to impose their religion on everyone who does not believe
as they believe. We have ample
evidence of such people in history through today. Our task is to defend you and everyone else against those
bad folks and their efforts.
Re:
duality. My apologies; I am not
able to grasp your meaning in your use of “duality” in this context. An expanded explanation would be
appreciated when you get a moment to do so.
Re:
Abrahamic religions. There is good
in ALL religions. I would simply
urge everyone to find and appreciate the good in all religions, while we try to
marginalize or isolate the bad elements.
Knowledge helps us find the good and separate the bad.
. . . follow-up comment:
“That insistence that all gods are one God (‘we're all
working with the same thing in the end’) is what bothers me. No, we're not.
“There is some level of good in the people of any religion.
That does not mean I want any part of the religion.
“Non-duality is a common Buddhist concept. A simple Google
search should turn up a wealth of information on it.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Re:
God. I suppose this is where we
say, each to his own.
Re:
religion. Agreed. The social factors govern our
associations, which are again a matter of individual choice in a free society.
Re:
duality. I understand
duality. What is not clear to me
is your use of the philosophical instrument as a means of discrimination. Why is duality important to your
associations?
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
The short answer on "duality" versus "non-duality." The important part is that duality demands an "other," an opponent of some kind. What we seek is what we find.
Calvin,
Re: duality. Ahso! “The Other” has been used for millennia to consolidate support . . . the revealed religions perhaps the most accomplished historically with the technique. Adolf Hitler, with the assistance of his propagandist Paul Joseph Goebbels, was perhaps the most accomplished politician with the technique.
Re: “What we seek is what we find.” It is a common failing of the intelligence process or investigatory procedure.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment