Update no.674

Update from the Heartland

No.674

10.11.14 – 16.11.14

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

To all,

United States Marine Corps – 239 years of glorious service to this Grand Republic and to freedom itself.  Happy Birthday, Marines.  Semper Fidelis!

Veterans Day (Remembrance Day) {Armistice Day for the War to End All Wars} – We also solemnly celebrate the generations of soldiers who serve and especially gave their last full measure of devotion in the defense of liberty.  God bless you all!

At 15:38 [S] CST, Wednesday, 12.November.2014, we experienced a significant 4.8 earthquake in Wichita, epicenter near Conway Springs, Kansas.  I was in our basement study working on my next book – To So Few – Book III – Explosion – when the whole house began to sway, quite a bit like it was suspended in a massive bowl of Jell-O.  The shaking lasted about 20 seconds and felt more pronounced than our last perceptible earthquake – a 5.6 tremor [5.November.2011].  No harm, no foul . . . at least for us.

Aslan Soobzokov sent a follow-up message from last week [673].

“Cap,  

“Yakhi, Allah Hka leak, Allah Sell Mek. 

“Yes I read [Lichblau’s book] and it truly upset me.  He used his skills and made my father look truly evil.  A polygraph requested/demanded by CIA confirmed my father was in fact born on August 24, 1924.  And that proves my father was 17 to 18 years old when he had contact with the Germans.

“There were no actual facts that he relied on but using his writing skill he made Papa looked bad.  

“As you know I cannot let this lay this way. 

“Are you on twitter?

“Salam,

“Cap - Fi Aman-Allah

“PS:  your Arabic is better than I thought.”

My reply to Aslan:

Yakhi Aslan,

            You give me far more credit than I deserve.  You have exceeded my Arabic capacity.  I always try to learn.  Please teach me the meaning of the words you used.

            I am always torn about spending money on books that are not worthy of my time or money.  In this instance, I will set aside my aversion.  I’ll read Lichblau’s book as soon as possible.  Please be patient with me.  Since I have already done some of the background research, I should be able to develop a clear, distinct opinion.

            No, I am not on twitter.  Just never got that far.

            I hope and trust all is well with you and your family.

Salam yakhi,

Cap

The Press has not given the monumental European Space Agency (ESA) Rosetta mission to Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko the recognition it is due.  The landing of the Philae probe on the comet was impressive enough.  However, what is far more awe-inspiring to me is the physics involved of just getting there.  The Rosetta spacecraft was launched from the ESA Guiana Space Centre, Kourou, French Guiana, on 2.March.2004.  The ten-year journey involved an Earth-Mars-Earth gravity-assist acceleration and a rather expansive rendezvous turn join up with the Comet 67P 317 million miles from Earth on its inbound approach to the Sun.  The physics problem was nearly tripling the spacecraft velocity to match the comet’s velocity to produce a very low relative velocity so the Rosetta could eject the Philae probe without propulsive assistance.  After bouncing a couple of times the probe lander came to rest near a small escarpment that at least partially shaded the vehicle’s solar cells to a sufficient level that drained its batteries.  The engineers and controllers are working to resolve the difficulty.  I sure hope they do; I would really like to see what that little probe could turn up.  Regardless, the achievement of the mission is extraordinary just to get there.  Congratulations to the ESA team!

Every once in a while, we see judicial pronouncements of startling audacity and faux reasoning of shocking dimensions; so it is with the 6^th Circuit decision in DeBoer v. Snyder [6CCA No. 14–1341 (2014)] [673].  This is the collective appeal of 16 same-gender couples in six cases from four states of this Grand Republic.  Circuit Judge Jeffrey Stuart Sutton delivered the opinion of the 2-1 panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that reverse the lower court decisions in favor of the 16 subject couples.  There is so much of this decision that pokes my sense of outrage; yet, I must winnow down the salients to a reasonable and representative presentation.  Thus, please allow me some latitude and indulgence.

            The opening sentence of the majority opinion: “This is a case about change—and how best to handle it under the United States Constitution.”  This is a process ruling, not a judgment about individual rights.  Judge Martha Craig ‘Cissy’ Daughtrey dissented, as she opened, “[This decision] wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state's constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.”  These two opposing statements are the essence of this decision.  Judge Sutton pegs the beginning of the same-sex marriage struggle at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health [798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003); 18.November.2003].  I suspect most non-heterosexual citizens would note that pivotal catalytic moment when the struggle began as the New York City Stonewall riots [27.6.1969]; the point being Judge Sutton appears to be woefully out of touch with reality and perhaps unintentionally sought to diminish the equal protection question.  He insists the legislative process should play itself out rather than resorting to the courts and the decisions of judges.  Sutton relies upon the Supreme Court’s one sentence decision in the case of Baker v. Nelson [409 U.S. 810 (1972)] [548] {the original challenge}: “The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.”  The message I take from Sutton’s DeBoer rationale is that non-heterosexual citizens have not struggled enough to obtain equal rights under the law guaranteed to them by the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  Well, at least Sutton acknowledges the extraordinary hypocrisy of serial violators of their monogamous marriage vows who condemn those non-heterosexual and/or non-monogamous citizens who simply seek equal treatment under the law that they enjoy in their hypocrisy – state recognition, benefits, rights and privileges, some as simple as visitation, adoption and inheritance. Sutton goes on to note, “But the right to marry in general, and the right to gay marriage in particular, nowhere appear in the Constitution.  That route for recognizing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage does not exist.”  In this, he is correct.  The word ‘marriage,’ or any derivative, or any ancillary equivalent does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, and thus via the 10^th Amendment, the definition and regulation of marriage is and remains the sole domain of the states.  Further, Sutton said, “If we think of the Constitution as a covenant between the governed and the governors, between the people and their political leaders, it is easy to appreciate the force of this basic norm of constitutional interpretation—that the originally understood meaning of the charter generally will be the lasting meaning of the charter.”  At the end of the day, Judge Sutton made a valiant effort to view this important social and legal issue as an originalist.

            The originalists among us and in the Judiciary, especially Antonin the Impaler, would be proud of the majority’s pronouncement in DeBoer.  The Sixth Circuit’s ruling is in direct opposition to the Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits’ decisions on the same issue and should elicit a definitive ruling by the Supreme Court.  As much as I would like to debate Sutton’s rationale, I must resist the urge.  As Sutton says at the outset and Judge Daughtrey articulates, he is ignoring the equal protection question and stands upon the procedural perspective of originalism; so, let us debate that perspective since it is key to Sutton’s rationale and will be undoubted be center stage in Scalia’s opinion (whether in the majority or dissent in the eventual decision from the Supremes).

            To me, originalism fails the larger perspective of the Constitution, the Framers and the context in which the Constitution was created and ratified.  The Constitution is a contract between We, the People, and the federal government created to draw order to the Union of the Grand Republic and I dare say more importantly, to protect the individual rights of citizens from the potential oppression of the powers that be in government’s operation.  The Preamble offers considerable enlightenment and is so often ignored as an overarching umbrella above the details of the original document and its subsequent amendments.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The object of the sentence is and will remain We, the People, and the contracted actions include: “. . . to form a more perfect Union . . .” and “. . . to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . .”  These are NOT shallow, flowery words of introduction; they are a statement of intent and expectation.  They are NOT words of abdication or deference.  It is our freedom and liberty that remains sacrosanct.  To fulfill that purpose, a framework for enacting laws for domestic tranquility, common defense and general welfare were established to limit the federal authority and boundaries for state authority.  Apparently, this larger perspective of the Constitution makes judges nervous since it is implicitly unbounded, but I think not.  If we take this broader view to its extreme, wouldn’t the People have the right to do whatever they want . . . persecute non-heterosexuals, install a Christian theocracy, whatever they wanted? If the People are supreme, does a simple majority of the People have the right to deny rights to a minority with whom they disapprove?  My answer is, no, without a constitutional restructuring.  Despite the popular notion, this Grand Republic is NOT based on majority rule.  In fact, the Constitution is constructed to protect those in the minority, to ensure equal protection under the law.  A high bar is set (well, at least in principle) for the imposition on the Liberty of any citizen or group.  Our history is replete with injustice against those who do not look like the majority, or believes as the majority believes, or whose conduct we do not approve of in our society.  I certainly acknowledge that unraveling past injustice will not be easy or quick, but it must occur.  Liberty must be guaranteed for all citizens or none of us will enjoy Liberty.  We must get out of the private lives and affairs of our citizens.  Regressing centuries is NOT the path to achieve that.  Further, if our beliefs, morals and values are that weak, shallow and fragile that we must deny Liberty to those who do not believe as we believe, then we have failed the fundamental principles represented in the Preamble of the Constitution.

            Judge Sutton chose to quote from the Minnesota Supreme Court brief rejecting the plaintiff’s appeal in Baker v. Nelson [191 N.W.2d 185, 186 (Minn.1971); 15.October.1971]: “The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis․” Marriage laws as we know them in our lifetimes are a fairly late creation.  Let us not get all righteous and sanctimonious in this debate about marriage.  There are many reasons marriage sprouted and grew within the law.  Yes, the legal genesis goes back centuries and one could even argue for millennia.  Yet, when we examine the details, ancient marriage laws were a statement of a man’s possessions under the law.  Women and children were considered the property of the husband and master of the household.  Recognition of the equal standing of women did not begin arguably until 1920, and was not fully acknowledged by the law until 1981.  So, please, let us not get carried away with the sanctity of marriage.  Some sovereign nations have not progressed beyond the ancient concept and definition.  Heck, there are more than a few in this country who still subscribe to the ancient definitions despite the law.

News from the economic front:

-- The European Union's statistics office Eurostat reported the GDP of the 18-member eurozone grew 0.6% in 3Q2014 on an annualized basis and only 0.2% on a quarterly basis.  The GDPs of the member nations are enlightening: Germany (30% of eurozone economic output) grew 0.3% (annualized) and only 0.1% (quarterly); France grew 1.1% (annualized): Greece grew 0.7% (quarterly), the highest in the eurozone.  The meager growth accentuates concerns that the eurozone may be stuck in a rut of declining investment and high unemployment at a time when other large economies such as the U.S. and U.K. are experiencing more vigorous growth.

-- Japan reported its GDP contracted 1.6% on an annualized basis in 3Q2014, as firms cut inventories and held back on capital investment. The disappointing result appears to reflect unfavorably on a sales-tax increase pushed by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and may force the government to postpone a planned second stage increase in the tax.

Comments and contributions from Update no.673:

Comment to the Blog:

“I find myself less startled by the election results than most Democrats. Of course, I am no longer a Democrat. I am a member of the Green Party USA and I see an opportunity included with the troubles of a Republican Congress. The Democrat candidates lost, but progressive causes made nice gains. Minimum wage raises passed in several places, among them Arkansas. Recreational marijuana was approved in most of its referenda as well, including one in Alaska. My point here is that others apparently have concluded, as I have, that the Democrats no longer serve progressives. Why would we bother voting for them? They campaign as negatively as the Republicans and they have not kept campaign promises in decades. They are just simply weak morally. It seems to me that Green candidates can take enough formerly Democrat votes to become the second party by using Internet-based campaign methods and by offering a distinctly different rhetoric and results (from candidates we have already elected). If we cannot change the two-party system to something more effective right now, maybe we can at least participate.

“In the meantime, your Secretary of State in Kansas has achieved notoriety that is rare for a state-level official even in these times. We may hope that someone will be able to indict him soon. I have little doubt that he has earned a place in prison by one means or another. As with you, I have found no evidence of increasing voter fraud in the relevant States.

“The EU is experiencing the results of Ayn Rand economics in the fact of reduced investment. If the people who make up markets (Greece, Ireland, Spain, Italy) have no money to spend, the wealthy have no reason to invest in increased capacity. Why make products or provide services if people cannot buy them?”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: marijuana referenda.  As much as I advocate for getting the government out of our private lives, decriminalization or legalization is simply NOT sufficient.  We need regulation from seed suppliers to consumers to ensure uniform dosage, quality control, and legal corporate processes . . . as the alcohol business is regulated, more so than the tobacco business.  Yet, as long as the federal Controlled Substances Act remains valid, the recreational marijuana / THC advances will be confused and fraught with a myriad pitfalls.

            Re: political parties.  I think we are in agreement; the two main political parties suffer the same flaws, limitations and weaknesses.  For that reason, I have been a non-affiliated, independent, non-partisan citizen for nearly five decades.  I can find points of agreement in most political parties, but I have found no reason to embrace any particular party . . . kind of like religion, I suppose.

            Re: KS SecState.  We shall see.

            Re: EU.  Your view of EU economics appears to be missing a few pieces.  Governments in the southern tier of nations took out those massive loans based on rather optimistic forecasts that did not account for downturns (which are inevitable) to pay for corruption and social services that their revenue base could not afford to pay.  So, the people have some culpability in unreasonable expectations, but it was the governments that should have provided adult supervision.  The rich just took their money elsewhere because they could, which in turn made the revenue situation worse.  Of the troubled southern tier nations, Italy has the best hope, but their institutional corruption will bleed their capacity to produce goods and services other folks want to buy.  "[T]he power to tax involves the power to destroy" – Chief Justice John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland [17 U.S. {4 Wheat.} 316 (1819)] [416].  Therein lies the rub and the demand for balance.

 . . . Round two:

“You will be happy to know that no jurisdiction has legalized marijuana without regulating it. I have no idea whence that bogeyman came. I agree that standardization of policies will eventually benefit all. Any new field of policy takes time to find its best practices.

“My point about legalization of marijuana and raising minimum wage by referendum was that they are essentially progressive causes that fared well in the recent election, unlike Democrat politicians. We may add local anti-fracking laws to that list, although that has more to do with the oil industry's influence on politicians versus its image with real people.

“We are somewhat in agreement about the two large political parties, although the differences I see may result from one being in power and the other out. In any case, I have found a party that at least suits most of my views on most topics. I find myself as frustrated as anyone else with the way election laws freeze out anyone not involved with the major parties. This perpetuates the problems with the current system. I will note that the Constitution does not mention political organizations and some of the Founders mistrusted such groups.

“Perhaps I have noticed who advised whom in the EU situation. We must all rely upon advice in situations where we need specialized knowledge outside our own specialty. I would not treat my illnesses without a medical expert. Bankers and EU regulators supported the same blue-sky schemes that have those southern EU governments in deep trouble. People as cynical about high finance as me may advise against trusting bankers, but what unbiased experts exist? Government or EU advisors are subject to the same cronyism and/or revolving door issues as we see in the USA.

“Beyond that, most of what passes for economics today is justified by flawed theory, disproven by the efforts to make it work. The individualism espoused by free market ideas has failed again and again. Adam Smith, on whose writing most of it is based, opposed the limited liability on which corporate existence is premised, and because of that he did not allow for actions that have effects beyond a local area. The existence of entities that are not held fully liable for their failures changes the equation beyond anything Smith envisioned. The scale of everything is now vast, and the local causes and effects Smith foresaw do not occur to international entities. The facet of that we are seeing now is the fact that people who cannot buy products and services give investors no reason to build businesses in their communities. Therefore, reducing expenses by exporting jobs or eliminating them puts money into the pockets of investors with no prospect of it returning to communities. Even if Americans (or Greeks or Irish, etc.) somehow acquired enough money to buy new products, the factories would be in other countries. The entire theoretical structure is broken and so the real-world system built upon it fails.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Here we are again – definitions.  I do not think the regulation of which you refer is the same as the regulation I espouse.  I advocate for regulation in the form of that in place for alcohol, rather than tobacco.  I would apply the same end-to-end regulation to the consumption of other psychotropic substances as well.  Regardless, until the federal Controlled Substances Act [PL 91-513; 84 Stat. 1236] is seriously amended or repealed these state legalization or decriminalization actions will be fraught with confusion, abuse, corruption, and ancillary crime . . . in my humble opinion, e.g., taxes.

            Your point on this last election process regarding various referenda is appropriate and well-taken.

            Re: political parties.  Again, well stated.  There is plenty of that evidence of distrust of political parties in the written, surviving documents of the era as well as the actions of many of the Founders / Framers.  The two, major, surviving political parties have a vested, parochial interest in preserving the two party system . . . power . . . and of course profit [NOTE: I am not aware of any federal politician sacrificing wealth in service to this Grand Republic; quite the contrary, wealth mysteriously comes with the legislative authority . . . he said with no small amount of sarcasm].

            Re: EU.  Again, well said.  The bankers and financial advisors share in the culpability for what happened.

            Re: Adam Smith.  Quite accurate, it seems to me.  The limitation of liability was intended to foster growth, innovation, and risk taking for the common good.  Unfortunately, the greedy among us have used limited liability with expert cunning to protect their ill-gotten gains from the marketplace.  That said, I would not go quite as far as you have in condemning the free market.  Yes, we are agreed there are a plethora of unintended consequences, but Smith’s model can be extended to the international community as well; it is a matter of scale.

 . . . Round three:

“The regulation you (and I) espouse may not have come about, but legal marijuana is far from unregulated. We are moving in a healthy direction, but it takes time for society to find new norms.

“Where I disagree sharply: ‘. . . but Smith's model can be extended to the international community as well; it is a matter of scale.’ Not so fast. Important economic decisions are not made by individuals based on personal or local events nowadays.  Smith did not allow for grossly unequal wealth expressed as power in the form of marketing, concealed information, control of politicians or the dependence of communities upon corporations. That changes everything and makes Keynesian economics valid. It is also what calls so strongly for government regulation that has been diminished in exactly the dimensions it needs to be strengthened.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            Issuing a business license is not the level of regulation needed to stop the criminal sub-culture that has evolved over decades of prohibition.  Yes, regulation of retail sales is part & parcel of the current new laws . . . well, along with local decriminalization of modest possession and consumption.  The regulation that I advocate for involves licensing and enforcement of seed production and distribution, standards for growing, harvesting, packaging, content, potency, dosage, et cetera, and public advertising regarding risks of consumption, public intoxication and such.  The objective should be public protection and safety, but to me, more importantly, elimination of the criminal sub-culture.  In the 1930’s, some of the still operators and bootleggers became licensed producers and distributors; I’m good with that.  We need to get this right, as it should become the model to legalization & regulation of the other popular consumptive psychotropic substances up to and including opium derivative substances.

            Oh, I do agree.  Smith did not allow for or really even consider governmental tampering with the free market forces.  Likewise, he did not and could not imagine the scale, pervasiveness and power of multinational banks and corporations.  So, to me, the question is how do we enable the free market forces, e.g., risk-failure, liability, supply-demand, et cetera.  The question is always balance.

 . . . Round four:

“Patience. New developments in society and law rarely rise like Venus from the sea foam. No lawmaker is so insightful as to foresee in detail exactly how a major change will affect society, and in this case no referendum writer has been arrogant enough to dictate those details into a State's Constitution. Marijuana laws will evolve as have liquor laws.

“The factors you cite are the reasons economists need to give up on Smith's "free market" theories. Free markets were already beginning to vanish in Smith's time, notably by the (governmental) creation of the Dutch East India Company and the Hudson's Bay Company. That is one reason Smith found it necessary to advocate against limited liability. His arguments lost. That process has been aggravated in our own time by the ever-increasing wealth and power of multinational corporations. Nothing close to a free market now exists; Smith's ideas have been left behind in the real world. They need to be left behind in theory as well. Theory needs to change simply because it does not address   reality in this century.”

 . . . my response to round four:

            Re: patience for change.  Lord knows I truly hope you are correct.  As the venerable Chinese saying goes, “Long journeys begin with small steps.”  So, I shall believe these very modest steps toward regulation and general retail availability of psychotropic substances are those initial small steps to untangle the nasty travesty of the foolish and devastating “war on drugs.”  More enlightened minds must eventually prevail.  Nonetheless, I remain more than a little apprehensive these insufficient changes may result in an “I told you so” regression.  Thus, I must hold the faith you are correct.

            Re: Adam Smith.  Well said and noted.  The East India Company [1600], Dutch East India Company [1602] and the Hudson's Bay Company [1670] were at a minimum State sanctioned monopolies and the farthest from amy free market companies.  Yet, one can argue they were products of their era and ultimately fostered economic growth.

            Like most theories, policies and practices of four centuries past, things must evolve.  As noted above, I must hold faith that evolution will continue into the future and eventually We, the People, will regain control of the multinationals as the Sherman Antitrust Act [PL 51-I-647; 26 Stat. 209, 2.July.1890] eventually broke up the industrial monopolies of its day.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)