Update from the Heartland
No.529
30.1.12 – 5.2.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
One of the many news groups I subscribe to (in some feeble attempt to remain informed) distributed this little item:
“Conversion row torments Kashmiri Christians”
by Sudha Ramachandran
Asia Times
Published: February 1, 2012
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/NB01Df01.html
After all, an item like this has no meaning to or bearing upon our lives. What, me worry? Well, to me, this report represents far more than the oppression of a local religious minority. This is precisely why the separation of church and State is so bloody vital to a free society and individual Liberty. I ask whether our religious beliefs are strong enough to withstand scrutiny, criticism, ridicule or even debasement? If our religious beliefs are that weak or that shallow that they can be subverted, how can prohibition of dissent ever be successful? The actions of Mufti Mohammed Bashiruddin are classic signs of weakness and reversion to parochial prohibition for their intolerance, i.e., the protectors of the faith ensuring the purity of their believers for their own aggrandizement. Their faith is not strong enough to sustain itself. That flaw sounds all too familiar, as I consider history.
After years of delay, subterfuge, obfuscation and slight-of-hand, Congress finally moved toward approving legislation to ban lawmakers from trading stocks based on information they pick up in their investigations, hearings and legislative work-ups. The Senate voted overwhelmingly, 96-3-0-1(0), to pass the Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge Act (STOCK Act) [S.1871]. The bill now moves to the House, where Republican leaders have promised to approve some version. It is about time, but they have an awful long way to go in ending the ethos of rationalized corruption and all for me, none for all. Far too many representatives and senators become wealthy in Congress and that was never the intention of the Founders / Framers.
News from the economic front:
-- Monday night, the leaders of 25 European Union governments agreed on the details of a permanent bailout fund for the euro zone. The agreement was hailed as a historic pact that will move their fiscal union closer to a federal system. Yet, Greece’s debt crisis threw a rather dark cloud over the summit, so it was reported. We have the same vulnerabilities. States like California, Michigan, Ohio and others weathered the storm of the Great Recession, but their predicament as the Recession worsened cast a similar shadow as Greece on this Grand Republic. There are numerous differences between Greece and Germany, not least of which is their respective enforcement of tax collection. We may criticize Greece for its rather laid back, laissez-faire, approach to tax collection, yet it took the United States several decades to evolve into our current system. The 16th Amendment [3.February.1913] enabled a Federal income tax, and the Revenue Tax Act of 1913 [PL 63-016; 38 Stat. 114; 3.October.1913] established the Federal income tax system. The monthly payment process was replaced with an annual payment by the Revenue Act of 1916 [PL 64-463; 39 Stat. 756; 8.September.1916]. Eventually, the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943 [PL 78-068; 57 Stat. 126; 9.June.1943] set up the Federal income tax withholding system in each month’s payroll as we know it today. Despite at-the-source, withholding process, more than a few citizens try to avoid paying their taxes. The Internal Revenue Service is charged with vigorous enforcement of tax collection. The point of this little trip down memory lane is, until the Greek’s promote and enforce a tax code to pay their bills. Germany, France and the other disciplined countries of the European Union will be asked to pay the bills of Greece, Portugal, and the other slacker nations.
-- The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected the Federal government’s expenditures will exceed tax collections by nearly US$1.1T for 2012 – the fourth straight year above the “T” threshold. That said, the CBO’s estimate the smallest deficit since the Great Recession began taking a heavy toll on the federal budget in 2009. The CBO also predicted the deficit would continue to fall, dropping sharply in 2013 and throughout the remainder of the decade, if lawmakers follow through with the changes in both tax policy and government spending now on the books.
-- Former Credit Suisse Group employee David Higgs surrendered to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Manhattan, in connection with planned criminal charges alleging misstatements in mortgage-bond valuations during the financial crisis; more to follow, so they say.
-- Thursday, the Justice Department indicted the Swiss private bank Wegelin & Co. on charges that it facilitated tax fraud by U.S. taxpayers. The allegations suggest Wegelin, Switzerland's oldest bank, conspired with U.S. taxpayers and others to hide more than US$1.2B in secret bank accounts. The Justice Department also said the U.S. government has seized more than US$16M from Wegelin's correspondent bank account in the U.S. And, the super- and hyper-wealthy wonder why us common folk despise their shenanigans. I do not fault them their wealth, only that they do not pay their share of taxes. Good on the Feds for going after everyone who aids or abets tax cheats.
-- The Labor Department reported that the U.S. economy added 243,000 jobs in January. The unemployment rate dropped to 8.3%, the lowest it has been since February 2009.
Comments and contributions from Update no.528:
“Re your latest and the Marines urinating on the bodies of dead Taliban.
“Actually , urinating on the body of an enemy is both a violation of the UCMJ and a grave breach of the LOAC (Laws of Armed Combat)- formerly Law of War-- doing it and taking pictures or video of it is criminally stupid and will get fellow Marines and soldiers killed. Whether they should courts-martials or not is up to the CA.”
My reply:
I suspect we are back into a definitions do-loop as we were with torture. Urinating on a dead body is hardly cutting off an ear or extracting gold teeth. I take a narrow definition of desecrating battlefield dead. Pardon my ignorance, but I am not aware of urination in that definition, but rather an interpretation; I admit, I could be wrong. It is definitely an Article 134 violation. Yes, it is a CA (Convening Authority) decision. My caution comes in the likely extraordinary political pressure to be applied to the CA to “ensure” the correct decision.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“LGEN Scaparotti, the commander said:
“‘Defiling, desecrating, mocking, photographing or filming for personal use insurgent dead constitutes a grave breach of the LOAC (laws of armed conflict), violate basic standards of human decency and can cause serious damage to relations with the Afghan government . . .’
------------------------------------
“Article 15, para.1 of Geneva Convention I seems to apply in this situation:
At all times, and particularly after an engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
First, I must restate, what those Marines did was wrong and brought discredit on the Marine Corps and the United States of America.
Second, I truly hope Scaparotti’s comments were based on more than that video.
Despoil = to strip of possessions, things of value, etc.; rob; plunder; pillage. I do not believe that is what those Marines did. Yes, they did not show basic human decency for the dead, but that is not a war crime.
I only urge we keep things in perspective. Those Marines deserve our loyalty even though they screwed up. As I said before, they deserve to be punished; they do not deserve prison or DHD, or even a BCD; but, that’s just my opinion. I want to dilute the lynch-mob mentality exhibited by far too many folks in powerful positions.
Another contribution and comment to the Blog:
“First, one last comment on the thread about Marines urinating on corpses. Nowadays, it matters little who took the pictures. (That’s a functional point, not a legal issue.) Anyone can upload files today, and the story takes off from there. In any case, the print and broadcast press (no capital P for me) has pretty much lost their credibility.
“The State of the Union address holds academic interest for me but carries little to no meaning as far as predicting the future. While I noted that the President tried to conciliate disappointed progressives like me and include military/patriotic stuff for others, I spent most of my watching time noting his expertise in delivering the speech. His timing was downright musical, his pitch and tone precise and persuasive, and his delivery confident.
“I think I get your point about the Texas redistricting issue. Here in Ohio, we have a redistricting issue of our own, but I believe they made a deal without actually holding another referendum. Our last referendum was over a government-worker labor law and was a disaster for our Republican Governor.
“Somehow, the Supreme Court seems to have turned to protecting the rights granted to the people in the Constitution. I have not seen enough to feel confident this will continue, but I have begun to hope it will.
“Predicting the world economy has gone from difficult to impossible. Thus far, China and India look like the future leaders but many hurdles lie ahead of them. One of those is a particularly interesting riddle: if your economy depends on foreign trade, do you not need the rest of the world to share the prosperity in order to have markets for your products?”
My response to the Blog:
Re: photos. Who took them does matter to me. That video took what should have been a local leadership disciplinary problem and exploded it into a massive international event, which in turn will not serve those Marines fairly or well.
Re: POTUS SOTU address. Oratory has the power to influence. He gave a masterful speech. However, when one portion of the audience refuses to listen, those words or their elegant delivery matter not. Yes, it is fun to listen to him.
Re: Texas. The problem for the state is, they have nothing. They cannot use the old districts, and they cannot get new districts defined. How are they to vote?
Re: Rights. The IX Amendment recognizes “other rights” retained by the People, outside the Constitution. The fundamental right to privacy is one of those rights.
Re: economic forecasting. Spot on! However, doing something is better than doing nothing. At least they are trying to predict the future; but, it is just that . . . a WAG.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Texas is indeed in a pickle. I wish them well but have no real idea how they should respond to the consequences of their leaders' actions. I find it cheering, however, that gerrymandering has apparently run into resistance at long last.
“The 9th Amendment is a very important item in U.S. governance. It points out that the purpose of the Constitution is to limit, not grant, powers to government. My surprise comes from the unexpected change of direction by the Supreme Court from protecting corporations and governments to limiting their power. If it holds up, that will be a major turning point.
. . . and my follow-up response:
I think the only legal approach available is to reschedule the primary and re-do the redistricting plan for Judicial approval. I’m with you; gerrymandering has always been just another form of corruption. The complication is the civil case raised by Perez, et al. The Judiciary will have to satisfy or dismiss the case.
As a good friend and constitutional scholar reminded me many times, the Supreme Court has largely avoided the 9th Amendment, principally due to its inherent ambiguity. What are those rights retained by the People? If those rights are beyond the Constitution, and Article III of the Constitution establishes the Court’s authority, then by definition, the Court does not have any jurisdiction over those extra-constitutional rights. The fallacy in that argument, as you appropriately noted, is in the Constitution as a limit or boundary of Federal authority. The Court deals with the question indirectly every time is must assess the “public need.” As we have seen far too many times, the Supremes take a VERY liberal view of “public need,” e.g., private drug use, same-sex marriage, abortion, prostitution, adultery, sodomy, ad infinitum ad nauseum.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
One of the many news groups I subscribe to (in some feeble attempt to remain informed) distributed this little item:
“Conversion row torments Kashmiri Christians”
by Sudha Ramachandran
Asia Times
Published: February 1, 2012
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/NB01Df01.html
After all, an item like this has no meaning to or bearing upon our lives. What, me worry? Well, to me, this report represents far more than the oppression of a local religious minority. This is precisely why the separation of church and State is so bloody vital to a free society and individual Liberty. I ask whether our religious beliefs are strong enough to withstand scrutiny, criticism, ridicule or even debasement? If our religious beliefs are that weak or that shallow that they can be subverted, how can prohibition of dissent ever be successful? The actions of Mufti Mohammed Bashiruddin are classic signs of weakness and reversion to parochial prohibition for their intolerance, i.e., the protectors of the faith ensuring the purity of their believers for their own aggrandizement. Their faith is not strong enough to sustain itself. That flaw sounds all too familiar, as I consider history.
After years of delay, subterfuge, obfuscation and slight-of-hand, Congress finally moved toward approving legislation to ban lawmakers from trading stocks based on information they pick up in their investigations, hearings and legislative work-ups. The Senate voted overwhelmingly, 96-3-0-1(0), to pass the Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge Act (STOCK Act) [S.1871]. The bill now moves to the House, where Republican leaders have promised to approve some version. It is about time, but they have an awful long way to go in ending the ethos of rationalized corruption and all for me, none for all. Far too many representatives and senators become wealthy in Congress and that was never the intention of the Founders / Framers.
News from the economic front:
-- Monday night, the leaders of 25 European Union governments agreed on the details of a permanent bailout fund for the euro zone. The agreement was hailed as a historic pact that will move their fiscal union closer to a federal system. Yet, Greece’s debt crisis threw a rather dark cloud over the summit, so it was reported. We have the same vulnerabilities. States like California, Michigan, Ohio and others weathered the storm of the Great Recession, but their predicament as the Recession worsened cast a similar shadow as Greece on this Grand Republic. There are numerous differences between Greece and Germany, not least of which is their respective enforcement of tax collection. We may criticize Greece for its rather laid back, laissez-faire, approach to tax collection, yet it took the United States several decades to evolve into our current system. The 16th Amendment [3.February.1913] enabled a Federal income tax, and the Revenue Tax Act of 1913 [PL 63-016; 38 Stat. 114; 3.October.1913] established the Federal income tax system. The monthly payment process was replaced with an annual payment by the Revenue Act of 1916 [PL 64-463; 39 Stat. 756; 8.September.1916]. Eventually, the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943 [PL 78-068; 57 Stat. 126; 9.June.1943] set up the Federal income tax withholding system in each month’s payroll as we know it today. Despite at-the-source, withholding process, more than a few citizens try to avoid paying their taxes. The Internal Revenue Service is charged with vigorous enforcement of tax collection. The point of this little trip down memory lane is, until the Greek’s promote and enforce a tax code to pay their bills. Germany, France and the other disciplined countries of the European Union will be asked to pay the bills of Greece, Portugal, and the other slacker nations.
-- The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected the Federal government’s expenditures will exceed tax collections by nearly US$1.1T for 2012 – the fourth straight year above the “T” threshold. That said, the CBO’s estimate the smallest deficit since the Great Recession began taking a heavy toll on the federal budget in 2009. The CBO also predicted the deficit would continue to fall, dropping sharply in 2013 and throughout the remainder of the decade, if lawmakers follow through with the changes in both tax policy and government spending now on the books.
-- Former Credit Suisse Group employee David Higgs surrendered to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Manhattan, in connection with planned criminal charges alleging misstatements in mortgage-bond valuations during the financial crisis; more to follow, so they say.
-- Thursday, the Justice Department indicted the Swiss private bank Wegelin & Co. on charges that it facilitated tax fraud by U.S. taxpayers. The allegations suggest Wegelin, Switzerland's oldest bank, conspired with U.S. taxpayers and others to hide more than US$1.2B in secret bank accounts. The Justice Department also said the U.S. government has seized more than US$16M from Wegelin's correspondent bank account in the U.S. And, the super- and hyper-wealthy wonder why us common folk despise their shenanigans. I do not fault them their wealth, only that they do not pay their share of taxes. Good on the Feds for going after everyone who aids or abets tax cheats.
-- The Labor Department reported that the U.S. economy added 243,000 jobs in January. The unemployment rate dropped to 8.3%, the lowest it has been since February 2009.
Comments and contributions from Update no.528:
“Re your latest and the Marines urinating on the bodies of dead Taliban.
“Actually , urinating on the body of an enemy is both a violation of the UCMJ and a grave breach of the LOAC (Laws of Armed Combat)- formerly Law of War-- doing it and taking pictures or video of it is criminally stupid and will get fellow Marines and soldiers killed. Whether they should courts-martials or not is up to the CA.”
My reply:
I suspect we are back into a definitions do-loop as we were with torture. Urinating on a dead body is hardly cutting off an ear or extracting gold teeth. I take a narrow definition of desecrating battlefield dead. Pardon my ignorance, but I am not aware of urination in that definition, but rather an interpretation; I admit, I could be wrong. It is definitely an Article 134 violation. Yes, it is a CA (Convening Authority) decision. My caution comes in the likely extraordinary political pressure to be applied to the CA to “ensure” the correct decision.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“LGEN Scaparotti, the commander said:
“‘Defiling, desecrating, mocking, photographing or filming for personal use insurgent dead constitutes a grave breach of the LOAC (laws of armed conflict), violate basic standards of human decency and can cause serious damage to relations with the Afghan government . . .’
------------------------------------
“Article 15, para.1 of Geneva Convention I seems to apply in this situation:
At all times, and particularly after an engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
First, I must restate, what those Marines did was wrong and brought discredit on the Marine Corps and the United States of America.
Second, I truly hope Scaparotti’s comments were based on more than that video.
Despoil = to strip of possessions, things of value, etc.; rob; plunder; pillage. I do not believe that is what those Marines did. Yes, they did not show basic human decency for the dead, but that is not a war crime.
I only urge we keep things in perspective. Those Marines deserve our loyalty even though they screwed up. As I said before, they deserve to be punished; they do not deserve prison or DHD, or even a BCD; but, that’s just my opinion. I want to dilute the lynch-mob mentality exhibited by far too many folks in powerful positions.
Another contribution and comment to the Blog:
“First, one last comment on the thread about Marines urinating on corpses. Nowadays, it matters little who took the pictures. (That’s a functional point, not a legal issue.) Anyone can upload files today, and the story takes off from there. In any case, the print and broadcast press (no capital P for me) has pretty much lost their credibility.
“The State of the Union address holds academic interest for me but carries little to no meaning as far as predicting the future. While I noted that the President tried to conciliate disappointed progressives like me and include military/patriotic stuff for others, I spent most of my watching time noting his expertise in delivering the speech. His timing was downright musical, his pitch and tone precise and persuasive, and his delivery confident.
“I think I get your point about the Texas redistricting issue. Here in Ohio, we have a redistricting issue of our own, but I believe they made a deal without actually holding another referendum. Our last referendum was over a government-worker labor law and was a disaster for our Republican Governor.
“Somehow, the Supreme Court seems to have turned to protecting the rights granted to the people in the Constitution. I have not seen enough to feel confident this will continue, but I have begun to hope it will.
“Predicting the world economy has gone from difficult to impossible. Thus far, China and India look like the future leaders but many hurdles lie ahead of them. One of those is a particularly interesting riddle: if your economy depends on foreign trade, do you not need the rest of the world to share the prosperity in order to have markets for your products?”
My response to the Blog:
Re: photos. Who took them does matter to me. That video took what should have been a local leadership disciplinary problem and exploded it into a massive international event, which in turn will not serve those Marines fairly or well.
Re: POTUS SOTU address. Oratory has the power to influence. He gave a masterful speech. However, when one portion of the audience refuses to listen, those words or their elegant delivery matter not. Yes, it is fun to listen to him.
Re: Texas. The problem for the state is, they have nothing. They cannot use the old districts, and they cannot get new districts defined. How are they to vote?
Re: Rights. The IX Amendment recognizes “other rights” retained by the People, outside the Constitution. The fundamental right to privacy is one of those rights.
Re: economic forecasting. Spot on! However, doing something is better than doing nothing. At least they are trying to predict the future; but, it is just that . . . a WAG.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Texas is indeed in a pickle. I wish them well but have no real idea how they should respond to the consequences of their leaders' actions. I find it cheering, however, that gerrymandering has apparently run into resistance at long last.
“The 9th Amendment is a very important item in U.S. governance. It points out that the purpose of the Constitution is to limit, not grant, powers to government. My surprise comes from the unexpected change of direction by the Supreme Court from protecting corporations and governments to limiting their power. If it holds up, that will be a major turning point.
. . . and my follow-up response:
I think the only legal approach available is to reschedule the primary and re-do the redistricting plan for Judicial approval. I’m with you; gerrymandering has always been just another form of corruption. The complication is the civil case raised by Perez, et al. The Judiciary will have to satisfy or dismiss the case.
As a good friend and constitutional scholar reminded me many times, the Supreme Court has largely avoided the 9th Amendment, principally due to its inherent ambiguity. What are those rights retained by the People? If those rights are beyond the Constitution, and Article III of the Constitution establishes the Court’s authority, then by definition, the Court does not have any jurisdiction over those extra-constitutional rights. The fallacy in that argument, as you appropriately noted, is in the Constitution as a limit or boundary of Federal authority. The Court deals with the question indirectly every time is must assess the “public need.” As we have seen far too many times, the Supremes take a VERY liberal view of “public need,” e.g., private drug use, same-sex marriage, abortion, prostitution, adultery, sodomy, ad infinitum ad nauseum.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
