In a long 72 page policy review on prescription drug coverage, over the last FOUR DECADES the top key factors explaining the pushes and pulls of policy change included this:

"ideological conflict between those seeking to expand the traditional Medicare program and those preferring a greater role for private health care companies." http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/A-Polit...

It's been the same conflict dynamic between public health care vs private corporations for 40 years, and it's squarely at issue again today.

But now we have a Democratic president, we have about 60 Democratic Senators, a clear majority in the House. In sum, the political situation appears better than ever.

And despite these rising tides for public health care forces who've fought to slowly increase public health care over 40 years, we're told now that Single Payer and/or the Public Option are dead on arrival. How did a team that fought for increases over 40 years suddenly get terminated at a high water mark in its prospects?

Not only is the situation described as "Dead on arrival," but the details of the bill command that we must hand complete victory to private insurance, in the following way: Dollars that are public health dollars will be counted as public health care dollars and collected as such via taxes, yet just handed to private insurance company.

That's capitulation, followed by payment of tribute.

But I don't think the Democratic rank and file capitulated. Only their "representatives" did.

The problem for the representatives is that the only legitimate source of power, the only source of just power, is the people. ("Forming their just powers from the consent of the governed" para. 2 Decl. Independence)

If anyone ever suggests something like Dead on Arrival or even dead now, I'm going to ask them how that can possibly be LEGITIMATE. I may or may not contest that that is the "way it is." I'm dying to know what makes that RIGHT? How does it make any sense on the level of Democrats OR Democracy?

This is not the first time FactCheck.org has found Chamber of Commerce political ads to be, uh, INFLATED in their fact claims. FactCheck.org previously did a piece about Chamber of Commerce exaggeration in 2007. (OK, in the Chamber ad slammed today, the Chamber used their arm called "Chamber Institute for Legal Reform" to be listed as responsible for this ad. Same thing - nobody lets their business name or trademarked name get used without permission or else lawyers are calling to stop it)

Well, humans are fallible -- but -- the Chamber of Commerce is composed of corporations!

But corporations are run by humans, so one might understand getting the numbers a little off, or a little inflated, humans being fallible and all...

But the Chamber was caught increasing the number of actual lawsuits against small business by a whopping 650% to 1,020%? (yes, one thousand and twenty percent) What?

Yup.

THE FACTS:

Today, FactCheck.org slammed the chamber's TV ad claiming that "litigation" is primarily directed at small businesses - to the tune, the Chamber said, of (here comes the Chamber's LIE):



Of course, the Chamber tried to bolster its false ad with smaller type citation that the "SOURCE" of the information was the Small Business Administration. They're government and know about small business, right? It would seem so.

The TRUTH: only 5 to 8 percent of all litigation has a small business defendant being "targeted".

A good chunk of those small businesses (ahem) sued in the first 7 or so years of the last decade were sued by me personally: SLEAZY USED CAR DEALERS. Somebody's gotta sue those guys, I figured it might as well be me. Nobody else in my county would do it. It was largely but not totally a public service, because the car dealers had typically stolen the last dollar my clients had for a down payment and given them a known lemon in return, or a rolled back odometer. (Value of odometer fraud is in the BILLIONS of dollars in increased sales prices, by the way)

But, many small businesses, I'd say 90% are totally cool. But, here's the Clincher:

The FactCheck.org correction showing the true numbers of lawsuits being exaggered by 65% to 1,020% comes from the very same study the Chamber cited in support of its ad.

The video of the ad, and the full text of FactCheck's article, are at this link:
http://factcheck.org/2010/01/us-chamber-mo... /

The Chamber of Commerce doesn't know the meaning of the word Honest.

NOTE: This is the first in a series on the high and mighty corporate kingpins that don't know the meaning of the word Honest. The next is Antonin Scalia, and, believe it or not, he asserts, or argues I should say, (in direct effect and implication) that he does not know the meaning of the word Honest! "Honest" is too vague, he argues, and a word that we must necessarily guess at its meaning! I'm not kidding. More to come.

(Please PM me, or post publicly below, if you want notice when the Honesty series has its installments, with the next episode being Antonin Scalia. Thanks!)

It has to have a business profitability purpose but NOTHING corpse do is for any purpose other than that. Thus, a trade secret, potentially infinite in its lifetime so long as the corporation makes "reasonable efforts" to maintain secrecy, is defined as:

INformation a business/organization wants to keep secret.

Like how the votes are counted!

And the only way trade secrets get "lost" at least in theory is by not keeping them secret. And yet... here's what happens if you stumble across one and either know, subsequently learn or HAVE REASON TO KNOW whether you know or not, that it's a trade secret (any disclosure or us triggers double or triple damages depending on the state, plus attorney's fees for willful or knowing use or disclosure:



So simply getting "acquisition" on notice that somebody else took it from their employment (which all sign not to do) or otherwise used "improper means" triggers punitive damages, AND any disclosure or use does as well, regardless of whether improper means were used to obtain it or it was disclosed by the company by accident or mistake -- WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE ONLY WAY TRADE SECRET RIGHTS ARE LOST - THROUGH ACCIDENTAL DISCLOSURE OR FAILURE TO ADOPT REASONABLE MEANS TO MAINTAIN THE TRADE SECRET.

You've got to hit rock bottom, as they say.

If there are really, really things to scream or worry about NOW, doesn't that mean that the cause of change is THAT MUCH STRONGER? What's totally depressing about that???

In addition to your heart (which is most of what triggers "depression" for many these days), may I suggest ya'll try to adopt a little of the perspective of the revolutionary -- a revolutionary would be welcoming things getting worse - it means complacency goes bye-bye and things can finally change. That's when they jump into action and make things happen their way.

Early in December, Department of Justice lawyers in the Obama administration moved to dismiss Jose Padilla's suit against John Yoo, former Bush administration lawyer and infamous author of torture memos for the Bush administration. The DOJ lawyers argued



Well, I thought, then I guess the entire fields of law known as crimes against humanity, war crimes, the Convention Against Torture and customary international law, can all be written off as mere "second-guessing" of a President. They all provide that rules against torture are "without exception" for any circumstance "whatsoever" and that merely acquiescing in or tolerating such crimes, much less actively ordering them or advising them, creates criminal culpability for acts flowing from such encouragement, writing, toleration and so forth. A very broad standard, but designed specifically to fit the enormous gravity of the crimes and the need to climb up the chain of command to those who ordered or facilitated "bad apples" to do what they did.

Now, about a month after DOJ lawyers appeared in support of Yoo, comes John Yoo's new book, scheduled to be out January 5, 2010 and entitled "Crisis and Command."

It was reviewed on HuffingtonPost, whose reviewer had this to summarize the "Afterword" Yoo appended to his book now coming out, with the Afterword apparently being in praise of Obama's executive power philosophy as Yoo sees it (defined more by actions than by words):



What does DU make of this? An as yet unindicted war criminal being privately sued nevertheless, and Obama's administration's DOJ appears in court to urge dismissal on the (not) legal ground of not second guessing? And the unindicted war criminal adds an afterword to his book praising the use of presidential power by Obama?

Not so long ago, 96% of DUers in an unscientific poll said Yoo should be tried and imprisoned.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu... Protecgting Yoo from a mere civil suit by someone is not headed in this same direction (UNLESS... there's a strategy to exhaust domestic remedies which in some cases helps facilitate international prosecutions which is where the fairest possible trial would likely be. Yet I doubt that's a motive).

Also, I've had a law degree since 1995 but I've not come across this apparent legal doctrine of "no second guessing" of a President. Can anybody help me? I'm no expert on Executive Power issues.

on edit:

Quoting our own federal court, noting that torturers have reached the level of ignominy long held by even the most violent of pirates, here's a passage from Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (1980):

"...the torturer has become, like the pirate and the slave trader before him, hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind."

But that's about the torturer - the one who follows somebody else's order. I don't know what the one who issued the order to torture and/or said it was all legal has become? A fan of President Obama's use of executive power? THIS JUXTAPOSITION IS TOO CONFUSING.

Throughout American history, unelected "political bosses" have had political roles ranging in power from influential to controlling. Most never become as well known as Boss Tweed.

Starting in the 60s and accelerating pace in recent years, the laws and legal infrastructure of the United States has been substantially altered in the direction of providing immunity to private-sector political bosses or any other persons or corporations that use the arm of government to hurt others. Although qualified immunity of government officials is a more familiar topic, this immunity is more remarkable because it applies to private sector persons or corporations, who, because they are private sector, are also immune from constitutional claims, which only apply to the government.

For example, under what is called the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, the antitrust or anti-monopoly/unfair competition laws are subverted and immunity is provided for anyone powerful enough to control Congress or the legislature. Precisely, Noerr-Pennington doctrine states as follows:



For its rationale, the Noerr-Pennington doctrine claims to be vindicating First Amendment protection of political speech as well as the right to petition any branch of government for a redress of grievances, and further based "upon a recognition that the antitrust laws, 'tailored as they are for the business world, are not at all appropriate for application in the political arena.' " City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 499 U.S. 365, 380 (1991) (quoting Noerr, 365 U.S. 127, 141 (1961).

Let's just note that it is truly odd and striking for this "not for politics" rationale to be stated Because the antitrust laws are plainly and expressly designed to preempt or override the end-product of politics - state or federal laws -- to the extent they are inconsistent with the Sherman Antitrust Act. It is thus a plain lie or a complete distortion to say there's no intent in the Sherman Act to apply antitrust laws to the outcomes of the "political arena."

Nevertheless, the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is invoked to insulate from liability any political bosses or actors who successfully obtain government action for any liability as to EITHER:

A) the petition or lobbying itself, and/or
B) the outcome or results of the petition or lobbying, whether it be a law, court action, etc.

Expansion of Noerr-Pennington Immunity Beyond Antitrust/Unfair Competition Law

Since its formulation, the doctrine has been extended to confer immunity from a variety of tort claims. These extensions include the laws of

1. trademark law: Thermos Co. v. Igloo Products Corp., 1995 WL 745832, *6 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (holding “attempts to protect a valid and incontestable trademark” privileged under Noerr-Pennington);

2. tortious interference, Virtual Works, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 1999 WL 1074122 (E.D. Va. 1999) (applying Noerr-Pennington doctrine to tortious interference);

3. abuse of process. Brownsville Golden Age Nursing Home, Inc. v. Wells, 839 F.2d 155, 159-60 (3d Cir. 1988) (recognizing applicability of the doctrine to abuse of process and other claims);

4. the broad category of "common law" claims: Baltimore Scrap Corp. v. David J. Joseph Co., 81 F.Supp.2d 602, 620 (D.Md. 2000), aff'd, 237 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 2001) (holding that Noerr-Pennington immunity applies to common law claims).

And, last for this little list but not least nor the last of all examples:

6. The Ninth Circuit relatively recently held Noerr-Pennington doctrine also immunizes private sector political bosses (not their term used) against RICO Act claims when a defendant has sent thousands of demand letters threatening suit. Sosa v. DirectTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923, 935 (9th Cir. 2006).

As to RICO act claims for thousands of demand letters threatening suit, please note that insurance companies and such can be fully expected to send such letters in the thousands to demand their mandatory payments of insurance premiums.

But that is not the end of the story, because immunity is not yet total. The last gaps are being filled now.

Even though Noerr-Pennington immunizes the actual petition or appeal to the legislative or judicial branches for any damages caused by this communication, and also immunizes for any damage caused by the end-product result, whether a law or a judicial decision or other form of process from any liability for abuse of process or any of the other claims listed above, there's still something it isn't able to cover:

Liability for a government official acting IMPROPERLY in response to a communication or contact or request for any governmental process of some kind by a private political boss or corporation or other "person" thus depriving the public of the honest exercise of power given to government servants IN TRUST for exercise in furtherance of the public good.

This is where the current case pending before the US Supreme Court comes in, litigating the constitutionality of "honest services" statutes-- statutes that make it a crime to deprive the public of the honest services of government officials. The complaint, generally speaking, is that such statutes, by "vaguely" outlawing schemes or artifices to defraud the public of the honest services of its public servants, are unconstitutionally vague and otherwise don't sufficiently specify what is legal or illegal. {!} See. e.g., http://www.saratogian.com/articles/2009/12...

Of course, if that argument prevails, the very similar language outlawing schemes or other artifices to defraud in Anti-Corruption statutes, securities fraud statutes, consumer protection statutes, election fraud statutes and other criminal and civil laws will also fall or be subject to directly analogous challenges.

If legislative branches are forced to specifically list prohibited practices, they will likely do so, but this will be no match whatsoever for the creativity of the human mind, especially the human political and criminal minds funded by lots of money. Anti-corruption legislation will be reduced to lists of what's prohibited which also by implication give a green light to any distinguishable practice that is not specifically listed. Heck, the main reason the tax code is so huge and keeps changing, beyond "incentivizing" behavior and pork barrel tax benefits, is to keep up with the enormous intelligence and creativity used to evade income taxation by armies of lawyers and CPAs.



But even without these additional losses of protection from fraud and corruption that would likely occur,just the case itself presently before the US Supreme Court would fill the gap of Noerr-Pennington, and provide an apparently complete immunity for private sector political bosses:



I hope you "enjoyed" seeing the developing terrain and methods for how private sector political bosses and big corporations can use the government like a sock puppet and then claim immunity from any liability no matter how much damage they cause. It's up to us to start out by calling this what it is: illegitimate and void. If the USA means anything it means no one's exempt from the Rule of Law, and that the rule of law, without justice as well, is nothing but naked law which is the favorite tool of tyrants everywhere.

To think otherwise, that is, that we do or can "lose rights" gives a double victory to rights violaters, they not only get away with the violation but, because the right "goes away" it's no longer in existence to make the violater's conduct wrong, not the subject even of a protest against injustice, because indeed, if slaves did NOT, all along, have the right to be free from slavery (regardless of the constitution's interpretation at that time) then that means, and necessarily so, that slavery was RIGHT and JUST until the day the constitution was amended, via the 13th & 14th antislavery amendments. Instead, consistent with the Declaration of Independence's assertion of INALIENABLE RIGHTS we have simply because we are born as human beings, our rights in justice are never lost, never forfeited, etc., they are only violated.

ANd indeed it should be no surprise that valuable things, including rights, are from time to time subject to being stolen. We should never interpret the theft of our rights as the loss of our rights. the fact that we can't see them on the ground, anymore, is irrelevant -- we still own the sofa or rights to possession of the sofa even if the sofa was stolen - and even if it remains stolen for 10 years... Nothing personal intended here at all, but to continue with the sofa analogy, an infant that sees its parent duck behind the sofa in a game of peek-a-boo believes the parent has truly vanished and is thus surprised by reappearance... SImilarly, it is infantile to believe that our vanished rights, "on the ground" or "in reality" have gone away or are "no more" -- it's just that they are not being enforced and/or are being violated. The distinction is both subtle yet all-important, because without rights being in existence, THERE'S NO WRONGS occurring, and no basis in justice to change the situation or restore the proper status quo of rights enforcement.

The hottest trend in anti-consumer anti-citizen legislation is using the criminal justice apparatus (and, in the case of HCR the IRS apparatus as well) as glorified collection agencies. In service of collecting routine civil debts such as bounced checks, sheriff's deputies and prosecutors around the country presently spend many times what such debts are worth to strong arm debtors with both threats and actual enforcement UP TO THE POINT where such debtor pays -- in which case the prosecution has totally served its purpose and the case is dropped.

This is precisely what HCR plans to do, both criminally and with the threat and REALITY of IRS tax liens: To wit:



on edit: "failure to timely pay" is different than outright refusal to pay or abject nonpayment. If one were once late on a payment but is presently current, one can still accurately say they "failed to timely pay" the payment in question. If the provision above intended for such criminal and IRS penalties to NEVER EXIST for all forms of nonpayment, that would make the provisions spelling them out "surplusage" or wasted unnecessary words - a construction that courts are obliged to reject since it is presumed always, no matter how false it may be, that Congress knows what it's doing and is aware of all the law that it is acting upon. That may be a real-life fantasy but it is as solid a legal rule of construction as you can get....

In my legal opinion as a former consumer protection lawyer for about a dozen years, these tactics, while questionably legal at best, are nevertheless very effective collectors. I know somebody who's a small merchant who swears by their effectiveness (to which I add, mafia knee-capping is similarly effective and similarly "questionably legal."). The effective part of it is that it is not worthwhile for any given individual to contest such a case, given the cost not only of legal fees, but even just of posting a bond or considering the stress level of contemplating the effect on one's credit or assets of a mere paper lien being filed, and/or an arrest warrant being issued, much less the cost of an initial night in jail and posting the required bond to get out of jail.

You would think that getting sheriff's departments involved in the collection of every bounced check, (which they freely admit the majority of which are civil because they're accounting or communication errors between spouses (for example) and not intentional conduct necessary to prove criminal intent) would mean that as a practical matter the bad check enforcement practices here would be impractical. But then, you would be wrong. These practices continue on with thousands of form letters threatening arrest going out each year in every given jurisdiction that does this practice -- all to serve the few "key" merchants who are signed for the police collections program. One can say "I thought debtor's prisons were illegal, etc." but that hasn't and doesn't stop this process.

The "beauty" of these kinds of systems is that it isn't worth it for any given individual to press the issue very far, and few indeed do. Very few will pop for $250,000 in attorney's fees on a case worth a few thousand dollars or so.

Instead, what the provisions of this type really do is amount to a form of PRIORITY debt, which is a higher priority for nearly all people to pay than is their rent, mortgage, utilities or even food -- because most people understandably fear a night in jail (or more) plus the hassle of a tax defense or a criminal defense more than they fear paying a few grand or more to make it go away, as required by the provisions in the box above. Heck, even posting the bond will probably set you back that much or more.... Thus, only a few actual prosecutions are necessary after the mass form letters go out to ensure that basically EVERYONE pays.

In my opinion, a vast majority of people CAN "AFFORD" health care private insurance as subsidized because it's priority in terms of payment will be just about the highest priority of their lives -- at least after they get the threat letter.

Given my experience as a consumer protection lawyer, I called the bluff of local prosecutors and police after meeting with the police chief on a routine bounced check (the local bank had refused my deposit but didn't refuse electronic withdrawals after the out of state original bank of deposit closed my account without actual notice to me of their intent to do so). I informed them their activities as collection agencies for select local merchants violated a raft of state and federal consumer protection laws. They didn't care, and didn't have any procedure, they stated, for reconsidering their collection-mill course of action. Because it just so happened that the merchant in question owed me more than I owed them, I didn't pay the debt. They actually went ahead and arrested me at 11pm so I got to spend a night in jail before bond could be posted.

They ultimately DROPPED ALL CHARGES without me giving them a shred of my copious evidence and briefing on the illegality of the charges -- so long as I paid the EIGHTY DOLLARS or so -- the GRAND TOTAL of the full face amount of the check plus a $35 or so collection fee (which the sheriff got for the thousands of dollars in police and prosecutor time they spent on my case). It was a colossal waste of taxpayer funds -- IF THE PURPOSE of government is to serve the taxpayer.

But I do not think the purpose of government, any more, is to serve the taxpayer or citizen.

The Congress is poised to hand out a mandatory monopoly right and harness the entire federal criminal justice apparatus as well as the IRS apparatus as a mill to enforce collection of the monopoly fees to be paid private insurance corporations. The vast, lion's share majority of people will pay up in full before or shortly after they get the form letter threatening arrest.

If ya'll have the same or more courage to stand up to these kinds of abuses that I did, I salute you.

But I do point out it's not worth it economically not to mention stress-wise for any given individual to fight provisions that set up mass collections of amounts less than 10,000 dollars or so. I avoided criminal charges, yes, and I earned a pyrrhic victory of a huge civil rights violations lawsuit which I probably will never pursue for reasons of time and energy, but the fact remains EVEN I PAID. Most of you will be less sure of yourselves legally, less able to represent yourself in court, perhaps somewhat less willing to stand on principle, and thus you'll pay -- just faster than I paid. But I, too, paid. The good news is that if they ever repeat this, they'll have a giant RICO lawsuit on their hands.

But what percentage has the will and the means to run this kind of gauntlet? That's the "beauty" of these kinds of collection provisions. They are OH SO FAR FROM "TOOTHLESS" and "UNENFORCEABLE."

That's the idea of a mandate with collection provisions like this: EVERYONE PAYS THE PIPER - and the Piper is the Insurance conglomerates of the USA.

Three facts below add up to one very pertinent question regarding health CARE and whether for profit insurance companies have any place in it, or not:

1. In a 1970 NYT article Milton Friedman famously stated “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits”. He has been widely quoted elsewhere saying "The corporation cannot be ethical; its only responsibility is to make a profit." Thus, corporations, as a class -- each and every one that is not FORCED by law or rare owners to do otherwise, are institutionally incapable of ethics.

2. As a matter of black letter law and common sense, corporations have no emotions -- they can not bring claims, for example, for "intentional infliction of emotional distress" because they do not have emotions - they're fictional entities authorized by law that the shareholders and officers literally hide behind ("the corporate veil" of limited liability) so that no human being is to be held responsible or liable for the acts of the corporation, if the corporation has its way. Thus, corporations, as a class -- (each and every one that is not FORCED by law or rare owners to do otherwise) are institutionally incapable of emotion.

3. The vast majority of large corporations have actually made threats, or carried them out, to outsource jobs to foreign countries or other states if their demands for tax favors and subsidies are met. The more recent examples of corporate bailouts are among the largest of a long history of such threats and demands. Whenever presented with a possibility of choosing either a loyal action (keeping jobs in the USA or within the current state of employment) or a disloyal action, corporations typically choose, and in fact argue that they MUST choose, the disloyal action of outsourcing jobs, in furtherance of their legally mandated one track minds for profit. Thus, corporations, as a class -- (each and every one that is not FORCED by law or rare owners to do otherwise) are institutionally incapable of loyalty or patriotism.

Why would anyone think that disloyal, ethicless, heartless and emotionless FOR PROFIT corporations have any place whatsoever in Health CARE?

The murder of Dr. Tiller.

The attack on the military recruiters.

White supremacist apparently the one who opened fire at the Holocaust Museum today.

(Post more recent news if you like...)

Does DU think that existing laws are inadequate to deal with this problem, or do we need new tougher legislation AND/OR a "crackdown" in terms of concentrated enforcement of existing laws (which are already fairly draconian)?

This is building up to potentially be the excuse for yet more loss of rights, as I've posted recently, connecting up a very recent US Supreme Court decision as well. Please See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...

Will we be seeing Patriot Act II, -- or would it be III or IV by now?

Does anybody think that any special campaign against domestic right wing terror can be isolated to just one side of the political aisle? Can A Democratic administration and Democratic congress really crack down only on the Right wing side? We've lived through these time periods before, and we always consider it overreaction when we have perspective from history, like the Alien and Sedition Acts of the late 1790s, the Espionage Act, internment of Japanese as "threats" during WWII, etc.



Be careful what you wish for, and reply with your thoughts. I probably won't "defend the thread" -- I'd like to see what DU thinks, since my position's already reasonably clear from the linked post.

Clearly, these acts are crimes, and despicable ones, the question is what is the APPROPRIATE response, and why is the normal criminal justice process insufficient, if it is? Just because it's a despicable crime, does that mean even the sky's no limit?

If we call Tiller's murder and these other acts domestic terrorism, aren't we inviting the anti-terrorism gun to be pointed at the heads of all Americans, with officials "connecting the dots" and pre-emptively arresting, harassing or spying on people because they FEAR someone might possibly do something because their political rhetoric is passionate or heated?

Thoughts?

{Satire alert: The Specter of Patriot Act II is real, but I don’t support any such thing, nor do I think anybody on this site does, or would. However, that doesn’t mean the case of Dr. Tiller won’t be cited as the excuse or reason for Patriot Act II, which will probably be a judicial decision, as described below, but could also be congressional.}

In terms of political blowback, the murder of Dr. Tiller presents more than the “issue” of an act of "terrorism" happening on "Obama's watch," a fact that will probably be cited by a smirking Dick Cheney.

The emerging CW, as NOW, Keith Olbermann and other well-respected voices are saying, that we are dealing with "domestic terrorism," and/or an “assassination.” Even more, as the Boulder, Colorado late termination Dr. Warren Hern stated to the Colorado Independent and the LA Times:



Hern also told the LA Times that Tiller is the “fifth American doctor to be assassinated.” Hern told the Los Angeles Times he’s well aware of the dangers. “I get messages from these people saying, ‘Don’t bother wearing a bulletproof vest, we’re going for a head shot.’” The LA Times also points out that Dr. Hern “was targeted by violent extremists as well as principled opponents.”

The murder’s totally heinous nature, especially put into the context Dr. Hern mentions, got me thinking, and an idea popped into my head (warning, satire/irony ahead):

It seems the Patriot Act is not enough to protect us from such outrageous terroristic assassinations of politically controversial persons such as the late Dr. Tiller, whether or not by a “violent fascist movement.” But, I don’t want Patriot Act I -- much less Patriot Act II. Do you?

Let’s “connect the dots” shall we? For example, a disgruntled (or reasonable) ex-wife says “she divorced {Roeder} in 1996 because of his strong views against abortion. She says she kept their son away from his dad when he was a minor because she didn't want him to poison the boy's mind.” http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-scott-roed...

Shouldn’t such persons with such strong views be preventively detained BEFORE THEY COMMIT HEINOUS CRIMES?

May I suggest, ever so delicately, that there but for the grace of God goes many a person of strong views on the Left as well as the Right.

You see, if the game is “connect the dots” and the government MUST keep us safe, then whenever the government feels they can’t be 100% sure that someone’s level of political anger won’t erupt into violence, they’ll be sending the federal marshals to YOUR door.

Let me make it even more clear that the Patriot Act seemingly doesn’t go far enough (as some haters of freedom will no doubt soon argue):



The argument will be, of course, that if only the exclusionary rule of evidence didn't exist, this terrorist named Scott Roeder would have been in prison, instead of killing people in churches.

The argument against the exclusionary rule has always been that “guilty go free.” While this is not the case every time the exclusionary rule applies, up until lately American justice has always said that “Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when trials are fair (Brady v. Maryland)” and when police and prosecutors operate within the confines of the Constitution.

The big legal problem is: Just last week, the US Supreme Court reconfigured constitutional law AGAIN, and threw out the 6th Amendment rights of defendants to have their lawyer present during questioning outside of a Miranda “arrest” situation. In Montejo v. Louisiana, the US Supreme Court took the constitutional right, and “balanced” it against the state’s interest in, among other things, not “letting the guilty go free.” So, it was Bye bye 6th Amendment rights.

The 5-4 Supreme Court ruling, which Sotomayor’s presence won’t improve since Breyer was in the minority, decided that punishing the guilty outweighed the “prophylactic” effect of upholding a Supreme Court precedent over 20 years old written by Justice Stevens. In its 3-point test for whether the US Supreme Court needs to follow precedent (stare decisis), the 3rd point is, standing alone, enough to overrule ANY precedent the US Supreme Court doesn’t like:

3. Whether the decision is “well-reasoned.”

Don’t you find, as I do, that every time one disagrees with a decision one finds it not to be “well-reasoned?”

I expect to see heavy pressure to eliminate the Constitutional law based exclusionary rule. When it goes, there will be no deterrent to illegal searches if the evidence isn’t suppressed. What? Will the officers acting illegally be put on administrative leave or something? The late Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that even cops who lie are rarely disciplined, despite what amounts an urban legend that lying is a “death penalty” offense for an officer. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/349169_lyin...

We have the makings of a Patriot Act, round II, to get rid of the exclusionary rule, which has long been a target, but is also the only real barrier to massive breaches of the 4th Amendment search and seizure rights.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL “AVOIDANCE” DOCTRINE

If a case can be disposed of on non-constitutional grounds, the “Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine” says that it should be. This doctrine was the core of the torture memos, which stretched the doctrine well beyond the breaking point in order to argue that a Congressional statute outlawing torture ought not to be read to apply to the Executive Branch because to do so would raise constitutional issues that ought to be avoided. For details, see http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/lazarus/2006081...

Courts are also only supposed to decide the issues as framed by the parties, not issues not briefed or litigated by the parties. Despite the fact that in Montejo v. Louisiana neither party sought to overrule Michigan v. Jackson, the US Supreme Court nevertheless asked for supplemental briefing on overruling this constitutional precedent, and then overruled it. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-overrul... / After asking for supplemental briefing in March, the US Solicitor General weighed in with support for reversing Michigan v Jackson, an argument never made by the original parties in Montejo v Louisiana and Scalia authored the opinion you can read here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08p...

Constitutional avoidance, my ass. On the contrary, it sure appears to me that the US Supreme Court is hunting for rights to overturn, if they’re individual rights at least, and deferring to the separation of powers of a “coordinate branch” all too often if it’s merely a governmental interest at stake instead of a right. (The government doesn’t have “rights” only interests).

If that’s not enough for you, Scalia’s opinion says on “stare decisis” that precedent can be overturned if it is not “well-reasoned.” So, WHAT IS THE LAW? Whatever the US Supreme Court wants it to be, when it wants it to be that, regardless of whether the parties in a case are disagreeing about that law and litigating it, or not.

WILL PATRIOT ACT II BE A JUDICIAL DECISION THROWING OUT THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE?

When it comes to overturning the exclusionary rule, which arguably “protected” Scott Roeder, pro-choice advocates may find themselves in a difficult position on this issue now, given Roeder’s history. It will therefore be even easier for the US Supreme Court, or at the very least the court of public opinion, to move against the exclusionary rule as a whole than it was to nuke Michigan v. Jackson. If that happens, and the exclusionary rule has long been a target of the right wing, then the primary remaining deterrent to illegal searches goes out the window. (No time to discuss FISA, etc. here…)

What should one do? I can’t say for sure, but you deserve to know your rights, so I’ll “read” them to you, and adlib somewhat from the familiar approved text, in the interest of on-the-ground accuracy in light of the May 26 Montejo opinion and other context:




ALSO REASONABLY LIKELY IN THE NEAR FUTURE, THOUGH NOT EXACTLY THE CASE NOW, BARRING A CHANGE OF COURSE:



THE ATTACHMENT TO YOUR “STATEMENT OF RIGHTS” (above) ALSO CONTAINS: Certain Posts from DU that sound like the quotation from today’s news below, but instead substitute, oh, the proper first and last name of a “Right-wing media blowhard” or politician in the place of for “Randall Terry”

The Right wing will have little difficulty finding troublesome posts on places like DU and claiming a reasonable fear for their safety, no?

CONCLUSION:

I suggest we prosecute murderers to the full extent of the law.

I also suggest caution in playing the fear card,

I suggest caution in playing the terrorism card,

I suggest caution in playing the assassination card, or the fascist movement card,

not because these statements above can’t be argued or can't be justified to be applicable, – I don’t say they ARE, or they ARE NOT, because, quite frankly, I feel a chill to free speech about now.

That chill doesn't come from me but from the political circumstances and recent history of our country:

That chill comes from the known, demonstrated and proven catastrophic damage to the rights of all Americans that can and already has resulted from fear and terrorism arguments which has directly led to the deaths of many thousands of people -- all as part of the Government’s efforts to “keep us safe” from terrorists, and all those who “harbor them,” no matter where in the world they might be found. Even if the terrorists are not really there, like in Iraq.

“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” –President Franklin Delano Roosevelt

But I'll admit to slight trepidation at the specter of pointing BOTH BARRELS of the "terrorism" gun domestically, via the phrase "domestic terrorism." Why?

Well, the Government isn't supposed to just "connect the dots" and preventively jail folks on one side of the political debate. It must be fair and preventively jail both sides of the political debate.

"Domestic terrorism", justified or not as a charge, takes the Iraq/Afghanistan/Gitmo/Ghraib "guns" and points them at Kansas. And every other state, because we can't discriminate against Kansas.

It ain't Kansas any more, it's in toto.

As a guidestar for a way out of this pickle, I offer Thomas Paine's "First Principles of Government":

The DEMAND must always be for the full measure of rights. Just google Martin Luther King Jr quotes for the "Tranquilizing drug of gradualism" and his conclusion:

"This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy."

MLK: "‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’"

Half a right, like every other day off from torture, is NO RIGHT AT ALL. Half a right, an incremental gain in non-torture, is just a continuing violation, IF the right is Fundamental (the key distinction of the OP)

The GAINS may sometimes be "incremental" or claimed to be incremental progress (even if not at all progress) because they are only grudgingly given up by the status quo.

But make no mistake, DEMANDS for incremental gains on fundamental rights like voting are ethically, politically and even TACTICALLY highly mistaken, self-defeating and wrong, because it's wrong to ADVOCATE publicly in favor of injustice. Only with public regret and caveats can such be accepted, and even then only if it's not a fundamental right like voting, voting systems, torture, etc.

Even teenagers know to ask for the car for the whole night or weekend and then "compromise" UNDER PROTEST AND COMPLAINT with an agreement for 3 hours on Friday night. Even teenagers don't PUBLICLY (in front of parents) celebrate or approve such "incremental" wins. Possibly, they may privately amongst themselves still have a great time and be happy they can get out just a little, but they'll be back for more.

And they'll be UNDERSTANDABLY back for more. FREEDOM and the yearning for it, even if at too young an age, is human, necessary, and should never be shackled in chains.

"Ralph Waldo Emerson once asked what we would do if the stars only came out once every thousand years. No one would sleep that night, of course. The world would become religious overnight. We would be ecstatic, delirious, made rapturous by the glory of God. Instead the stars come out every night, and we watch television."

--From Commencement Speech by Peter Hawken, May 2009, Portland University

We may gaze up into that starry starry night,

or work in good directions until one sees stars,

or start from the proper and few guide-star principles, but,

in each case,

it is not always to the stars that we go?

"Hitch your wagon to a star." --Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Nothing can bring you peace but yourself" (Ralph Waldo Emerson) but in the final analysis that's because we always have here and now all that we need, or if not, Emerson assures us it is assimilable via the stars.

I couldn't miss a change to plug the Hawken commencement address in its full text, it will help one to see the stars even on a smoggy day.

See Hawken's address, Hailed by Humanity.org as one of the best commencement speeches of the last 75 years, at http://www.up.edu/shownews.aspx?id=3784 (link to full text)

There's quite a decent diversity of backgrounds here it seems, especially adding Joe Chi Minh's and other contributions above. If I have by chance included one or more that some disrespect, then I have succeeded more than I reasonably hoped for!

“Words are just words, and without heart they have no meaning.”
--Chinese Proverb

“Does this path have a heart? If it does, the path is good; if it doesn't, it is of no use. Both paths lead nowhere; but one has a heart, the other doesn't. One makes for a joyful journey; as long as you follow it, you are one with it. The other will make you curse your life. One makes you strong; the other weakens you.”
–Carlos Castaneda, author of “The Teachings of Don Juan” concerning Mesoamerican shamanism

“We know the truth, not only by the reason, but also by the heart.”

--Blaise Pascal – French 17th Century mathematician, physicist, philosopher, inventor, theologian, prose stylist and polemicist, (1) first achieving fame at the age of 16 with a contribution to the projective geometry of a cone, including “Pascal’s Theorem” (2) the original development of probability theory, the basis of statistics, together with Fermat (3) work on barometric air pressure varying by altitude above sea level (4) credit given by Leibniz to Blaise Pascal’s method for infinitesimal analysis as the inspiration for Leibniz’s development of calculus.

“For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
--Matthew 6: 21 ESV

“That which is spoken from the heart is heard by the heart.”
–Jewish Saying

“Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”
--1 Samuel 16: 76

“The heart of the matter is a matter of heart.”
--Rick Warren “The Purpose-Driven Life” (modern evangelical work)

Especially given recent world events, I wish to describe (using primarily medical terms derived from the available scholarship and biblical testimonies) the humiliation, torture, and death of Jesus Christ in a way that I believe can be appreciated not only by the faithful, but by all people of conscience, as an example of what's wrong with our society today.

I begin by noting that the avidity for punishment is something Thomas Paine noted in his "First Principles of Government" is always dangerous to liberty. To punish him for his perceived atheism in later works, bones of the "architect of the American Revolution" were denied burial in the USA on grounds he was an atheist, yet here he nevertheless grounds his principles in a secularized iteration of the Golden Rule:



Crucifixion, or being nailed to a tree or cross, is a deliberately painful agonizing form of torture, specifically designed in Roman Times especially to humiliate, mutilate, dishonor, and lower the social status of the victim. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#R... In the Roman Empire specifically, crucifixion was used for, and usually reserved for, slaves, pirates and other especially-despised persons. Id. Its "relevance" survives to this day not only in some cases of modern crucifixion, but in language, rhetoric and imagery when we speak of "nailing" someone for something.

The "Passion" of Jesus begins prior to being taken into custody in the Garden of Gethsemane, in which Jesus, knowing his path and fate, prays continually and is reported to literally sweat blood.

For centuries, this blood-sweat, unlike the tears of agony, has been either taken on faith or suggested as metaphorical. But is now known to be a real medical event, known to medical science by the term "Hemathidrosis" - a rare phenomenon reported at least 12-14 times in world medical literature and seen specifically in people under tremendous stress and agony. In hemathidrosis, because each sweat gland has a small blood vessel around it, a person actually exudes blood from every sweat gland in their body as a method of perspiration. http://www.antioch.com.sg/article.php?stor... During the night of Gethsemane, Jesus is arrested. Certainly, the scourging, or whipping with metal ends, causes bleeding and more.

The movie Ben-Hur (1959) is reportedly the first showing the nails being driven through Jesus' wrists, rather than his palms, which is the most likely method used, given that nails in most parts of the hand, unless very carefully placed, will not support enough body weight. The Hebrew word for "hand" includes the area of the wrist, the usual place of impalement that will not cause enough blood loss by itself to kill. Of importance to the central crucifixian purposes of torture and humiliation are the signs placed near the victim, and other events like the crown of sharp thorns (in light of the charge "King of the Jews"). Seven phrases or sentences of Jesus are reported.

Yet, people have survived crucifixion for up to 63 hours in more modern reports, and up to six days in ancient reports, so it is not precisely accurate in most cases to say that crucifixion is an immediate cause of death. Usually it is other actions by soldiers or guards both before and after nailing the alleged criminal that hasten and actually cause the death. Often, this is done so that their torture-duty may end. Soldiers grow tired or bored and they break your legs so that in about four to six minutes you smother or asphyxiate -- no longer push up with your legs to gasp for breath.

A medical analysis of the crucifixion story based on the applicable biblical accounts combined with modern medical scientific knowledge is posted for all to see at http://www.konnections.com/Kcundick/crucif... Other medically based accounts can be found here: http://pinakidion.org/archives/medical-acc... Another in rough agreement with the conclusion of this former account is here: http://www.antioch.com.sg/article.php?stor...

Three people were crucified that day, two thieves and Jesus. Jesus had previously declined a drink including wine and myrrh, a mild pain-reliever, thus declining some relief offered by medical science of that day. He also declined the Roman legionnaire's sour wine as well, declining the soldiers' relief or prolongation of torture. The thieves' legs were broken causing death, but it's reported Jesus was already dead at that point. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc... Instead of breaking the legs, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...

The medical reports, sort of like autopsies based on the medical available evidence available in modern times, conclude:

That is, there was an escape of water fluid from the sac surrounding the heart, giving postmortem evidence that Our Lord died not the usual crucifixion death by suffocation, but of heart failure (a broken heart) due to shock and constriction of the heart by fluid in the pericardium. -- Dr. C. Truman Davis at http://www.konnections.com/Kcundick/crucif...

Whether or not you as reader accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ, it seems to me that all persons of conscience can agree, on at least a metaphorical level, that taking upon one's self all the sins of the world, including its tortures and humiliations and denials of human dignity and human rights, are indeed enough to break one's heart.

Enough to cause blood, sweat and tears.

And for any, in the broadest sense, doubting Thomases out there, those wounds were still there eight days later when Jesus said to Thomas "Observe my hands" -- inviting him to feel the wounds in his wrists. Those wounds still exist today, in the body of Jesus for all who believe, and in the victims of torture, and in the hearts of all people of conscience.

It is the dehumanization of things like sheer mockery, or the humiliation dismissed as mere "frat prank", that makes the most horrible crimes imaginable much more readily possible.

The Christian churches would do well to tell the story of Jesus' broken heart, instead of merely repeating that Jesus "bled and died" for our sins. He did not merely bleed to death, hardly anybody who's crucified does. In the final analysis, many who reject the teachings of churches utterly do so because they observe the hands of the church failing to feel the Heart, and know the history that so often teaches that religion has too often been a powerful force for making otherwise good people do horrible things.

GETTING TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER: IT'S THE ONE UNIQUE THING WE ALL HAVE

“The heart is the chief feature of a functioning mind.” (Frank Lloyd Wright)

“A book ought to be an ax to break the frozen sea within us.” (Anton Chekhov)

“I believe there are two journeys which every one of us must make: into our own heart, accepting what we find there, and into the world, accepting it as our home.” (Lillian Smith, “Killers of the Dream” at p. 252).

“Peace is not won by those who fiercely guard their differences but by those who with open minds and hearts seek out connections.” (Katherin Paterson)

“Everyone can be great … because anybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't to make your subject and verb agree. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.” (Martin Luther King, Jr.)

“And I always have to stop and try to define the meaning of love in this area. And interestingly enough, Greek philosophy comes to our aid in this point. Agape {love} is more than friendship, agape is not something affectionate, agape is understanding, creative redemptive goodwill to all men. It is an overflowing love which seeks nothing in return. Theologians would say that it is the love of God operating in the human heart. When one rises to this level, He loves men not because he likes them, but he loves every man because GOD loves him.” (Martin Luther King, Jr.)

Speaking about being a published author to a combined class of first and third graders that included my own two children, I urged them not to “write about what you know” but to write about what’s in your heart, because if it’s in your heart, then you will KNOW it. I told them they could, if they wished, learn everything I’ve ever learned if they put their minds to it, but the one unique and irreplaceable addition they can make in the world is sharing with others what they have in their hearts.

One’s heart, or one’s soul if you prefer to think of it that way, is the one unique contribution all of us can make in the world, and that nobody else can do FOR us.

On every level, we must get to the heart of the matter, or else we perish in our uniqueness if not in our physical life, and nobody will remember our name. True heart doesn’t simply turn tables and drive the stake through evil. It joins hands together instead. Then we lift each other up -- and we can all breathe free once again.

Have a heart-filled holiday!