Questions of Sovereignty

Today, I'm going to raise some questions concerning the concept of personal sovereignty and discuss these in terms of:

• vote selling;

• Chicago's 75-year parking deal, in reference to the 99-year lease of Chinese lands to the United Kingdom;

• several unions promising not to sue;

• the Chicago Teachers' Union's potential to be a game changer in Chicago.

I define personal sovereignty as that degree of personal freedom of action which an individual possesses and which cannot be infringed upon by the state. In the United States, personal sovereignty - while not using those words - is enshrined in the Preamble of the US Constitution as well as in the Bill of Rights, especially in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. These are stated, respectively, as highlighted below:

• "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."  The Preamble doesn't say, "We the states of the United States...," or "We the federal government of the United States." The concept of something that transcends state and federal authority is immediately introduced in the Constitution. In fact, "We the People" transcends the Constitution itself, since this sentence strongly implies that if "We the People" wanted to form an even more "perfect union" than the one created by this Constitution, We could do so. Interestingly enough, this Constitution fails to provide any mechanism for doing so. But that's not important: Where there's a will, there's a way.

• "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Not even the Constitution, due to failure to enumerate, can serve to limit the rights "retained by the people" - "retained" by virtue of the people's sovereignty, as opposed to the sovereignty of the United States and the individual states.

• "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This language acknowledges an entity ("the people") that has "powers" and an existence of its own that can sit at the bargaining table as an equal to the states and central government.

The problem, of course, lies in the fact that the Supreme Court has seized the power to interpret the Constitution, which could render We-the-People helpless should it decide to ignore our rights.

Vote Selling

I have the right to own property, which means I can sell any property I own. I have the right to vote, but...I can't sell my vote to the highest bidder. Why not? Why should a person's vote be held in any esteem greater than that of other forms of property owned by that person? Some will claim that vote selling is immoral. Please. If someone were to conclude that it doesn't really matter who gets his vote since the status quo will prevail no matter what, it would seem to be immoral to deny that person the chance to at least make a couple of bucks by selling his vote.

Efforts to control the vote have existed in this country since the very beginning when only people (men only) who owned property could vote. Since then, the privilege has been granted to increasing categories of citizens. I even hesitate to call voting a "right" since it seems more like a privilege granted by legislatures than anything God-given.

I broach this subject:

• to claim more freedom of action for individuals, which should be their birth right in the first place, and

• to highlight my belief that we should have as few laws as possible that restrict our ability to engage in a wide variety of contracts and behaviors - which should include the right to contract for same-sex and polygamous marriages.

Chicago's 75-year parking meter deal

QUOTE:

Chicago Parking Meters LLC rolled us once. In 2008, the company struck a deal with Mayor Richard Daley and a compliant City Council that gave it control of meter revenue for 75 years in exchange for what's now universally recognized as an astonishingly paltry one-time payment of $1.15 billion.
:UNQUOTE [source: article by Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune, dated May 26, 2013]

Most of that $1.15 billion has already been spent, which leaves us without the benefit of 70-years' of parking meter revenue which could have paid for a lot more than $1.15 billion in city projects. Former mayor Richard M. Daley should be in jail for his leading role in this travesty.

I don't understand how a city gets to sell off part of its sovereignty. Could Hawaii sell off one of its islands for 75-years, while only technically holding on to its sovereign claim to that land, in order to serve as a naval base for China? How does a current group of leaders have the right to make such a deal so far into the future, a future in which those not-yet-born citizens had their birthright sold out from under them before they had a chance to say "no?" I think a very potent lawsuit could be founded on this basis. Yes, it would most likely get tossed by a Democratic party judge, but could serve as a rallying point even in failure.

The only reason Chicago's voters don't openly rebel and throw out the bums is, this is a one-party town in which political power is very tightly controlled. Not to mention the media which, except in a few rare  instances, can't say enough good things about (especially) the mayor. In spite of the de facto powerlessness of Chicago's voters, they still possess sufficient personal sovereignty to justify voiding this contract made not in their best interests. The question becomes: How to invoke their sovereignty to not only void this deal but to oust from power those who supported it?

A 99-year UK lease compares with Chicago's 75-year lease

QUOTE:

Under the convention the territories north of what is now Boundary Street and south of the Sham Chun River, and the surrounding islands, later known as the "New Territories" were leased to the United Kingdom for 99 years rent-free[1], expiring on 30 June 1997, and became part of the crown colony of Hong Kong.[3]  Claude MacDonald, the British representative during the convention, picked a 99-year lease because he thought it was "as good as forever."[4]

:UNQUOTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Extension_of_Hong_Kong_Territory

This 99-year lease was nothing more than an imperialist's territorial grab, for I feel the UK never intended to return that land to China. However, political fortunes have reversed since the late 1800s. No longer does the sun never set on the British Empire. And the sun may yet come to never set on an empire which China might attempt to establish.

The 75-year parking meter deal in Chicago is comparable in terms of its attempted denial of sovereignty.

Several unions promise not to sue

QUOTE:
A union-backed plan to reform the worst-funded state pension system in the United States will be introduced in the Illinois Senate...

John Cullerton...said on [Monday, May 6, 2013] he plans to introduce the new bill endorsed by public labor unions and bring it to a vote by the full Senate on Thursday.

... The unions had vowed to sue over the rival bill narrowly passed by the Democrat-controlled House last Thursday.

"When this bill is passed, they're not going to sue," Cullerton told reporters...

Cullerton estimated the Senate measure could save the state about $46 billion over 30 years, though he acknowledged the projected savings could rise or fall, depending on choices people make among options offered by the bill [I will comment on this below].

By giving the state's public-sector workers a choice in how their pension and health benefits are allocated, the bill seeks to avoid [an Illinois state] constitutional prohibition against reduction in benefits promised to public sector workers.

UNQUOTE: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/07/usa-illinois-pensions-idUSL2N0DN1QX20130507

Cullerton's plan may be "union-backed" and endorsed by "public labor unions," but I'm sure this was not done by the formal process of collective bargaining nor rendered into a written, contractual form. I'm also sure the unions could change their minds and sue after all. But even if they didn't sue, who's to say that individual union members couldn't? Answer: A judge will summarily dismiss such a suit by ruling that individual union members don't have standing to sue; that only their unions do.

And that's where I must object: A union is supposed to represent its members but not exclusively - members should be able to represent themselves by virtue of their personal sovereignty. However, institutions (like the state legislature) much prefer to deal with other institutions (like labor unions), shutting out individuals as often as possible. An individual should be able to sue, not based on any violation of a written labor-mangement agreement (for in this case, there is none), but on a violation of the state's constitution. That document clearly states:

"Article XIII, SECTION 5. PENSION AND RETIREMENT RIGHTS Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired."

Section 5 dovetails nicely with my concerns as indicated in the yellowed highlight above. If Illinois can save up to $46 billion over 30 years based on "choices" made by members as offered in this bill, that means (quite simply) that Section 5's prohibition against diminishing pension benefits is being violated. And it doesn't matter if "choice" is involved, since (constitutionally speaking) benefits would be reduced to the tune of that $46 billion. And Section 5 doesn't give any wiggle-room by allowing for "choices" (coerced ones at that) to be made according to the terms of a statute.

As for why the unions would go along with this: frankly, I don't care. There are times when a union will act according to its own agenda, which isn't necessarily rank-and-file friendly.

There was a time when unions had their place, but I draw a line when their place becomes greater by means of diminishing or eliminating the place individuals should have, especially in courts of law. As a closing thought here, I offer a reform: Citizen courts should replace judges in the ability to issue binding verdicts. Especially since it happens too often that judges are far more interested in denying access to any hearing which considers the merits of a case, especially by using the excuse that a suing party doesn't have standing. That becomes just another excuse to deny personal sovereignty.

Chicago Teachers' Union v. Mayor Rahm "the Golem" Emanuel

The CTU has floated the idea of finding a candidate to support who will try to unseat Mayor Emanuel in the next election. I would suggest they expand that strategy by announcing: "The CTU wants to support an independent candidate for mayor, and other independents for the 50-seat city council so as to eliminate the rubber-stamp nature of that body."

CTU can't act alone in this, since the Mayor and his council allies would be quick to accuse them of trying to win elections for the sole purpose of advancing this union's interests. The problem is, the CTU is one of the few independent institutions of sufficient size (manpower and financial muscle) which can effectively challenge the city's one-party establishment. However, there are possible allies - including university professors who could offer themselves as candidates. There are always a fair number of them who are in between positions, retired, or able (should they win) to take sabbaticals or reduced academic workloads in order to serve. Another potential source of candidates and supporters lies in Chicago's sizable retirement community.

Not to mention: Aldermanic pay is over $100,000 dollars per year - not bad for a virtually part-time job.

There are many Chicagoans like myself who are independents or are Democrats who are sick and tired of how this one-party town is run by a cabal of greedy, connected men who treat this city like a cash cow. CTU could challenge them but must avoid the appearance of seeking candidates who would be nothing more than union puppets. This can be done and should be - in the name of trying to establish in at least one little corner of the USA a greater degree of personal sovereignty than generally exists in the rest of the country.

Who knows? This might be the beginning of a trend.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance by those brave enough to insist they still have personal sovereignty."

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

The Golem of Chicago: Rahm Emanuel

Is Rahm Emanuel a golem?

Short answer? Yes, definitely. I will expand on my answer, and then talk about certain specific Chicago issues which involve this golem.

I will start by invoking, in Dubya's infamous words, "my instincts."

QUOTE [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html ]

''I was in the Oval Office a few months after we swept into Baghdad,'' [Joe Biden] began, ''and I was telling the president of my many concerns'' -- concerns about growing problems winning the peace, the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and problems securing the oil fields. Bush, Biden recalled, just looked at him, unflappably sure that the United States was on the right course and that all was well. '''Mr. President,' I finally said, 'How can you be so sure when you know you don't know the facts?'''

Biden said that Bush stood up and put his hand on the senator's shoulder. ''My instincts,'' he said. ''My instincts.''

:UNQUOTE.

RE: The highlighted part above:

In the case of the golem Rahm Emanuel, I do know the facts. But not in any way that would logically convince others, satisfy a court of law or any rabbinical court imaginable. So, if you want to proceed to read this, humor me, indulge me, but most of all, keep an open mind.

What was a Golem?

Maybe I should have headed this section with these words instead: "What was a golem and what has he evolved to in this modern age?" The following material, referenced by Footnote 1, attempts to answer both questions with the original wikipedia text addressing "What was a Golem?" My comments, inserted as paragraphs, the first words of which are highlighted in green, address the second question as well as include thought-provoking observations.

QUOTE (see Footnote 1):

In Jewish folklore, a ''golem'' is an animated anthropomorphic being, created entirely from inanimate matter. The word ''golem'' occurs once in the Bible in Psalms 139:16, meaning "unshaped form", connoting the unfinished human being before God’s eyes.

Here's Psalms 139:16, as indicated in my Footnote 2: "Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed."

Keeping in mind that these words were directed by the psalmist (speaking of himself!) to God, it's hard to see how the folklore (and rabbinical commentary!) which follows could have arisen. [NOTE: I'm not clear on which "book" the psalmist is referring to.]

The most famous golem narrative involves Judah Loew ben Bezalel, the late16th-century rabbi of Prague. There are many tales differing on how the Golem was brought to life and afterwards controlled. Similarly, it is often used today as a metaphor for a brainless lunk or entity who serves man under controlled conditions but is hostile to him under others.

Why should the Golem, created by man and therefore inferior to any human created by God, ever become "hostile to him?" When man creates a golem, is there a built-in resentment in the created entity? If so, that could be said to parallel the built-in resentment which exists toward God by the humans made by that God. Interesting.

In the Talmud, Adam was initially created as a golem when his dust was "kneaded into a shapeless husk." Like Adam, all golems are created from mud.

Obviously, some liquid had to be added to "his dust" in order to obtain the mud which was "kneaded." Was this liquid merely water or tears of joy from God's eyes?

They were a creation of those who were very holy and close to God. A very holy person was one who strove to approach God, and in that pursuit would gain some of God's wisdom and power. One of these powers was the creation of life. However, no matter how holy a person became, a being created by that person would be but a shadow of one created by God.

Why would any such holy person seek to imitate God so badly? How would they "gain some of God's...power" by merely striving to approach God? Wouldn't anything they'd gain be solely obtained by the grace of God, irrelevant of their striving? Wouldn't these holy ones be far holier by worshipping God, keeping his Law, and ministering to his creations (among them, other humans) rather than trying to create lifeforms (and grossly inferior ones at that) which (as you'll see below) can be malevolent?

Early on, it was noted that the main disability of the golem was its inability to speak.

This is how the modern golem is different: He can speak, quite fluently in some cases. Since it's apparently easy to create a golem (see below), maybe they can be made to speak by means of appeals to the Prince of Lies. So that would make the Rahm Golem a hybrid - initially created by means allowed by God but "improved" with a little help from the Devil. It is said: Politics make strange bedfellows. Indeed!

Indeed, the modern Golem can even be made far more handsome (better sculptors of "mud"?) than their freakish looking predecessors.

Rav Zeira said [to a golem], "You were created by the magicians; return to your dust."

But Rav, isn't it claimed that these "magicians" of which you speak are "very holy and close to God?" If so, then why should the golem commit suicide by returning to his dust?

During the Middle Ages, passages from the ''Sefer Yetzirah" (''Book of Creation'') were studied as a means to attain the mystical ability to create and animate a golem.

Wait a minute. I thought the ability to create a golem wasn't mystical but was instead a matter of a person becoming "very holy and close to God." Can merely studying passages as one studies magical recipes allow one to create a golem or must one, instead, be very holy and close to God?

It was believed that golems could be activated by an ecstatic experience induced by the ritualistic use of various letters of the Hebrew Alphabet forming a "'shem'' (any one of the Names of God in Judaism). The ''shem'' was written on a piece of paper and inserted either in the mouth or in the forehead of the golem, thus bringing it into life and action.

That last sentence indicates a very crude approach. For if these holy men who were so close to God had obtained a share of God's power, why would writing on a piece of paper and stuffing it into an inanimate mouth be necessary? Wouldn't the sheer force of their will be sufficient to create the golem, in much the same way as the sheer force of God's will created man? This "paper" and ritual business sound like conditions mandated by God so that He, in reality, creates the golem after the "holy" ones follow His protocols for doing so. In other words, the golem is still God's creation and the "holy" ones deceive themselves thinking they were directly responsible.

A Polish Kabbalist, writing in about 1630–1650, reported the creation of a golem by Rabbi Eliyahu thus: "And I have heard, in a certain and explicit way, from several respectable persons that one man [living] close to our time, whose name is R. Eliyahu, the master of the name, who made a creature out of matter [Heb. 'Golem'] and it performed hard work for him, for a long period, and the name of 'emet' was hanging upon his neck, until he finally removed it for a certain reason, the name from his neck, and it turned to dust."

Apparently this R. Eliyahu created a slave. What kind of a holy man creates a being only to labor for him, while not receiving his kindness and wise instruction?

Rabbi Jacob Emden (d.1776) elaborated on the story in a book published in 1748: "As an aside, I’ll mention here what I heard from my father’s holy mouth regarding the Golem created by his ancestor, the Gaon R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem of blessed memory. When the Gaon saw that the Golem was growing larger and larger, he feared that the Golem would destroy the universe. He then removed the Holy Name that was embedded on his forehead, thus causing him to disintegrate and return to dust."

This Gaon was guilty of having a massive ego. For how could anything he'd create "destroy the universe," which was made by God and is His creation?

The most famous golem narrative involves Judah Loew ben Bezalel, the late 16th century rabbi of Prague, also known as the Maharal, who reportedly created a golem to defend the Prague ghetto from antisemitic attacks.

There was a time when pious Jews would pray to God for protection - which was granted - instead of taking matters into their own hands. Why did Judah Loew ben Bezalel abandon prayer?

Depending on the version of the legend, the Jews in Prague were to be either expelled or killed under the rule of Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor. To protect the Jewish community, the rabbi constructed the Golem out of clay from the banks of the Vltava river, and brought it to life through rituals and Hebrew incantations.  It was said that [this Golem] could make himself invisible and summon spirits from the dead.

So a Golem can make himself invisible and, yet, is a creature inferior to any that God could make even though His creatures can't become invisible or summon spirits from the dead? These two traits are, apparently, due to some kind of evolution in Golem creational technology. The modern Golem makers have become quite sophisticated indeed.

Some strictly orthodox Jews believe that the Maharal did actually create a golem. Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (the last Rebbe of Lubavitch) wrote that his father-in-law, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn, told him that he saw the remains of the Golem in the attic of Alt-Neu Shul.

Only "some strictly orthodox Jews" believe this? I think Schneersohn was lying about what he saw - but found it useful to do so.

There is a similar tradition relating to the Vilna Gaon (1720–1797). Rabbi Chaim Volozhin (Lithuania 1749–1821) reports that he once presented to his teacher, the Vilna Gaon, ten different versions of a certain passage in the ''Sefer Yetzira'' and asked the Gaon to determine the correct text. The Gaon immediately identified one version as the accurate rendition of the passage. The amazed student then commented to his teacher that, with such clarity, he should easily be able to create a live human.

Why shouldn't the Gaon be able to easily pass such a test, which could be passed by anyone with a mind for detail? How does this (easily) "amazed student" jump to the conclusion that this feat of memory means he should "easily be able to create a live human." I'm surprised no one questions this nonsense.

The Gaon affirmed Rabbi Chaim’s assertion, and said that he once began to create a person when he was a child, under the age of 13, but during the process he received a sign from Heaven ordering him to desist because of his tender age.

So it would have been okay, after his Bar Mitzvah, to create a person because he no longer would be of a tender age and would be, under Jewish tradition, a man?

The Vilna Gaon wrote an extensive commentary on the ''Sefer Yetzira'', in which it is said that he had tried to create a Golem to fight the power of evil at the Gates of Jerusalem. As far as we know, the Vilna Gaon is the only rabbi who has actually claimed that he tried to create a Golem; all such stories about other rabbis were told after their time.

It was not necessary for the Vilna Gaon to create a Golem to fight the power of evil at the Gates of Jerusalem. God would have been more than equal to the task.

The existence of a golem is sometimes a mixed blessing. Golems are not intelligent, and if commanded to perform a task, they will perform the instructions literally. In many depictions Golems are inherently perfectly obedient.

I don't buy the part about Golems not being intelligent. In order to perform a task, they have to have some degree of intelligence. If the instructions provided are in sufficient detail - which we've learned to do as our computer programming skills have become more profound - then the "perfectly obedient" golem,  much like the perfectly obedient computer, will perform instructions not only literally but with the appearance of great underlying intelligence.

:UNQUOTE.

So how does all this apply to Rahm?

The anonymous powers who really control our politics need frontmen - mouthpieces to do their deeds. But they've reached a degree of sophistication beyond stuffing pieces of paper bearing God's name into mouths of clay. They've gone beyond being holy ones close to God to ones who fail to believe in God at all and think their prominence depends on a variety of techniques which elevate them to a God-like level.

The modern Golem doesn't come in one crude, clumsy form. He is "born" and goes through growth development stages as would any human. This is because he has to be made to fit in. The older model of a lumbering, clumsy creature that could summon the spirits of the dead and become invisible was no longer suitable for modern needs. For those needs involve, not the need for crude slave labor or physical defense of an embattled community,  gaining political control in order to push an agenda.

But the modern Golem Rahm Emanuel still shares some of the traits of the old. He is aggressive, aberrational in behavior to the point of being mentally disturbed, and totally dedicated to his programming. And worst of all? He is not religious - but master-dedicated instead and doesn't even know he's a Golem.

Why Chicago is perfect for Rahm as Mayor

Rahm Emanuel was groomed very early on to launch his ultimate bid for the US presidency by first becoming mayor of Chicago, a city with a long history of strong mayor v. weak city council government. After Mayor Daley was ordered to retire, the path was cleared for Rahm's ascendancy. Personally, I don't believe he won the 50% of the vote necessary to avoid a runoff in the election. And even if he did, those who count the votes had some illicit ones set aside just in case the vote turned out to be too close.

So Rahm Emanuel is in a perfect position in a not-so-perfect environment. In order to run for the presidency, he'll have to at least generate the illusion that he was a good mayor able to turn things around in this town. But that's all that will be needed - an illusion. Trying to beat down his main opponent - the Chicago Teachers' Union - by privatizing more schools and closing 50 public ones will aid his cause. That will gain him points from people who think public service unions are too strong and government is too (inefficiently) involved in education.

And it won't matter that Rahm, who knows nothing of educational reform, won't be able to point to a better educated youth as his legacy. He'll merely claim that the fruits of his reforms are pending, while encouraging us to look at how much money we saved by closing all those schools.

A Basketball facility for DePaul University

Rahm Emanuel, in his quest to appear as a stimulator of Chicago's economy, proposed a new facility which will house DePaul's basketball games and double as a convention facility for clients needing a facility smaller (and presumably cheaper) than nearby McCormick Place.

For one thing, DePaul doesn't need a new basketball court. The Chicago Bulls have offered to let the Blue Demons play in their house rent free. For another, this whole idea of needing extra convention space is a myth. Vendors will make increasing use of virtual conventioning online to introduce their wares in an interactive, cheaper, and convenient manner to clients.

So why does Rahm want this new facility? Speculation is that it will be able to house concerts which will increase the attractiveness of a gambling casino which he hopes will be approved by the state legislature.

About that casino

Mayor Emanuel wants to have total control over any Chicago-based gambling house. It remains to be seen if Governor Quinn will oppose this by insisting on transparency and sufficient oversight. He could use his amendatory veto power over any legislation passed by the Illinois congress, which could then approve such a casino but only under the conditions listed in his veto. And he might well try to do that, though I doubt it. I'm convinced the congress will be poised to override his veto and give Rahm the casino he so desperately yearns for, making any such cautionary approach by Quinn a moot point.

Once the casino is in place with the attendant hoopla and lack of oversight, uncountable and unaccountable millions will start to pour into the mayor's coffers. And with money comes the ability to buy off opponents and market one's agenda.

About the proposed change in Chicago's Parking Meter deal

This quote shows the power of Chicago's mayor and the uselessness of the City Council;

QUOTE [Footnote 3]:

[Chicago aldermen], we have some questions for you [about the proposed revision of the] parking meter contract that was announced 19 days ago.

Have you seen an audited financial statement yet? Have you confirmed what this will really cost people who park in the city? Have you read every line of the 350-plus-page revised agreement?

Didn't think so.

A group of 24 [out of 50] Chicago aldermen signed onto a press release supporting the agreement's promise of free parking on Sundays. The aldermen professed their unbridled enthusiasm just one day after they received a copy of the contract. Sure, they had been briefed by the major's staff. But they didn't see the new contract language on paper until the day before they gave a thumbs-up.

[and]

One more time: The disastrous 2008 parking meter deal was announced on a Tuesday, passed out of committee on Wednesday and approved by the full council on Thursday. In less than three days, the council managed to approved one of the dumbest giveaways in city history. Aldermen, pressured by [Mayor] Daley allowed a private company, Chicago Parking Meters LLC, to pay $1.2 billion up front to take over the city's parking meters, a deal that will pay itself off over and over - and possibly over - during the next 71 years of the contract.

:UNQUOTE.

I'm convinced that Mayor Daley was paid off by the LLC to foist this incredibly bad deal off on Chicago's citizens. I'm also convinced that Golem Rahm is similarly being paid off. For why would a company that got such a great deal from the first mayor be willing to negotiate a new deal? The true irony of all this, of course, is that Chicago is full of lawyers and finance people who could efficiently analyze this new contract for pitfalls. But they won't. Not a single one. For to do so might reveal details embarrassing to the mayor. And nobody does that to Rahm Emanuel - nobody who cares about career advancement...or living a good long life.

On a more wistful note

I remember reading a headline in a Chicago newspaper using this coined term - "Rahm bomb." That was in reference to Rahm having been momentarily barred from being on the ballot for mayor. However, I got the little joke behind the headline, which was in reference to rambam (pronounced same as "Rahm bomb"). This was another name for the famous 12th century rabbi and physician, Maimonides, of whom Wikipedia has this to say:

"Nevertheless, he was posthumously acknowledged to be one of the foremost rabbinical arbiters and philosophers in Jewish history, his copious work comprising a cornerstone of Jewish scholarship."

I'm sad to report that our very own Rahm Bomb is nothing like the noble spirit of Maimonides. For that's what the 12th century had, while we only have the spectre of an arrogant, self-posturing little prick.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (2008 and 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party

"Admittedly, my track record on predictions is pretty spotty - but I'll offer one anyway. Hillary Clinton won't run for president in 2016 - but Rahm Emanuel will."

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnotes

Footnote 1: This link is the source of the text I quoted, though I took substantial liberties by not using ellipsis marks or other indicators to show missing text and I quote some of the material out of order - none of which, however, alters the underlying meaning of the original wording:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem

Footnote 2: This link provides an interesting analysis of 139:16:
http://www.crivoice.org/psa139.html


Footnote 3: Selected quotes above are from this link:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-17/opinion/ct-edit-meters-20130517_1_meter-deal-chicago-parking-meters-llc-aldermen

Bomb them with flowers

Today, I will revisit the 9/11 attack in terms of what we should have done. I'll also offer some reflections inspired by a new building located in NYC - designated as One World Trade Center.

Bomb them with flowers

I remember clearly what I was doing on September 11, 2001 - who doesn't? An ordinary morning of a beautiful Chicago day was lazily unfolding when one of my roommates shouted upstairs to me, "Planes crashed into two buildings in New York." Then the part about suspected terrorism was added. My very first thought - "Wow, the Greens have gone too far this time." Seriously. Not even a hint of possible Middle Eastern retribution crossed my mind. Nor did it occur to me that the Bush administration was somehow at least indirectly involved in enabling these attacks which, by the way, I happen to believe.

In the uncertain weeks that followed, the nation was wondering what our President was going to do. It didn't take me as long to decide what I would have done had I been in Bush's shoes:

I would have loaded up a sizable fleet of our aircraft with a huge payload of flowers and humanitarian aid, and then dropped/parachuted these into Afghanistan - the hiding place of Osama bin Laden. That's right, I would have "bombed" them with flowers. And I had posted this plan on the now-defunct website Gaia, a plan that was met with universal derision at the time.

But think about it.

Had the United States responded in such an atypical and unexpected fashion, we wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. We wouldn't have created millions of terrorist sympathizers due to our overkill. There wouldn't have been the resulting scandals at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. And we would have been spared the infamous White House torture memos.

Not on my watch, had I been President.

The whole world expected President Bush to do something - the words "shock and awe" coming to mind. Politically, I suppose he had to strike the pose of one of the terrible horsemen of the Apocalypse - at least to get his base behind him. At most? To get us to spend a lot of money for "defense" and reduce our civil liberties. Nothing gets a nation behind you faster than a state of war. Duly noted - and the rest was history.

I dispute those who claim that our massive retaliation was worth it. We lost Iraq, though the final nails haven't been driven into that coffin quite yet. We will lose Afghanistan shortly after we pull out in 2014. That loss will happen more quickly than in Vietnam after we withdrew our combat forces there. It's funny, though, isn't it? Nobody talks about Vietnam much any more. We have a way of moving on, for better or worse.

My decision to bomb them with flowers didn't have anything to do with turning the other cheek. I am a Buddhist, not a Christian, so I would have apologized for our role in whatever motivated those who destroyed the World Trade Center buildings. A friend of mine responded to that with, "I don't want to hear anything about how any of this was our fault." The problem is - a large part of this was our fault. Our actions - for instance, the CIA-backed coup in Iran in 1953 - had consequences. Not to mention: our blind obedience to Israel surely didn't go unnoticed by the Muslim man in the street. And there were other transgressions - I know the litany.

It takes a certain bigness of spirit to apologize - and to show restraint. When the puny little guy feebly kicks a bully on the playground, for no reason apparent at the time, onlookers expect some kind of reaction. Usually, the other kids encircle these two, expecting (yea, encouraging) a fight. But those spectators would quickly sicken to watch the bully mercilessly pound the weakling into the ground in an unfettered, sustained flurry of fists, kicks, eye gouges, and groin kneeings. Not to mention when the bully pulls out an iron pipe and beats the now defenseless kid's head in.

Bombing them with flowers would have been my attempt to show the world another way. The Cold War was over, so the concept of overkill should have died with it. Would my approach have resulted in bin Laden being punished for his deeds? That's a trick question, since I believe he would have been punished - though perhaps only in a future incarnation due to the merciless machinations of karma - even if we never got our hands on him. But even if the US had managed to put him on trial and found him guilty, I would have issued a presidential order that he not be executed.

No!  I do not believe in the death penalty under any circumstances.

In fact, I wouldn't have even cared if we didn't managed to kill or capture bin Laden. I know, I know. The blood of 3,000 Americans must be avenged, or so say the multitude. But even better? Making a holy gesture that could go a long way toward assuring that far more lives - including those of innocent civilians we would end up calling "collateral damage" - wouldn't be lost.

Anyway, it was a thought.

One World, and the One World Trade Center

I was struck by the irony of naming that recently-completed structure "One World Trade Center" instead of, as informally called by many, the "Freedom Tower." We would have done better to move on from the original naming scheme in existence in 2001. Other buildings in the reconstructed WTC complex could be named Heroes' Tower, Free Enterprise Tower, Merciful Place, Hallowed Ground, etc. But, no, we opt to repeat past patterns.

The irony I mentioned lies in stripping away the "Freedom" designation and replacing it with a One World designation. It's the tallest building in the Western hemisphere - with a height of 1776 symbolic feet. But instead of dedicating it to freedom, we dedicated it to the concept of "One World." Many might claim, "Not so, it's only an address - as in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue." I'm not so sure, especially since the alternative of "Freedom Tower" had been bandied about for so long. Anyway, I can't get over the hubris of having named that complex The World Trade Center over a decade ago.

There are a lot of USA citizens who fear the loss of sovereignty which the New World Order (that is, One World) could potentially bring about. But a lot of that concern has to do with "We don't like anyone telling us what to do." That is, they want us to be in a position to be able to resist any decision which might be good for the rest of the world but which might not be so good for the United States. That's what it really boils down to, although the One World concept is entrenching itself more and more surely as each day passes.

We will have a New World Order one way or another - either directly obvious or indirectly controlling. The real question is, what kind of New World Order do we want?

I don't favor such an Order that is corporate- or elitist- centric. Nor one that favors national sovereignties. I believe the path to an ideal NWO lies in the concept of Cross-Sectional Representation as a governance model (see Footnote One). And that would involve integration of the world's militaries under one command that doesn't owe allegiance to any particular nation state.

From Wikipedia

The following quotes are all from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_World_Trade_Center .

I intersperse my comments with these quotes.

QUOTE:  In 2009, the Port Authority changed the official title of the building from "Freedom Tower" to "One World Trade Center," stating that this name was the "easiest for people to identify with."  :UNQUOTE.

COMMENT:

I don't understand how anyone would identify more easily with WTC 1 than Freedom Tower. As far as I'm concerned, the Port Authority symbolically took away our freedom in order to foist upon us their version of One World. The stated reason is a lie; there are reasons behind names - and not always good ones.


QUOTE:  After the changes in the design of One World Trade Center's spire were revealed in May 2012, questions have been raised as to whether the 408-foot (124 m) structure will still qualify as a spire and thus be included in the building's official architectural height. As the building's spire is not enclosed in a radome as originally planned, it may instead be classified as a simple antenna which, according to the CTBUH, is not included in a building's official height. :UNQUOTE.

COMMENT:

RE: The yellowed highlight above.

The Port Authority saved $20 million by not constructing this radome. Which is a paltry savings indeed, given the reported $3.8 billion cost for this new WTC 1. The point? By saving $20 million, the PA ran the very real (and perhaps intended) risk of losing bragging rights that this building is 1776 feet in height - 1776 being the year, of course, when the USA's Declaration of Independence was signed.


QUOTE:  Without the inclusion of the antenna mast, One World Trade Center's official height would be its roof height of 1,368 feet (417 m), making it the third-tallest building in the United States, behind the Willis Tower and Trump International Hotel & Tower, both located in Chicago. ... One World Trade Center's developers have disputed the claim that the spire should be reclassified as an antenna following the redesign, with Port Authority spokesman Steve Coleman reiterating that "One World Trade Center will be the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere." The CTBUH announced that it would wait to make its final decision as to whether or not the redesigned spire would count towards the building's official height. :UNQUOTE.

COMMENT:

RE: The yellowed highlight above.

What's to wait for? If the CTBUH decides that the antenna should count, then any reference to 1776 as WTC 1's height becomes a lie. Is that what we want?

That would be about as bad as the lie propagated about Neil Armstrong's first words uttered when he became the first man to stand on the moon. What he actually said - and what the whole world heard - was, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." However, instead of admitting his mistake (heaven forbid), he decided to lie, claiming he'd meant to say, "That's one small step for a man...." His "a" allegedly got lost in static. However, anyone listening to this would realize there was no time (static or not) for the "a" to have really been there.

But you know how it goes: If a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes gospel. We've simply got to change our religion in this regard.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party

"Why is it that we are so often tempted to lie when, almost invariably, no good comes of it?"

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com


Footnote One: Go to this link and scroll down to the heading "The way out: CSR (Cross-Sectional Representation) for a description of CSR, which is also featured on other posts on this blog: http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/01/ultimate-peace-candidate.html

SCOTUS's take on Freedom of Information

Introduction

The US Supreme Court rendered a decision recently in the case of McBurney et al v. Young et al. This case piqued my interest for two reasons:

• It's exceedingly rare for SCOTUS to render a unanimous verdict;

• The High Court makes a questionable contribution to the field of law dealing with the right of the public to access documents under government control - under what are called Freedom of Information laws.

This decision adds fuel to my ongoing arguments in support of a Constitutional Convention aimed at not merely amending that document, but completely replacing it.  I hope to prove this point by means of the following analysis of selected portions of the High Court's decision. Even though it can be daunting for the average layperson, such as myself, to tackle the language of a Supreme Court decision, I believe the results (which follow) will show it's at least worth while to try.


The Gist of the Matter

McBurney and Hurlbert each filed separate and unrelated requests for information available under the terms of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA). This Act details the types of information controlled by that state which may be obtained by Virginia's citizens, and under what circumstances. However, since neither of these parties is a Virginia citizen, the state denied their requests. Appeals to the federal judicial system followed, based on arguments that such denials violated certain provisions of the US Constitution.

SCOTUS decided to hear this case because the Third Circuit Court had struck down a Delaware FOIA law which insisted on providing information to Delaware's citizens only. So, even though SCOTUS managed a unanimous verdict, there were grounds for concern by a lower court.

For your convenience, at the end of my article are three footnotes which link to pertinent sources. Footnote One connects to the actual decision as posted on the Supreme Court's website. Footnote Two  provides a reasonable and brief summary of what transpired. Footnote Three expresses the concerns of groups dedicated to transparency in government.


What is a Syllabus?

In some of my quoted material below, I refer to a "syllabus" mentioned in Footnote One, which states:


QUOTE:

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

:UNQUOTE.

Even though the "syllabus" is offered with a disclaimer, you may be reasonably assured that it's an accurate reflection of the "opinion of the Court." At least, I have found that to be the case upon scrolling down to read that opinion as delivered by Justice Alito.


In the matter of Hurlbert's complaint

QUOTE [from Alito's opinion in Footnote One]:

Hurlbert is the sole proprietor of Sage Information Services, a business that requests real estate tax records on clients’ behalf from state and local governments across the United States. In 2008, Hurlbert was hired by a land/title company to obtain real estate tax records for properties in Henrico County, Virginia. He filed a Virginia FOIA request for the documents with the Henrico County Real Estate Assessor’s Office, but his request was denied because he was not a Virginia citizen.

[and]

Henrico County, from which Hurlbert sought real estate tax assessments, follows this practice [of posting documents on-line] as does almost every other county in the Commonwealth. Requiring noncitizens to conduct a few minutes of Internet research in lieu of using a relatively cumbersome state FOIA process cannot be said to impose any significant burden on noncitizens’ ability to own or transfer property in Virginia.

:UNQUOTE.

Regarding my highlight above: "Requiring noncitizens to conduct a few minutes of Internet research..." I suspect it's not quite as easy as conducting "a few minutes of Internet research." If it were, then Hurlbert unnecessarily went through a lot of time, trouble, and expense to pursue this case all the way to the Supreme Court. As a practical businessman, Hurlbert would surely have done as Alito suggested had his need for information been that easy to fulfill.

I have to wonder how Internet savvy Alito must be to make such a claim. It's never been my experience, when dealing with government websites, to obtain information in "a few minutes."

QUOTE [from the Syllabus section of Footnote One]:

Virginia’s FOIA does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. The “common thread” among this Court’s dormant Commerce Clause cases is that “the State interfered with the natural functioning of the interstate market either through prohibition or through burdensome regulation.” ...Virginia’s FOIA, by contrast, neither prohibits access to an interstate market nor imposes burdensome regulation on that market. Accordingly, this is not properly viewed as a dormant Commerce Clause case.

:UNQUOTE.

I have to disagree - the State did interfere by means of an unreasonable regulation which impeded the operation of Hurlbert's interstate enterprise. I cite two reasons:

• Any cost incurred by Virginia in complying with this request would have been borne by Hurlbert;

• Hurlbert could have exercised the option of arranging for a Virginia citizen to request this information for him. Of course, he would have most likely had to pay that citizen which, to me, sounds like he's being unreasonably burdened by the time and expense of making such an arrangement. Is that the proper function of state government, to throw up obstacles to the smooth functioning of interstate commerce? It's obvious, since VFOIA doesn't punish a Virginia citizen for making a request on behalf of a noncitizen, that Virginia isn't concerned about in-state information falling into out-of-state hands.

QUOTE [from the Syllabus section of Footnote One]:

Even shoehorned into the Court’s dormant Commerce Clause framework, however, Hurlbert’s claim would fail. Insofar as there is a “market” for public documents in Virginia, it is a market for a product that the Commonwealth has created and of which the Commonwealth is the sole manufacturer. A State does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause when, having created a market through a state program, it “limits benefits generated by [that] state program to those who fund the state treasury and whom the State was created to serve.”

:UNQUOTE.

Wow! That's a real stretch. I'm almost tempted to say, "Nice try." But instead I'll say, "Close but no cigar." If Virginia was really so keen on "[limiting] benefits generated by [that] state program to [Virginia's citizens]," then the VFOIA would surely contain (but it doesn't) punitive measures against Virginians who would act as conduits for information sought by noncitizens.

As for those "whom the State was created to serve," we must consider Virginians who would profit by dealing with Hurlbert's clients who had studied the information he sought. What about their rights?

In the matter of McBurney's complaint

QUOTE [from Alito's opinion in Footnote One]:

McBurney is a former resident of Virginia whose ex-wife is a Virginia citizen. After his ex-wife defaulted on her child support obligations, McBurney asked the Commonwealth’s Division of Child Support Enforcement to file a petition for child support on his behalf. The agency complied, but only after a 9-month delay. McBurney attributes that delay to agency error and says that it cost him nine months of child support. To ascertain the reason for the agency’s delay, McBurney filed a Virginia FOIA request seeking “all emails, notes, files, memos, reports, letters, policies, [and] opinions” pertaining to his family, along with all documents “regarding [his] application for child support” and all documents pertaining to the handling of child support claims like his. ... The agency denied McBurney’s request on the ground that he was not a Virginia citizen. McBurney later requested the same documents under Virginia’s Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act...and through that request he received most of the information he had sought that pertained specifically to his own case. He did not, however, receive any general policy information about how the agency handled claims like his.

:UNQUOTE.

Seems pretty obvious to me: Virginia didn't want McBurney to have the evidence he needed to prove the agency was derelict in its duty by waiting 9-months to process his claim. However, if McBurney wants to obtain this information, he could move back to Virginia in order to once again become a Virginia citizen.  However, he can't ask a Virginia citizen to file a request on his behalf - as could Herlbert, as detailed above. Virginia would deny the request on the grounds of confidentiality - even if McBurney should waive his rights to privacy in this instance.

The Supreme Court seems unduly (or should I say "typically"?) interested in erecting obstacles to stand in the way of justice being served. How easily these "justices" overlook the Preamble to the Constitution, which states:

"We the people of the United States, in order to ...establish justice...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I emphasize the "establish justice" part since SCOTUS seems to translate that as meaning,  "establish a legalistic quagmire of an environment meant to shield government from citizens seeking justice."


What about the Ninth Amendment?

QUOTE [from Footnote One's syllabus]:

The Court has repeatedly stated that the Constitution does not guarantee the existence of FOIA laws. ... Moreover, no such right was recognized at common law or in the early Republic. Nor is such a sweeping right “basic to the maintenance or well-being of the Union.

:UNQUOTE.

I just quoted three sentences from the learned justices, which I will now dispute:

Sentence One: Here I'll cite the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Even (dare I say "especially") during the early days of the Republic, US citizens realized something special was in the air. They knew, for instance, that it wouldn't have made any sense to speak of the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press before the invention of the printing press. In other words, people even back then realized that certain evolutionary trends were manifesting. Not only had their status had changed - that they were no longer serfs and had come to have recognized rights - but that technology had changed, bringing into existence a right that could not have existed earlier.

That's why the Ninth Amendment was created - to cover future possibilities. Some might claim, instead, that it was to be sure all rights possessed by the people (but only at that time) were protected. However, I doubt this. Our Founding Fathers could have easily come up with a list of such static rights knowing that, within their collective wisdom, they could have covered all existing bases. However, they didn't do that, so I'm concluding that the first among these non-enumerated rights is one I dub the right of reasonable expectation.

Sentence Two: I think it's high time the High Court stop robotically referring to the understandings and conditions in existence over 200 years ago. The FOIA laws began to arrive on the scene in the 1960's and have proliferated ever since. US citizens have come to have a reasonable expectation of the rights assumed to underlie these laws - including the right of the people to know what their government is up to. We-the-People elected lawmakers that reflected their will to create and enforce those laws. And since we have a system that relies on the consent of the governed, the government would do well to duly recognize that - again, due to the right of reasonable expectation - our consent now is (among other factors) based on recognition of the right to know, which we now deem a Constitutionally-protected right. It might not have been so in the late 1700's, but so what? We have evolved, and we expect the political environment to reflect that evolution.

Sentence Three: I would argue that the opposite is now true - namely, "Such a sweeping right is 'critical to the maintenance or well-being of the Union.'" We now live in an age where information is the new coin of the realm - far more valuable than our debauched currency. Can you imagine the uproar should government at all levels suddenly decide to repeal their FOIA laws? Impossible! We've come to far and grown to used to this right which, admittedly, did not exist until about 50 years ago.

QUOTE [from Footnote One's Syllabus]:

Virginia’s FOIA exists to provide a mechanism for Virginia citizens to obtain an accounting from their public officials; noncitizens have no comparable need. Moreover, the distinction between citizens and noncitizens recognizes that citizens alone foot the bill for the fixed costs underlying recordkeeping in the Commonwealth [of Virginia].

:UNQUOTE.

"Noncitizens have no comparable need?" Then why is Virginia one of only seven states that impose restrictions on noncitizens? Is there something the other 43 states are unaware of that is somehow grasped by these seven? In the cases of Hurlbert and McBurney, it's easy to see that they had a need for records controlled by Viriginia.

As for "citizens [footing] the bill," that's nonsense. Virginia's FOIA allows for the imposition of fees necessary to cover the costs of producing requested records. If Virginia were so concerned about cost-cutting, that state could have insisted that its own citizens could request records only if they had a demonstrable need. But lo and behold, that is not the case. Any Virginian may ask for any non-sensitive or restricted documents for any reason whatsoever, without having to provide that reason. And, again, the other 43 states don't seem unduly concerned about the cost of providing information service to out-of-staters. Why is the Supreme Court so concerned?


So why did SCOTUS rule as it did?

The High Court is laboring under the assumption that the individual states still exist as viable political entities. They most certainly do not. The Fourteenth Amendment killed states' rights by defining as follows:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Whenever an outsider force (in this case, the federal government) defines what constitutes state citizenship, that state has started down the slippery slope of loss of sovereignty. Of course, it's useful to remember that the Fourteenth was ratified under coercion - that is, the states once a part of the Confederacy would not be allowed to rejoin the Union unless they ratified the Fourteenth. That, and agree to rewrite their state constitutions and have those approved by the Feds. [Apparently, quite a massive loss of states' sovereignty took place after the USA's War of Secession - errantly called the Civil War.]

So, SCOTUS can pretend that states still exist as somewhat sovereign entities by, occasionally tossing them a bone like this ruling. But the Court does this at a terribly high price - introducing a chilling effect on the Right to Know.

Finally, here's something to ponder concerning these words of Article V of the Constitution: "The Congress...on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments..." Suppose, however, that this two thirds threshold is met but Congress refuses to call a convention. What would SCOTUS do should someone decide to sue Congress for dereliction of duty? Would SCOTUS refuse to hear the case - either citing lack of standing by the petitioner or by means of simply ignoring the suit? They can ignore anything they want to, you know.

But the real point of my question lies in this answer: The High Court would not - could not - order Congress to call such a convention. For even though Congress has power over the Court - in terms of impeachment - SCOTUS has no similarly effective power over Congress. At least (and this seems to be so important to our learned justices) no power expressly stated in the Constitution.

As I claimed above, it's time to seriously consider replacing the US Constitution.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party

"Referring to the title of this essay, I conclude that SCOTUS's 'take' on Freedom of Information is simply to take some of that freedom away from us."

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnotes

Footnote One:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-17_d1o2.pdf

Footnote Two: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/scotus_rejects_sweeping_privileges_claim_by_out-of-staters_denied_foia_reco/

Footnote Three:

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/henrico/supreme-court-rules-va-can-deny-out-of-state-foia/article_00030189-97b3-5b20-9dfd-750ec82e06d5.html