Manning and Snowden are Not Alone

Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are not the first people to release government secrets and they won’t be the last. Historically Daniel Ellsberg’s release of “The Pentagon Papers” is one of the most famous cases of a military analyst divulging government secrets. Ellsberg, working for the Rand Corporation, worked on a top-secret report ordered by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara entitled U.S. Decision-making in Vietnam, 1945-1968 (The Pentagon Papers) copied the entire 7,000-page report and released it to the New York Times and Washington Post.

Aaron Swartz, another geeky computer type/hacker, recently committed suicide (January 11, 2013) while facing charges for downloading academic papers from MIT and digital library JSTOR.

Time Magazine (June 24, 2013), says the internet calls these geeks heroes. They must not have read the conservative commentaries on these self appointed “heroes” who prefer the possibility of harm to Americans than protecting Americans.

TIME Poll question:

What do you think of the government’s collecting phone records, e-mails, and internet search records?

48% approve

44% disapprove

We just went to the Hollywood Bowl this past Saturday. It is an outdoor amphitheater that holds 18,000 people. The security when entering? A cursory check of our picnic baskets. We did not have to remove all items before the checker said “OK.”

Millions of phone calls and e-mails are made daily in the USA. What is the likelihood they are listening to your conversations? Why would they want to listen? Could the program be a review of where people are sending emails and phone calls? Obsession with intruding into your business seems to be the objection to the NSA’s efforts to stop terrorists. Let’s hope no someone, undetected, does not carry a bomb into an amphitheater on ball stadium.

Manning and Snowden may not have meant to help terrorists but they have harmed our efforts to stop them.

They should be jailed for decades.

Environmentalists Gone Wild

Environmentalists have the desire to return the earth to its native state EVERYWHERE. Thus their idea is to limit national park access to hikers only. No cars or other vehicles should be permitted to enter. Entering Yosemite Valley would only be available for the hardy who can hike there from the park entrance. Riding in an inflatable raft in the Merced River would be banned. Grocery stores and gift shops would be closed.

The Environmentalists would also remove the concrete walls of the Los Angeles River. It is really a wash that only holds rain water during the winter months. There are no streams or creeks that feed into this wash. There are no springs from surrounding hills that trickle in.

Despite the fact that the concrete walls protect the city from flooding that was prevalent in the first half of the 20^th century and all times earlier the Environmentalists want the concrete walls removed to restore the natural appearance of the wash. They have done such a good job of promoting their vision that a group called L.A. River Revitalization Corp. have convinced the Army Corp of Engineers to consider proposals costing at least $444 million for making the banks of the wash more environmentally pleasing. At the high end the cost would be $1.06 billion.

A house that was washed a block away from the river, 1934

Amnesia seems to have affected both our government officials and the general public. As reported in the Los Angeles Times on February 12, 1992 “City emergency workers in helicopters and rubber boats rescued 48 people stranded in cars and other vehicles as floodwaters rose rapidly on Burbank Boulevard and other streets that run around and through the basin.”

The concrete Los Angeles River was built to protect the city from massive flooding. Sepulveda Dam, which was constructed in 1941, protected downstream neighborhoods (and allowed others to be built); the postwar concretization of the upstream riverbed allowed the development of the San Fernando Valley. All of the homes and businesses from Canoga Park going downstream could be seriously impacted if those concrete walls were removed. Kayaking down the Los Angeles River is not a necessity. Protection from flooding is a necessity.

Proletariat

It’s a French word meaning “The class of industrial wage earners who, possessing neither capital nor production means, must earn their living by selling their labor.” In Marxist theory they are the class of wage-earners, especially industrial workers, in a capitalist society, whose only possession of significant material value is their labour.

The Congressional Budget Office has issued a report saying that the lowest earning 20% of Americans have seen their income increase by 18% since 1980. The highest earning 1% saw their earnings increase by 275% in the same period. At the same time the number of middle class families declined. Those middle class families have become even poorer.

From the CBO report:

The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.

The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.
Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points.

In other words the proletariat has increased in numbers even as the richest became even more wealthy. The reason? The outsourcing of manufacturing, along with increases in technology, has reduced labor requirements. America just does not need as many middle management workers.

The social issue is the question, how will we feed and support a society that offers declining opportunity for those who lack technical skills? Most people recognize the question but neither private enterprise nor government is prepared to discuss the issue.

Perhaps the majority, by their behavior, are saying, “Who cares? The stock market is up, my house value is up and cars are selling well. So what’s the problem?”

Money Wasted on Border Security

Forgiving someone after breaking a law is amnesty. Both Republicans and Democrats are interested in Hispanic votes for their party. Neither cares about the well being of the country. The Los Angeles Times reports that The $46-billion security package in the immigration bill would benefit aerospace, technology and security companies, as well as border states. This is an unnecessary expenditure.

We can obtain substantially reduced illegal entry into the United States by denying undocumented workers employment.

Emphasis is on Hispanics because they are the largest group of illegal aliens. It has been reported that 40% of those in the country illegally are not from Latin America. Under current federal law, it is illegal for any employer to hire, recruit or refer for a fee any alien not authorized to work in the United States. For first offenders, there is a $250-$2,000 fine per illegal employee. For a second offense, the fine is $2,000-$5,000 per illegal employee. If the administration simply enforced the law there would be no problem and amnesty would not be an issue.

So why haven’t we simply enforced existing laws? My guess is that leading members of both political parties do not have the stomach to deny anyone a job. In addition companies that hire illegal aliens have a lobby that is successfully impeding government action against employers.

We need a new immigration law that provides for both migrant workers and high tech workers. The Senate bill would encourage more illegal immigration.

Amnesty – Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Amnesty. Synonyms are Official pardon, General pardon, Reprieve, Forgiveness.

Senate Bill 744, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill has one substantial flaw. It is amnesty. It would immediately provide legal residency to millions of illegal aliens. They may have entered the country legally on a visitor’s visa or passport or they may have snuck into the country without any legal documentation. In both instances they were never given permission to live permanently in the United States.

My concern is the message that this Senate bill sends to the world. That is if you can manage to sneak into the United States and find employment we will ultimately grant you a green card and the opportunity to become a citizen. Thus this will not be the final wave of illegal immigration. It will be the second wave of illegal immigration. President Reagan’s amnesty law was the first. This law will be marked as an invitation for many more to sneak into this nation.

Everyone will agree that bolstering the border with 24-hour drones, 20,000 new Border Patrol officers and 700 miles of fence are good ideas. The idea that new immigrants must pay fines and fees, know English and be in good standing after undergoing background checks are good plans. However, the reality is that there are communities where English is rarely used. We provide citizens with ballots in many languages. There is no motivation to learn English. There is no motivation to participate in American culture.

I am not contending that all illegal aliens are refusing to become part of American culture. I am contending that large numbers of them do not integrate because they are part of communities that insulate them from American life.

Dearborn, Michigan has a large Arabic/Muslim population. Comfortable for them. They live in a ghetto or barrio like community of their own making. The do not have to mingle with American society.

San Fernando, California is 92.5% Hispanic. The surrounding community is primarily Hispanic. If you work there or nearby you do not have to learn English. It is a Hispanic’s destination for those coming to metropolitan Los Angeles.

These are just two of the many ethnic communities that are insulated from American culture.

Participate in American society? They ask, why should we when we have brought our culture with us?

Status of Same Sex Marriage in the United States

My opinion: If two people love each other they should be permitted to marry. There should not be any exceptions no matter where they live.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today cleared the way for gay marriages to resume in California. CNN reports that Kamala Harris, California’s State Attorney General, is attending two same sex marriage ceremonies in San Francisco this afternoon.

What is the status of the states on same-sex marriage? This is a summary posted today by the Associated Press. The AP calls the laws a hodgepodge of laws. The Supreme Court is to blame.

CALIFORNIA: The Supreme Court cleared the way for gay marriages to resume in California for the first time since 2008, ruling that sponsors of the state’s voter-approved same-sex marriage ban lack authority to defend it in court. State officials say counties will start issuing marriage licenses once the court finalizes its decision.

CONNECTICUT: The state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in October 2008; marriages started the next month.

DELAWARE: A same-sex marriage bill was signed into law in May. A Democratic state senator and her partner will be the first couple in the state to have their civil union converted to marriage when the bill takes effect July 1.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: The D.C. Council approved same-sex marriage in 2009; marriages began in March 2010.

IOWA: The state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in 2009. Conservative lawmakers have sought to change state law to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Those efforts have failed so far because Democrats controlling the state Senate have blocked any legislation from coming up for a vote. That’s unlikely to change unless the GOP takes control of both chambers in 2014.

MAINE: Voters approved same-sex marriage last November, reversing results of a 2009 referendum that quashed a gay-marriage bill.

MARYLAND: The Legislature approved same-sex marriage in February 2012; the issue then won voter approval in a referendum last November.

MASSACHUSETTS: It was the first state to allow same-sex marriage. The state’s Supreme Judicial Court ordered it legalized in 2003; marriages started in May 2004.

MINNESOTA: A same-sex marriage bill was signed into law in May. It takes effect Aug. 1.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: The Legislature approved same-sex marriage June 2009.

NEW YORK: The Legislature approved same-sex marriage in June 2011.

RHODE ISLAND: A same-sex marriage bill was signed into law in May. It takes effect Aug. 1.

VERMONT: The Legislature legalized same-sex marriage in 2009. Earlier, Vermont was the first state to offer civil unions to gay and lesbian couples.

WASHINGTON: The Legislature approved same-sex marriage in February 2012. It then won voter approval in referendum on Nov. 6, 2012.

___

CIVIL UNION STATES:

COLORADO: Gay-rights advocates were pleased that Colorado lawmakers approved a civil-union law this year that extends marriage-like rights to same-sex couples. But they still plan to push for the full status of marriage. That would entail either a lawsuit or a voter initiative to overturn a gay-marriage ban approved by voters in 2006.

HAWAII: Lawmakers passed a civil union law in 2011. It’s being challenged in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by two women who want to marry rather than enter into a civil union. Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie supports same-sex marriage and says the U.S. Supreme Court rulings bolster his argument that the Constitution requires it.

ILLNOIS: Lawmakers approved civil unions in 2011, but an effort this year to legalize gay marriage fell short despite a push from Gov. Pat Quinn and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. The bill’s sponsor, Democratic Rep. Greg Harris, says the Supreme Court rulings improve the chances in the next legislative session. Meanwhile, a right-to-marry lawsuit filed by more than two dozen gay couples is pending.

NEW JERSEY: Acting under an order from the state Supreme Court, the Legislature legalized civil unions in 2006. However, a pending lawsuit contends that civil unions do not fulfill the court’s mandate that gay couples receive equal treatment. A hearing is scheduled for August. The Democratic-led Legislature passed a bill last to recognize gay marriage, but it was vetoed by Republican Gov. Chris Christie.

___

STATES WITH CONSTITUTIONAL BANS:

ALABAMA: Voters overwhelming approved a constitutional amendment in 2006 limiting marriage to one-man, one-woman unions. Democratic Rep. Patricia Todd, the only openly gay member of the Legislature, says she and her partner plan to file suit challenging the ban. “The state only moves forward on civil rights issues when forced by the federal courts,” she says.

ALASKA: Voters approved a ban in 1998. Changing the constitution would require that voters approve a constitutional convention — but they opted not to do so in 2012. The Legislature also could propose a constitutional amendment, but Republicans control both chambers, and there is no apparent rush to act. Alaska’s U.S. senators, Democrat Mark Begich and Republican Lisa Murkowski, support same-sex marriage. But the state’s lone U.S. House member, Republican Don Young, and its GOP governor, Sean Parnell, do not.

ARIZONA: Gay-rights activists are gathering signatures in hopes of placing a measure on next year’s ballot that would overturn a 2008 ban. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer predicts voters will reject any such effort. One city, Bisbee, recently legalized local-level civil unions for same-sex couples. Tempe and several other cities are considering similar ordinances.

ARKANSAS: The gay-rights group Arkansans for Equality is asking the state attorney general’s office to approve language for a ballot measure next year that would repeal the 2004 ban on gay marriage. The attorney general must certify the language before the group can begin collecting the 78,133 signatures from registered voters needed to place it on the 2014 ballot.

COLORADO: As noted above, gay marriage is banned under a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2006. But Democrats now control the Legislature and passed the bill this year establishing civil unions. Gay-rights supporters are deliberating on how to challenge the ban — it could be through a lawsuit or a voter initiative.

FLORIDA: Voters approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages in 2008. It would take approval from 60 percent of voters to overturn it if the issue gets on the ballot again. That would require either action by the Legislature — which seems unlikely anytime soon — or a petition drive that would require the signatures of more than 683,000 registered voters.

GEORGIA: A gay-marriage ban was approved in 2004 with support from 76 percent of the voters. No group has mounted a serious attempt to overturn that prohibition. Most politicians in Georgia publicly embrace positions opposing gay-rights measures, although Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed announced in December that he supports gay marriage.

IDAHO: Voters approved a ban in 2006 with 63 percent support. The Republican dominated Legislature is not expected to make any changes in the near future. GOP lawmakers have resisted appeals from gays to amend the Idaho Human Rights Act to include discrimination protections for gays and lesbians in regard to employment and housing.

KANSAS: Voters overwhelmingly approved a gay-marriage ban in 2005. With conservative Republicans in charge of both the House and Senate, no move to modify or repeal the amendment is expected.

KENTUCKY: Voters approved a ban in 2004; there’s no serious talk of any imminent challenge. Chris Hartman, director of the Louisville-based Fairness Campaign, said the Supreme Court rulings may add momentum to the push for a state law protecting gays from discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations.

LOUISIANA: A ban was approved by voters in 2004 with 78 percent support. Gay rights leaders say they will study the possibility of a challenge, but none is currently foreseen. Meanwhile, they will continue to lobby the Legislature for adoption rights and job protections.

MICHIGAN: A lawsuit to overturn a 2004 ban on same-sex marriage is pending in federal court. Detroit-area nurses April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse are suing to try to win the right to jointly adopt each other’s children, and a judge suggested the case be stretched to include a challenge to the ban on gay marriage. Separately, gay-rights activists say they will try to get a measure on the ballot in 2016 to overturn the ban.

MISSISSIPPI: A ban was approved in 2004 with support from 86 percent of the voters, the highest percent among all the voter-approved bans in the U.S. There’s no expectation it will be repealed except under a mandate from Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court.

MISSOURI: A ban was approved in 2004 with more than 70 percent support; there’s been no effort to repeal it. The state Supreme Court is currently considering a legal challenge to a law that limits survivor benefits for deceased public safety officers to spouses who were in a “marriage between a man and a woman.” The case was brought by the same-sex partner of a former Highway Patrol officer killed by a vehicle while investigating an accident.

MONTANA: Voters approved a ban in 2004; it’s not under immediate threat. But gay-rights advocates believe that parts of the Supreme Court rulings could bolster their arguments in a case seeking domestic partnership recognition. In that lawsuit, gay couples are seeking inheritance, joint tax and other legal benefits.

NEBRASKA: Voters approved a constitutional gay-marriage ban in 2000. In light of the Supreme Court rulings, gay-rights activists are now looking at ways to challenge it. Doing so would likely require a citizen initiative and another statewide vote, though supporters aren’t ruling out a lawsuit to challenge the amendment in federal court.

NEVADA: Although Nevada is among the 29 states with a constitutional ban, it also has a domestic partnership law providing extensive rights to same-sex couples. Legislators approved a resolution this year aimed at changing the constitution to allow same-sex marriage; it will need a second round of legislative approval in two years before going to a popular vote. Meanwhile, there’s a case pending in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the ban.

NORTH CAROLINA: The most recent of the nation’s gay-marriage bans was approved by North Carolina voters in May 2012. Gay-rights activists are looking at whether the Supreme Court rulings provide an opening to challenge it.

NORTH DAKOTA: A ban was approved by voters in 2004 with 73 percent support. The GOP-dominated Legislature also has voted repeatedly against gay-rights measures, including a bill in the last session to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, public services and the workplace.

OHIO: Voters approved a ban in November 2004 after an expensive ballot campaign that some analysts say boosted turnout among supporters of Republican President George W. Bush’s re-election in the battleground state. The new Supreme Court rulings fueled the hopes of FreedomOhio, a coalition of gay marriage supporters that’s working to overturn the ban in 2014.

OKLAHOMA: More than 75 percent of voters approved a gay-marriage ban in 2004. Repealing it would almost certainly have to be done through court challenges, since there appears to be little appetite in the Republican-led Legislature to embrace gay rights. Last session, the House voted 84-0 for a resolution to reaffirm marriage as a union between a man and a woman,

OREGON: Voters in this relatively liberal state approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in 2004 with 57 percent support. It’s now viewed as perhaps the most likely state to overturn such a ban; gay-rights activists and Democratic politicians are gearing up to place a repeal measure on the 2014 ballot.

SOUTH CAROLINA: In 2006, 78 percent of voters approved a constitutional ban. Little has changed since then. There were no bills introduced in the Legislature dealing with gay rights in 2013, and legislative leaders don’t expect it to be an issue any time soon.

SOUTH DAKOTA: Gay marriage has been banned since the Legislature passed a law in 1996, and the prohibition was strengthened with a constitutional ban approved by voters in 2006. Activists say there are no current plans to ask voters to overturn it.

TENNESSEE: Voters approved a ban in 2006 with 81 percent support. It appears under no immediate threat.

TEXAS: Voters overwhelmingly approved a ban in 2005; there’s been no organized drive to repeal it. However, gay-rights activism has increased in Texas in recent years, and Houston last year re-elected its openly lesbian mayor.

UTAH: Three same-sex couples have filed a legal challenge against Utah’s gay-marriage ban, which was approved by voters in 2004. The case had been put on hold pending the Supreme Court rulings.

VIRGINIA: Voters approved a ban in 2006; it’s unlikely that the Legislature dominated by conservative Republicans would take steps to repeal the ban. Gay-rights supporters haven’t ruled out a lawsuit.

WISCONSIN: Voters approved a Republican-backed ban in 2006; repealing it would require votes in two consecutive legislative sessions, followed by a statewide referendum. In 2009, with Democrats in control, lawmakers passed statutes creating a domestic partner registry for same-sex couples. That registry is now under legal attack by a conservative group which argues that it violates the gay-marriage ban.

___

OTHER STATES:

INDIANA: There’s a state law prohibiting same-sex marriage but as yet no constitutional ban. Leaders of the Republican majority in the Legislature hope the Supreme Court rulings will provide motivation to get the ban passed so it can be put before voters in 2014. GOP Gov. Mike Pence says he supports a stronger ban.

PENNSYLVANIA: It’s the only state in the Northeast that doesn’t extend legal recognition to same-sex couples. An openly gay Democrat, state Rep. Brian Sims, plans to introduce a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage. It may not get far in the GOP-controlled Legislature, but it could be an issue in the 2014 gubernatorial campaign. Incumbent GOP Gov. Tom Corbett opposes gay marriage; the three Democratic challengers support it.

NEW MEXICO: Its statutes contain no law that specifically prohibits or legalizes same-sex marriage. Democratic Attorney General Gary King’s office released a legal analysis in early June concluding that same-sex marriage is not authorized at this point. But lawyers for two gay men from Santa Fe are trying to expedite a lawsuit seeking a ruling that gay marriage is legal.

City Mismanagement

In 1950, Chicago’s population peaked at about 3.6 million people. Since then, the city has lost nearly 1 million residents. Corruption, government bureaucracy, high taxes and a lack of a significant wealth-generating industry have all been cited as factors.

The city’s fastest growing industry is Business Products & Services according to a study conducted by city government. Seaton Companies, a headhunter firm is their largest fast growing company. While head hunting companies do create jobs, the numbers would be small compared to the more likely industries like finance and manufacturing.

On Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills – Panasonic DMC FZ28, f/5.6, 1/500 sec., ISO 100, hand held

Los Angeles seems to be taking a page from the Chicago playbook. Added taxes, added fines, and potential lost jobs are the consequence of surrendering to environmentalists. The latest decision by the Los Angeles city council is to ban plastic shopping bags at all stores and require stores to charge 10¢ for every paper shopping bag.

The Los Angeles County unemployment rate is 9.3%. To drive that number even higher the city council should consider new taxes at restaurants, hotels, and amusement parks. The reason would be we need more money to clean the streets or hire more police.

Of course this makes no sense. But who said City Hall is sensible?

There is the issue. The city councils of Chicago, Los Angeles, and many other cities are responding to pressure groups rather than doing the right thing. Of course they say they are doing the right thing. With high unemployment in Los Angeles and a falling population in Chicago, are they doing the right things?

Does the Federal Government know too much about you?

June 10, 2013 news report:

“Orwell’s ‘1984’ Soars on Amazon After NSA Surveillance Reports”

The 4^th Amendment to the Constitution says:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Despite those words the NSA (National Security Agency) has programs that monitors who is talking, texting and e-mailing to whom. The programs are both domestic and international. The NSA has used FISA court approvals that give their investigations legitimacy.

Senate Intelligence Committee lead members Dianne Feinstein and Mike Rogers both say that the NSA is acting legally and both contend that their have been real benefits to the agency’s actions.

CNN pointed out one example. This was also reported in the New York Magazine and on CBS News. The email monitoring program called PRISM stopped Najibullah Zazi from blowing up backpacks in the New York City subway. The CNN report showed the email where Zazi sent an email asking for instructions on bomb building. He included his phone number in the email.

When I applied for Social Security my monthly payout was increased by $100 because I am married. The Social Security worker not only named my wife, she gave me her birth date. I merely confirmed the information.

Writing me a check for $10,000 or more? The banks are required to report those transactions to the Treasury Department.

Try not filing your income tax form one year and see if anyone notices.

It’s all in the name of security. To put it another way, has Orwell’s “1984” finally arrived?