Eddie's Outing

By now, dear reader, Edward Snowden needs no introduction to you.

Up to about a day or two ago, I would have been willing to, perhaps, consider filing him under the "Heroes" heading.  But that was before he identified himself to me and to the world.

The government -- ANY government -- needs checks and balances.  It may have been that the U.S. Government needed the check and balance of transparency in its domestic spying activities.  But I'm not so quick to endorse Snowden's leaking of classified information to the press.  I, for one, do see the possible utility of such information-gathering activity in the fight against terrorism (but not in giving the Government untethered license to snoop).  And it also must be remembered that quantity of information does not necessarily make for quality of information.

In any event, Snowden's revelations are not likely to affect my usual daily routines.  Way back when I was in grade school, my Dad admonished me that the telephone was not a secure means of communication, and that he always operated under the presumption that the telephone in our home was bugged.  Being employed in the military contracting sector, Dad had to be acutely cognizant of those kinds of things.  And after I did my own stint with Uncle Sam in a position requiring a security clearance, my own appreciation of the need for 24/7 security-mindedness was certainly reinforced.  In short, I, too, presume that my communications are monitored.  Snowden told me nothing new.

If Snowden really, really had acted with America's interests in mind in leaking the classified info to the press, then he would have handed over the info and ceased and desisted.  His going public with his status as the source for the info suggests most strongly that he has other items on his agenda besides the welfare of the American people.   And the big kabuki theater mediafest production of Snowden's quest for asylum from prosecution, to which we will be treated for the coming days or weeks, cannot further the cause of American security.

What IS Snowden's agenda?  What motivated him to out himself?  Is he being subsidized, and if so, by whom?

Methinks that there is something more than meets the eye here.

A Princely Sum for a Minor Infraction

 

I have had no firsthand encounters or experiences with Justice Cynthia Kern, who sits on the bench of the New York Supreme Court in New York County.  [Note to those of you who have not spent much time in the State of New York:  Do not be too awed or impressed with Judge Kern's title.  In the New York State judicial system, the "Supreme Court" is the lowest court of general jurisdiction, comparable to the Courts of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania, or the Circuit Courts in Illinois, Virginia, West Virginia or Michigan, or the Superior Courts in California or New Jersey, or the District Courts in Texas.].

Justice Kern seems to be above average as far as Manhattan judges go, which is neither shameful nor exemplary.  She is despised by the New York City teacher's union, which, if anything, pushes her ever so slightly towards the righthand side of the bell curve.  She seems to make good rulings more often than not.

But neither does Judge Kern does not impress me as being quite in the same league as Holmes, Cardozo, or even Judge Judy Scheindlin.  And one recent decision of hers has been effectively reversed on appeal, on Constitutional grounds.

Albert Prince is an artist who creates sculptures out of, well, junk.  This is his artistic preference, even if I would not procure his objets d'art for my own home.  Albert became artistically inspired by a rooftop television antenna placed in the refuse pile for collection, and, being so inspired, placed the antenna into his car with the intent of creating a new sculpture from it.  [I parenthetically note that, technologically speaking, rooftop antennae are museum pieces in this day and age of cable television.].

The New York City Administrative Code § 16-118[7], translated into English, essentially prohibits anyone except the Department of Sanitation from removing recyclable trash placed at the curb, violators being subject to fines and impoundment of vehicles.

One of the NYC Sanitation Nazis caught Albert in the act of taking the antenna and placing it into his car.  The car was impounded and Albert was fined $2000.  The Environmental Control Board upheld the penalty.  Albert appealed the ECB decision to Judge Kern, who upheld the ECB.  Albert appealed Justice Kern's ruling, and the Appellate Division overturned Kern's decision, ruling that $2000 was an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment for the infraction committed by Albert Prince. 

It is heartening to see that at least one appellate tribunal in New York sometimes understands that the purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to protect the citizenry from the excesses of government.

But another question is begged by Prince's case.  Howcum the government is so quick to fight monopolies, except when it is the government that wields the monopoly power?  Wouldn't competition make the NYC Department of Sanitation more efficient?

Charitably Appreciating the President

One great strength of America is its charitable organizations. In other cultures, the poor are poor, and the rich are rich, because that is how the karma has destined them to be. Charitable giving is a Judeo-Christian concept which requires everyone, no matter how disadvantaged, to help those who are in more dire straits. For all the bad press our charitable organizations have received of late, they have enabled Americans, individually and collectively, to succeed and become great forces of responsibility in this world.

As mentioned in this Blog's 13 September 2011 post, my own family was helped by charitable giving, and now, having for the most part achieved a fair degree of financial stability if not affluence, has given back and continues to give back even more than we received in order that others might overcome their obstacles.

Barack Hussein Obama's tax legislation proposals have, over the past few years, included caps on itemized deductions. The Alliance for Charitable Giving is concerned (as am I ) that such restrictions might discourage charitable giving.

Sue Santa, the Senior Vice President of the Philanthropy Roundtable (which sponsors the Alliance for Charitable Giving) has commented on Obama's State of the Union Address as it pertains to charitable giving:


"We believe that our tax code should encourage and incentivize private charitable giving. We appreciate that the President seems to acknowledge the value of charitable giving but we remain cautious and won’t speculate until we see the details of the President’s plan."


Sue, methinks that you are being a bit overly charitable!

Barack Hussein Obama does acknowledge the value of charitable giving, but only to the extent that it enables the donee organizations to pay nice salaries, bonuses and perquisites to his allies, sycophants and cronies. [Can you say "ACORN"?]. In the ideal world envisioned by Obama, there are no charitable organizations, only instrumentalities of Big Brother's governing regime.

America, or any other society, is only as free as its charitable organizations.