"The Country is in the Very Best of Hands"

.   .   .   as Glenn Reynolds would say.  How about this from Sunday's Miami Herald:

Kesler Dufrene, who last year slaughtered three people in North Miami after being let out of immigration custody, wasn’t the only convict released to the streets because of a moratorium on deportations to Haiti.
According to newly released federal statistics, 687 Haitians slated for deportation [because they had been convicted of a crime] were released to the streets in 2010 because of the year-long moratorium on deportations to the earthquake-ravaged island.


Of those, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) took 90 back into custody and deported them to Haiti once the moratorium was lifted in January 2011. Another 16 are back in detention and are awaiting deportation.


And the rest, more than 500, are still out on the streets on supervised release or are out on their own recognizance. According to ICE, some are seeking “legal relief” to halt their deportations while others have been granted “an immigration benefit.”


Some are back in local jail after being re-arrested, according to ICE, which did not specify exactly how many have re-offended.

Romney Wins. The President is Sunk.

Romney wins in Arizona and Michigan.  He will eventually win the nomination and, in the general election all wings of the Republican Party will vote for him, plus a majority of the independents.  He will thereby win the Presidency.

This article on the front page of the Herald this morning grudgingly announces Romney's wins yesterday.  The article comes from the pen of Steven Thomma, a reporter for the left-wing McClatchy newspaper chain.  McClatchy bought the Herald a few years ago, and they are the people who recently sold the Herald's prime, down-town bayfront land to a huge Hong Kong gambling corporation, for Pete's sake.

On the Value of the Bachelor of Arts Degree

The bachelor of arts degree as it has evolved over the last half-century has become the work of the devil. It is now a substantively meaningless piece of paper—genuinely meaningless, if you don’t know where the degree was obtained and what courses were taken. It is expensive, too, as documented by the College Board: Public four-year colleges average about $7,000 per year in tuition, not including transportation, housing, and food. Tuition at the average private four-year college is more than $27,000 per year. And yet the B.A. has become the minimum requirement for getting a job interview for millions of jobs, a cost-free way for employers to screen for a certain amount of IQ and perseverance. Employers seldom even bother to check grades or courses, being able to tell enough about a graduate just by knowing the institution that he or she got into as an 18-year-old.

- Charles Murray, "Do We Need the Department of Education?" in the January 2012 issue of Imprimus.

I was on the board of Trinity College (Deerfield, IL) when it adopted an "accelerated degree 'completion' program," lately approved by the education bureaucracies.  What a windfall for that college and other struggling liberal arts institutions.  I didn't quite get how a night class or two a week - and maybe a Saturday - for someone who had a full-time job and a family could, in about a year, equal the junior and senior years at Stanford, Duke, or Davidson College, or even at Trinity itself.  Still don't.

On Adding and Subtracting from the Truth

Stott (p. 227) sums up the differences between the Pharisees and the Sadducees as this: "The Pharisees added to Scripture (their traditions); the Sadducees subtracted from Scripture (its supernatural element)."  That is such a helpful contrast, and it brings the problem quickly to the present.  As the Preacher writes: "[T]here is nothing new under the sun."

Same-Sex Marriage Estate Planning

I've mentioned before that a very fine NY lawyer, Sharon Klein, has an estate planning list-serve that I find quite valuable.  One of the topics she follows is "same-sex marriage."  Here is her latest email:

In light of the fact that Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, D.C. and Washington State (effective as of June 7, 2012) recognize same-sex marriage, there is a flurry of other state-level activity around this topic, and the constitutionality of DOMA is currently being litigated in the courts, practitioners may wish to consider reaching out to existing clients potentially impacted by these developments. For clients whose plans did not anticipate federal same-sex marriage recognition, as well as new clients, it might be advisable to consider including a scenario in their planning in which DOMA is declared unconstitutional. That approach might obviate the need to have planning urgently revisited if DOMA is repealed, and prevent unintended consequences in the event of death before estate plans can be revised.

As per some of my prior emails, included among the flurry of state-level developments regarding same-sex marriage/unions are the following:

.•    Washington State: Legislation recognizing same-sex marriage was signed by the Governor on February 13, 2012;

•    Illinois: Legislation recognizing same-sex marriage was introduced on February 8, 2012;

•    Colorado: Legislation recognizing same-sex civil unions was introduced on January 11, 2012;

•    Missouri: A constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage recognition was introduced on January 9, 2012;

•    West Virginia: A constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage recognition was introduced on January 11, 2012; and

•    New Mexico: A constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage recognition was introduced on January 24, 2012.

On February 7, 2012, in the very high profile decision of Perry v Brown , a federal appeals court declared California's ban on same-sex marriage (known as Proposition 8) unconstitutional.

In other recent developments:

Maryland Same-Sex Marriage Proposal Passes Senate and House and Sent to Governor for Signature


Legislation recognizing same sex marriage has passed the Senate and House, and reportedly has been sent to the Governor for signature. According to news reports, the Governor will sign the legislation this Thursday, although opponents are allegedly rallying for a referendum on the matter. In essence, the legislation provides that two individuals regardless of gender can marry provided they are not within defined degrees of kinship (ie, grandparent, parent, child, sibling, etc).


New Jersey Same-Sex Marriage Proposal Vetoed by Governor

On January 10, 2012, a bill was introduced in New Jersey to recognize same sex marriage, in lieu of the civil union regime currently authorized under New Jersey law. On February 21, the Governor vetoed the bill, and has challenged the legislature to put the issue to a referendum.


On February 6, a resolution to amend New Jersey's constitution was introduced. The proposed constitutional amendment would authorize same-sex marriage by providing that "marriage" is the legally recognized union of two persons of any gender. The proposed amendment would be put to a referendum.


Rhode Island Same-Sex Marriage Proposal


Pursuant to a bill introduced in Rhode Island on February 16, marriage would be redefined as the legally recognized union of two people regardless of gender. Marital and familial terms under Rhode Island law would be interpreted consistently with this new definition. The current civil union regime would be repealed, and parties to a civil union that has not been dissolved or merged into marriage as of January 1, 2013 would be deemed married as of that date.

West Virginia Civil Union Proposal


On the heels of the proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage recognition in West Virginia, a bill was introduced on February 16 to recognize civil unions. The bill specifically provides that it is not the legislature’s intent to revise the definition or eligibility requirements of marriage. The expressed underlying intent is to provide persons entering into a civil union with the obligations, responsibilities, protections and benefits afforded to spouses.


The bill requires that at least one of the parties to the civil union be a legal resident of West Virginia. Anyone who enters into a civil union in West Virginia is required to consent to the jurisdiction of the West Virginia courts for the purpose of any action relating to the civil union, even if one or both parties cease to reside in the state.


When “I Do” is Not a Problem, but “I Don’t Anymore” is…


A residency prerequisite to dissolving a marriage may cause particular difficulties for same-sex couples. If a couple who entered into a same-sex marriage or civil union in a state that recognized the relationship later moves to a state that does not recognize their marriage/union, how do they dissolve their relationship? It cannot be dissolved in a jurisdiction which does not recognize their marriage/union and they cannot satisfy a residency requirement in a state in which they no longer live.


In order to alleviate this problem, many of the proposals recently introduced provide for the applicable state courts to retain jurisdiction over the same-sex marriage/union, even if one or both of the parties move out-of-state. In California, same-sex marriages were permitted for a brief period in 2008. Pursuant to the Domestic Partnership Equality Act which became effective on January 1, 2012, a judgment for dissolution of a same-sex marriage can be entered without a residency requirement if the marriage was entered into in California and neither party resides in a state that will dissolve the marriage.


Vermont Proposal Regarding Dissolution of Same-Sex Relationships


In 2000, Vermont enacted legislation permitting civil unions. In 2009, legislation permitting same-sex marriage was enacted. However, under current Vermont law there is 6-month residency requirement to institute a proceeding for a divorce or dissolution of a civil union. A bill introduced on February 16, 2012, provides an exemption from the 6-month residency requirement provided the marriage/union was entered into in Vermont, neither party resides in a state that will dissolve the marriage/union, there are no minor children and the parties file a stipulation that resolves all issues in the action. 

 "Estate planning" at the level at which Sharon is involved is estate planning for the upper middle class and above, that is couples who together have in excess of $5 million (under current laws) or, if the tax laws we had in 2009 are restored, in excess of $3.5 million.  Relative to the rest  of the population, there are not a lot of people in this country who have more than $3.5 million.  But among that class of wealthy people are the ruling elites, if I can sound Marxist for a moment.  This is the class, a significant number of which supports NPR, reads the NYT, and dominates the leadership of PC(USA).  There are many in this class who feel otherwise, but my guess is that as you go down the wealth scale into the heart of the middle class, these supporters of "progressive" causes are fewer and fewer.  Thus, same-sex marriage is an important topic among "estate planners."  I will be going to a big meeting of those types from all over the country next week.  It will be interesting to see what the conversation will be about the trend that Sharon describes.

Judge Pollack Mentioned in NPR Article.

'Retirement' Missing from Vocabulary of NY Judges

From September 1971- August 1972, I had the honor of clerking for Judge Milton Pollack after graduating from law school.

Washington-Adams vs. Madison

As [Jonathan] Rauch [in an article in Reason magazine] notes, Santorum finds the historical antecedent of his own views far earlier than 1960, in "the liberty our Founders understood," which he defines as "freedom coupled with the responsibility to something bigger or higher than the self." Rauch concedes that some of the Founding Fathers, including George Washington and John Adams, held the view that it was necessary for government to promote virtue. But "Washington and (especially) Adams stood at one end of a spectrum of debate, and it was a debate that they ultimately lost," writes Rauch:

Other Founders—notably James Madison, the father of the Constitution—were more concerned with power than with virtue. They certainly distinguished between liberty and license, and they agreed that republican government requires republican virtues. But they believed that government's foremost calling was not to inculcate virtue but to prevent tyranny. Madison thus argued for a checked, limited government that would lack the power to impose any one faction's view of virtue on all others. . . .

Goldwater and Reagan, and Madison and Jefferson, were saying that if you restrain government, you will strengthen society and foster virtue. Santorum is saying something more like the reverse: If you shore up the family, you will strengthen the social fabric and ultimately reduce dependence on government.

-James Taranto in "Right Wing Lice," from his column Best of the Web in yesterday's WSJ.

 This distinction that Rausch draws between between Washington and Adams, on the one hand, and Madison, on the other, and how it applies today, is interesting and helpful - as is the whole of Jonathan Rauch's article.

"Haven't you read . . . ?"

Both houses of Maryland's legislature have approved same-sex marriage, and the bill is on its way to the governor for signature.  He will sign the bill, as he sponsored it in the first place.  Maryland will become the eighth state in the Union to apply its  marriage laws to two people of the same sex as it does to two people of opposite sexes.

Haven’t you read  .  .  .  that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?

 This is what Jesus said in Matthew 19 in reply to a question about divorce that the Pharisees put to him.  As John Stott points out in today's reading, rather than answer questions about whether (and, if so, on what grounds) a man could divorce his wife, the questions in which the Pharisees wanted to embroil him, Jesus chose to talk about marriage.  He went back to first principles.

There is an argument, I suppose, that as a legal matter, same sex couples should be treated the same way as opposite sex couples.  After all, it is a free country.  I am ready, however, to hear someone from the "progressive" side of the argument argue that we should drop marriage as a "legal matter" altogether, and make it a matter of contract for everyone.  If a couple wants to create rights and obligations between them, then let them make an agreement that the state will enforce.

 These civil unions are permitted in some states, but for the "gay rights" movement, I believe it is seen as a stepping stone for their quest for moral equivalency.  That equivalency, at least in their eyes, is same-sex "marriage" approved by the government.  But moral equivalency is in the eye of the beholder in our post-modern world.  Why should the other side get a win on this one, and oppress the rest of us with their moral views.  Why don't we simply take marriage out of the realm of government altogether, and make it an agreement between two people that the courts will enforce?

That would leave "marriage," then, to religious institutions to confer or clubs or other associations, permanent or temporary.   Evangelical Christians, for example, can recognize a marriage as Jesus described it.  The rest can pour spiritual content into whatever arrangement they like.

Books and Webplaces

Suggestions from our Friday morning group:

Gary:

Ling, Chai, A Heart for Freedom: The Remarkable Journey of a Young Dissident, Her Daring Escape, and Her Quest to Free China's Daughters.

Tony:

Forsythe, Frederick, The Afghan. (A novel)

Tony:  Christian Resources Institute's webpage, The Voice: Biblical and Theological Resources for Growing Christians.

Parkinson’s disease: study of live human neurons reveals the disease’s genetic origins, new drug targets

Research at the University of Buffalo.

Eating with Sinners

Stott's reading this morning is Mark 2:13-17.  In his comments, he defines "sinners":

"Sinners" in this context were not just those who were disobedient to God's moral law (like all of us) but those who, whether through ignorance or intent, did not live according to the traditions of the scribes.  Both groups were shunned by all respectable people, who would neither give hospitality to them nor receive hospitality from them, fearing ceremonial contamination.  But Jesus deliberately and freely fraternized with them, having no such fears.

Does this cut against the idea of a church program that soaks up all of one's spare time?  When does a Christian get the opportunity to " deliberately and freely fraternize with them," if every free moment (even our Valentine's Day dinner) is within church walls?

We don't deny hospitality to "sinners."  But they must walk through our doors to receive it.  I don't think that's nearly enough.  I believe we fear a sort of contamination from people our middle-class culture would consider "unclean."

Got Jump Rope?

  I'm struggling with just the simple jump.  Carol has it nailed.  The point in Crossfit with the rope as it is in other exercises: minimal exertion to accomplish the task.  It's all in the wrists.

Caloric Restriction and Longevity; Thomas à Kempis

The CrossFit dietary prescription is as follows:
 
Protein should be lean and varied and account for about 30% of your total caloric load.
 
Carbohydrates should be predominantly low-glycemic and account for about 40% of your total caloric load.
 
Fat should be predominantly monounsaturated and account for about 30% of your total caloric load.
 
Calories should be set at between .7 and 1.0 grams of protein per pound of lean body mass depending on your activity level. The .7 figure is for moderate daily workout loads and the 1.0 figure is for the hardcore athlete.

 *    *    *

Current research strongly supports the link between caloric restriction and an increased life expectancy. The incidence of cancers and heart disease sharply decline with a diet that is carefully limited in controlling caloric intake. “Caloric Restriction” is another fruitful area for Internet search. The CrossFit prescription is consistent with this research.

-from the national Crossfit website and its page on Nutrition.

One can be on a plant-based diet and still over-eat.

Thomas à Kempis speaks of the "unmortified man."  This is a man of "unbridled affections," who is never at peace.  Food, especially if you know it's "healthy" and good, still requires care, maybe even greater care. 

I am fascinated by the word mortification, which appears several times in my translation of The Imitation of Christ.  Thomas calls us to "self-mortification." He writes, "True peace of heart, then, is found in resisting passions, not in satisfying them."  How radical that sounds in a culture like ours.

Mortification comes from the Latin mortificatio, meaning "a killing," according to my Webster's.  In medicine, its definition is "Death and post-mortem change of one part of the body, while the rest continues to live; gangrene."

Matthew 5:30

³⁰ And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (NIV 1984)

High US Taxes on Corporations Drive Jobs Overseas.

In his State of the Union Speech this January, President Obama pledged to fix the high corporate tax rates that have helped drive manufacturing jobs overseas.

-from "Tax Rates for a Small Planet," a recent research report from AIER.

The report states that the last tax reduction in the corporate income tax was in 1986, when Congress reduced it to 35%.  We had a relative advantage over other countries for awhile.  Germany, for example,  had a top tax rate of 56% in 1986.  "By 2007," the report states, "it was down to 26 percent.  In 2008, in the wake of the recession, Germany cut the top corporate tax rate to 15 percent."  This happened in other countries, such as Canada (37.8% to 16.5% in 2011) and the UK (52% in 1981 to 26% in 2011).

 The report also notes that since 2010 corporations may deduct 9 percent of corporate profits, which has reduced the top tax rate on manufacturing profits to 31.9%.  The report concludes:

It's a step in the right direction.  But there is still a long way to go.  To be competitive, the U.S. needs more incentives that attract and retain companies.   .   .   .  Lowering marginal corporate tax rates in a good place to start. 

According to the Detroit Free Press, Gingrich would cut the top tax rate for corporations to 12.5%, Romney to 25%.  Santorum would eliminate it for manufacturers and cut in in half for all other corporations.  Paul would eliminate taxes on individuals and fund the government through excise taxes, tariffs, and corporate taxes.

Strategies to Max Out Social Security

Good article here, with some websites noted that will help with the analysis.

Santorum is Toast

"Birth control is harmful to women."  Jennifer Rubin hoists this Santorum quote of six years ago from an interview she embeds and discusses in her WaPo column yesterday.  Drudge links to it.  The guy would rather be right than electable, and the US public will take that deal.  No way he beats the President.

UPDATE:  James Taranto believes that "the center right's" criticism of Santorum's views on this point is unfair, maybe "downright irrational." (So, I'm part of the "center right." OK, then.)

Mr. Justice Scalia Visits Chicago Law

He told the law students:

The University of Chicago is one of two or three of the most formidable intellectual institutions in the world; a really impressive place. And you’re lucky to be here.

I wouldn't say "lucky," but I would say a great blessing.

Althouse linked to this article, and she includes this quote from it:

"Try to find a practice that enables you to maintain a human existence … time for your family, your church or synagogue, community … boy scouts, little league,” Scalia said, noting he started with Jones, Day in Cleveland. “You should look for a place like that. I’m sure they’re still out there. Maybe you have to go to Cleveland.

The fact is, of course, you don't have to go to Cleveland.  You can go to Miami or probably any city, if you have firmly in mind what is important.   This is not the same thing as practicing second rate law or of compromising professionally.  In part, it is a matter of flying financially well under one's income and of maintaining a healthy detachment, not so much from the practice of law but from the context of that practice, that is, from the firm and the milieu in which the young lawyer finds himself.  That lawyer must be ready and able to say good-bye to the firm and how it might seek to shape, that is misshape him.

It is a person's character that withstands the assault of the toxic side of legal culture, and even moves upon it.  It is not about mere "maintenance" of one's true self.  I hope it is not too dramatic to say that it is about moving upon and transforming that culture.

This is nothing new for God's people.  Where-ever we find ourselves in the marketplace, lawyers or not, we are called upon to move upon the world, not to be overwhelmed by it.  There is certainly no exception for lawyers, not in terms of excellence and not in terms of being the humans we were created to be.  Excellence remains a cardinal aspect of such a radical creature.  The excellence part: that is why Chicago Law was such a great blessing.

(See 2 Timothy 2:15)

Overeating and Mild Cognitive Impairment in the Elderly

A new study suggests overeating may double the risk for memory loss, or mild cognitive impairment (MCI), among people age 70 and older.

The study - to be presented at the American Academy of Neurology's 64th Annual Meeting in April - involved over 1,200 dementia-free people between ages 70 and 89. Of those, 163 people had MCI. Participants filled out a questionnaire about the amount of calories they consumed daily.

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is the intermediate stage between the expected cognitive decline of normal aging and the more pronounced decline of dementia, according to the Mayo Clinic. It increases a person's risk for developing later dementia, including Alzheimer's disease, but some people with MCI never get worse.

 -from a CBS news article yesterday.  Mary had already brought this study to our attention via email.

I am 5 years away from age 70, if I remember correctly, so I am going to diary this for July 16, 2016.  I will ask for a smaller cake and, at that birthday party, start doing something about eating too much.

Health Note to Broccoli Eaters on Valentine's Day

A flurry of small studies suggest that sex is as good for your health as vitamin D and broccoli. It not only relieves stress, improves sleep and burns calories, it can also reduce pain, ease depression, strengthen blood vessels, boost the immune system and lower the risk of prostate and breast cancer.

-from the WSJ, via Instapundit
 
I'm sure the studies refer to safe, married sex.

"Sugar: the Bitter Truth"

Nearly three years ago, Robert Lustig, an expert on childhood obesity at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, delivered a lecture entitled “Sugar: The Bitter Truth.” Since the video’s posting on YouTube in the summer of 2009, the 90-minute presentation has gone viral. The antisugar lecture — he calls it “poison” — has earned more than 1.9 million views and counting.

-from an article by Howard Cohen in yesterday's "Heart Health" supplement in the Sunday Herald.

The video of Dr. Lustig's lecture is here.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/10/2634802/sugar-consumption-real-and-artificial.html#storylink=misearch#storylink=cpy