Saturday, July 20, 2013

Cowards need Stand your Ground for Provoke then Shoot.

Stand your ground fosters Provoke and Shoot.

Analyze total context, not just moment of final action. 
Did the target feel threatened, act to defend; was the gun already out.
 Legitimate grounds to fear, from his experience.
Real victims of real assailants already have the ultimate defense; stand your ground extraneous.

Guns. The gun is the coward's way out, the loser's trump, in an otherwise man-to-man fight, in a state with stand-your-ground laws.  The gun, in a stand your ground state, where the gun is hidden and emerges without warning as the nuclear option, when the parties are engaged and one is losing, trumps justice just because somebody felt threatened, even though they started that ball rolling.  Does that fit the Martin-Zimmerman issue? We will never know because there were no security cameras, no witnesses. Home run.  George.  Did he instigate a probable mano a mano by the following, then betray that very tradition when he was losing. Does it matter.

1. Gun as nuclear option.  Only allow as last resort.  Analyze the totality, not the "rules" at the last instant. Culpability may remain. The statute in most stand-your-ground states does not look behind the moment of last confrontation. What position were the parties in then. What went before? Redraft statutes to include balancing, include equities, who lured, who responded, mindsets.

2. Gun as deus ex machina.

The gun is the old deus ex machina, the god that descends upon chaos on the stage in early theater, a machine that lowered with the god inside,  see, that enabled the resolution to
a) descend on the mess,
b) pick sides and act one way or the other, and
c) so solve the problem, at least for the viewpoint of the particular god.

The resolution, by a deus ex machina, the god from the machine, fixes the issue regardless of other claims of right of anyone, wrong, merit, morality. Whip out the hidden gun. 

3.  Gun as ultimate ha-ha. 

As effective now as it was in the 18th Century, hide the barrier, sink the fence, conceal the ditch, create a protective ha-ha as in landscaping. Also keeps in the sheep, trips up trespassers. See

The Gotcha. Ace in the hole. The factor that emboldens a coward to provoke.  In a confrontation, hide it, provoke a confrontation, then bring it out to end the mano-a-mano in an unfair way.  Mano-a-mano, a common concept, for one on one battles.  See Man to man. 

The gun used as a ha-ha lets the loser change the rules. Bring on the nuclear option. Lower the deus ex machina. Bang. Or, for old gods, hail Zeus with the lightning bolt. 

4. Gun as legitimate defense.

This does not require stand-your-ground. There is a time to retreat.

In stand-your-ground states, it does not matter who instigated, provoked the initial confrontation.  Whoever last feels threatened, regardless in role in luring, will win if there are no security video cameras or witnesses, he (she) can get at a gun fast, or,  more importantly, if that person had a concealed gun in hand and ready for use.  The other party, who believed this would be a mano-a-mano matter, suddenly finds that the loser is going nuclear. Speculation, but how far off?

Vet the circumstances. Is stand your ground working to favor unreasonableness, is it the coward's way out -- plan to have the gun, push the issue, then claim defense.

 How to discern:  the exploiter, the coward, who brings the gun to the fight when the mano-a-mano he provoked goes bad for him. How to discern that manipulation of law, from the non-instigating victim who is threatened with severe bodily harm, who draws a gun in real self defense.

Friday, July 5, 2013

Poor Laws: England to US. Rudderless Lack of Study. Shifting Priorities and Punishments

 What Responsibility to the Poor? 
Polarizations in History

Republican -Type Views of Economic Self-Interest,
 Punishment of Others and Blame;

Democratic - Type Views of Responsibility to Others:
 Tolerance and Systemic Solutions

Issues since Medieval Times.
What goal: productivity, political stability, or privilege entrenchment.
Why not a human well-being summit.
Nations shunting their poor.

History snapshots, England, US

Can history and the humanities suggest ideas useful in dealing with Poor Laws in our day? Three lessons show here, looking at a small history of social welfare.  The largest problem may be terminology itself: welfare has come to mean handout; propose using well-being instead, to suggest a larger goal of once reasonably healthy, educated, mobile and fed, productivity has a chance to follow.

What to learn from past approaches to ameliorating the conditions of the poor:

1) In the long legislative road from 14th Century England to ourselves today, there were many fixes and milestones, in trying approaches, but there were not immediate attempts to repeal when the first approach leaked.  Address the problem; no tossing out of an entire idea.

2) No arguments are new.  From medieval times to how, the get-toughs blame and impose punishment for a poor person's failure to support himselfl;  the lend-a-hands like opening doors. The same rich v poor in dreadful badminton of human lives runs through the years. Ayn Rand is right out of medieval nobility.  Entrenched v seekers.

Most approaches agree there should be a winnowing out of slackers, but how broad need be the net.  Legislative bodies bat about punishment, inevitability of poverty so why care, taxes to help pay for programs for the poor according to ability to pay, encouragement, blame, duty, forced "deportation" (sending the poor back to the home parish), exploitation and generosity.

 3) How to allow prompt reinstatement of a poor person, one even who could be blamed for his own situation, into regular society.

Compare this issue, which is like "forgiveness",  to current immigration issues, with the poor in particular having entered through all the open windows of the past. Think how much amnesty, indulgence, pardon has played in Western religious life for millennia. But compare to the blockade now for any pardons, indulgences: suddenly amnesty is the pejorative, where popes and priests once gave pardons to any half-baked crusader to go kill infidels and have his own sins forgiven, or the one on the deathbed -- sign here so your farm goes to the church, and you will get out of purgatory, etc..  Apply those forgivenesses to one who is poor.  To forgive a poor person for acting to better himself now  is travesty. The original sin of walking in a virtually open door, says modern times, means the entering person is guilty, those who left doors open and encouraged entry to jobs, is innocent.  What?

Yet, even where forced resettling the poor back in their home parishes was used, there were many ways to achieve almost immediate full settlement status where the poor person was:  by getting a job, taking an apprenticeship, other criteria that granted reprieve after, say, a year.  That was countered by others firing the poor soul the day before the terms were met, and such happened, as now. 

A.  England

England began debating merits of legislation to help the poor in the 14th Century, in 1388 with the Statute of Cambridge;  see then later with Thomas Cromwell fostering legislation (that failed) in the 1530's, see  Follow the progress or lack of such: Old Poor Law, Settlement Act, New Poor La, and the many amendments, angles, backslidings, rationales.

The United States is debating the same issues today. 

Legislation finally arrived in 1601 at a gelling of issues known now as the Old Poor Law, The Act for Relief of the Poor. Its provisions centered on the local parish. It was loose, locally enforced, and provided for the voluntary establishment of workhouses.

  • Members of the parish were assessed a tax to benefit the poor, based on ability to pay. The status of poverty was seen as inevitable, yet the individual caught in it was still a victim.  The "betters" were obligated by Christian precepts to step in and help.  Parts of this law survived until 1967. Obligations:  care for the helpless and elderly, provide work and apprenticeships for children, provide materials for work for the able-bodied, imprisonment of shirkers, provide almshouses or poorhouses as residences, and workhouses for forced labor. Able relatives could be held responsible for the support of the poor person.

This was followed by the Settlement Act, 1662, An Act for the Better Relief of the Poor of This Kingdom.  This built upon the 1388 law, the Statute of Cambridge. Parts of these were not repealed until 1948. See

  • This allowed, by 1697, for the badging of the poor, the requirement to wear identifying letter P in red or blue cloth on a shoulder. The 1388 law provided for "deportation" away, of the poor individual who was becoming a public charge in a parish, to his place of "settlement" -- roughly, origin, and that was closely defined as time passed.  Settlement could be earned, acquired, however, as by the poor person becoming an apprentice in the parish; or by remaining employed for a (for example) year's duration, in which case the employer dismissed the person (often) on the day before. Other protections as they evolved excluded pregnant women by 1797, because they were seen to be expensive.

The New Poor Law built on earlier efforts. The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834.

  • This established central enforcement and standardization, and also focused on the workhouse but as a deterrent. These laws saw the individual caught in poverty as having only himself to blame.  A poor person could change his situation if he wanted to.
The character of Thomas Cromwell as presented by author Hilary Mantel in her novel, Bring Up the Bodies,, demonstrates how very old the arguments are as to helping the poor and the persistence of resistance to doing anything for anyone else, despite a long view that the help can be helpful to the rich.

 Imagine Reformation era England:  Thomas Cromwell, a chief minister and advisor to Henry VIII,  fostered a poor law, but Parliament booted it back: And Cromwell muses:

"It was too much for the Commons to digest, that rich men might have some duty to the poor: that if you get fat, as gentlemen of England do, on the wool trade, you have some responsibility to the men turned off the land, the labourers without labour, the sowers without a field.  England needs roads, forts, harbours, bridges. Men need work It's a shame to see them begging their bread, when honest labour could keep the realm secure.  Can we not put them together, the hands and the task?"

B.  The United States.

American policy is a wasteland of misinformation, and rudderless lack of study.  See  A deep study of this areaTake a small course in the history of social welfare in the United States, as at  

After movements to improve slum conditions, came the Great Depression and the New Deal. 

1935:  Social Security Act.  Government took on an affirmative obligation, a "conscientious effort" to advance social welfare.  This followed a period of use of "mother's pensions" or funds for the "deserving poor" too old or too inform to be employed; and other ways of substituting an insurance idea for handouts. Then grew retirement benefits, and unemployment compensation. Then child welfare, aid to disabled, and vocational training.  With increasing numbers in need, came:

1938:  Fair Labor Standards Act -- minimum wage and limiting child labor

1960's:  Add Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; and Medicaid for the very poor; and Medicare for the elderly.

More increasing numbers. And residency as a requirement was deemed unconstitutional, see site.

1996: Backlash during the Clinton years, against increasing welfare rolls, people seemingly unable to get off once on, generations stuck.

Rather than examine the system increasingly rewarding the better off and widening the income and opportunity gap left for the poor, came the old blame idea back again, see Reformation and Cromwell, as in the swing of English Poor Laws:  

Personal Responsibility and Works Opportunity Reconciliation Act.

The title alone raises some hackles. Suddenly anyone receiving assistance was irresponsible, is that so?  But what were the options available to those on the receiving end?  That is where studies and analysis are needed.

Welfare was limited to a five year period, but states could reduce that further, regardless of the person's situation (reupping was difficult) or lack of success in finding work. An affirmative obligation to find work was key. There was no coordination with availability of child care, recognition of education disparities, inadequate transportation, mental and other health issues. And an aging population.   However, there were no comparable works opportunities put in place to be reconciled.

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

A Snowdenized World? CorpoLeaks. Corporate Matters. To be Leaked? With Impunity? Donors, Policy and Profits Decisions

CorpoLeaks. Leak Corporate Matters -- Choice for Leakers.  
New Faucets to Leak, or Stop with Government?

Snowdenize. Security through transparency, or is that just nuts?

What repercussions:  Leakers of Secrets, Donors, Shareholders, 
All Corporate Policy Meetings, Minutes, Tapes and Equivalents, Videos, Interrelationships, Finances.

Trompe News.  CorpoLeaks is a new national advocacy group supporting the leak of corporate secrets while engaging in social welfare.

It has filed its Articles of Incorporation and bought national ad-time to advance its interests in transparency in corporate matters, according to insider sources so far anonymous (but not for long).  It plans to file as a 501(c)(4) organization, knowing that no such application is really needed -- just do it and see if the IRS picks up. Corpoleaks has an independent European reference at, unrelated to the US movement. An early participant is leaker du jour Edward Snowden, according to company records.

The ironic result, observe some Big Name observers, that The People, with full information, and with decent and focused regulation implemented in their interest, may prefer government action in many areas of services a nation needs; and prefer it to the Private Sector with its overriding profit motive..

Why? Follow the reasoning.

 Government carries with it accountability to all taxpayers, whereas the Private Sector is accountable only to its shareholders. "Let the people board the corporate ships, and explore the Hold!" this from a Leaks Supporter in front, who thinks he and only he has all he needs in wits and information, to make decisions for the many. See Opinion, Wall Street Journal,

With increasing pressure for governmental matters to be transparent, an issue pushed to the forefront by said Edward Snowden, CorpoLeaks now urges that corporate matters that affect substantially the lives, health, and pocketbooks of people, shall also be transparent, publicized, subject to full debate by all persons so affected.

In order to keep discourse civil, CorpoLeaks also advocates a circular seating arrangement for all debates on the topic.  This recognizes that arguments are more likely to become uncivil when those in the discussion cannot see each other's eyes.  See Financial Times, The Internet is often vile, but we can make it civilized, by Helen Lewis Aug 3-4, 2013 at 7.  That refers to an apparent 2012 study at the University of Haifa.  Roundtables, not hierarchies, a matter that is anathema to any self-respecting traditional dominant corporate structure.  

This step takes Leakers a step beyond the public sector vilification, to the heretofore sacrosanct private sector; and so far the corporate wall holds. CorpoLeaks notes in support of its efforts that there is no clear line, alleges one advocacy pamphlet, between public and private, in terms of what affects whom. Corporations thrive on government subsidies and bail-outs, government contracts its work out to those then unaccountable. "They mutually backscratch, so tit for tat, and address all consistently," said one Hopeful Leaker.

Regulation.  A corporation, or the government, of course, may request various time place manner conditions on the disclosures and rights involved,but to a public court; and such plea shall rest on clear and convincing reasons based on the common good.  If the government seeks and prevails in its arguments for a secret set of courts to decide its own transparency issues, the corporate right to secrecy shall equal that of the government, but shall not exceed such. Will this work in a highly polarized world, with jugular attacks east, west, north, south, racial, religious, etc?  If not, at least the debate should bring both entities back in line with the common good.  "No publicizing of donors in political corporate activities?  Yeesh!" muttered a Leaker in the back row.

Corporations so affected include but are not limited to news, party-advocacy media, any media, any corporation for profit or not for profit.
Counter-efforts.  It is anticipated that the Loyalty Branch of the secret corporate police shall increase its prevention and obstruction activities in its secret corporate holes abroad and at home, but those locations and implementors shall also be proper subjects of Leaks.

Next step for CorpoLeaks: The Global Nolle Prosequi.  The great nolle pros. There shall be no prosecution or finger-wagging for theft or publication of property rights, trade secrets, conflicts of interests defined as what the right hand turns down the left hand may freely receive and from whom, when, how much, specie or cash, donor lists, shareholder lists, tapes of policy and other meetings at will.  In addition, corporate activities around the globe shall be subject to such transparency, with the simple "doing business in" test to be applied to those claiming injury to live, health or pocketbook by any corporation in that jurisdiction. Confidentiality and "off the record" shall be redefined such that they reflect antiquated and no longer desired or desirable coral rock affixed to freedom of everything.

CorpoLeaks Award.  The CorpoLeaks Board plans an annual CorpoLeaks gala for its awards, on TV, and streaming apps, to the individuals or groups facilitating or implementing leaks of particular value to those whose lives are affected by those corporations. Already solicitations are being made to those holding donor lists, hackers, etc, as to political goal groups.  First prize includes a nice suite in Hong Kong, open-ended.

Non-secrets.  Logs and minutes and documentation of interactions between government and corporations, or other entities that may be created by The Private Sector for profit without accountability in matters that government did and with accountability, shall also be fully transparent. 

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Quo Warranto? Deposition Authority? Does House Committee have that power, necessarily.

Quo Warranto? Darrell Issa.  By What Authority.
By what authority 
does a House Committee chair, 
without authorization from the House,
issue a deposition subpoena.
Is it really unclear?

Answer to the double asterisk.
Is getting authorization a foregone conclusion? Try it. 

By What Authority, Darrell Issa

1.  The Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Darrell Issa (R-Calif) has issued a subpoena for a deposition, issued to Thomas Pickering, co-chair of the independent review board, as to the 2012 Benghazi tragedy.  How so? A first fast look at a commonly used legislative resource site, the Gibson Dunn site, suggests all is well:  see  The Pickering subpoena has issues.

That summary cover page Pollyanna presentation at Gibson Dunn obscures the very footnote in the material that raises the question of whether House support, or Senate support, is needed to authorize deposition subpoenas.

Researcher, watch the asterisks in the main body of material. Watch when summary reports delete them in summaries.  Beware. The Gibson Dunn site is frequently cited, see, e.g.,

2. The power of a committee to issue such a subpoena for a deposition is not clear. Deposition subpoenas require authority of the House, for House Committees; or the Senate, for Senate Committees, it appears.  Will a majority of the full House support it? Can they declare victory with a mere majority of the majority, and go home free?

2.1  Research - See The Table of Authorities of House and Senate Committees, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher 2011,  Scroll to Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, at page 7 of the 19 pages (click!).

Find all is not well.  Find this oops instead of information. Quote unquote -- and our own font for emphasis --
This is somewhat embarrassing, isn’t it?

It seems we can’t find what you’re looking for. Perhaps searching, or one of the links below, can help.
[and there is a set of links, none of which address the issue]

 Ask self:  Is something being scrubbed even as we speak? What and where is the missing link?

2.2 Digging.  Back at the site at page 7, at the Oversight Committee, find Compulsory Deposition Authority heading on the lateral axis.  There is a little mystery double asterisk deep inside. All is not well.

Quote unquote -- showing the little double asterisk leading to the disclaimer -- and our own font for emphasis --

"Chairman of full
committee, in consultation
with Ranking Mem
may order the taking of
depositions** under oath
and pursuant to notice or subpoena. [Rule 15(a)]" [same page 7 of 19]

Asterisks?  Qualifiers? Disclaimers? What?

2.3  Follow the double asterisk. Asterisks lead below the surface.

 There indeed is a disclaimer, a qualifier of the impression clearly given in the main body, that makes all not so clear.

Follow the asterisks:

Quote unquote and our own font again:
" ** Whether committees have authority to compel a witness to take a deposition absent authorization from the Senate or the House, is unclear."

So:  Quo Warranto Issa.

3.  Others who are experts:  find and follow the dots.

Pickering may have a valid defense, maybe not.

 In the alternative, why not a Pre-emptive Position Statement.

if he can be compelled to a deposition held out of public view, can he issue his own full statement pre-emptively beforehand.  Anybody around courts knows how depositions can be abused, partially presented, gesticulations made, and the guts or rather gist, lost in showtime. 


House Committee Chair Darrell Issa serves deposition subpoena, Benghazi hearing, see

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Banking. Online Bill Pay Scam? Delayed payments out. Did somebody profit in the interim?

Interbank Collusion at a Common Source Bill Pay? 
Outsourcing bank functions:
Consumer beware? Questions.

Monitor your bank's bill-pay system.  If there is a delay in a substantial payment received, ask the Payee to hold the envelope when it finally does come, copy the check. There will be no transparency in what happens to your money between the request and the Payee receiving it.

I suspect but could never prove without huge fuss and money and ill-will at neighborhood branches, that they use the same outsourcing for Bill Pay (in the midwest?).  I also find consistency between facts as I understand them, and the real possibility that someone or some policy at the Bill Pay end makes this possible:  Made out checks from the account, then deposit them for a few days elsewhere at an even small profit (could that be done? not without some record).

But even that does not explain how two separate bank checks finally made their way into one unmarked envelope and both checks finally delivered to the Payee, after raising questions about where they were.

  • These were substantial amounts, from our perspective, making even an overnight or four-day deposit at some bitty interest perhaps worth it -- then after collecting whatever they could in this market, made out two new checks with the April 18 date and mailed them both -- remember, these were two  separate banks -- in one unmarked envelope to the Payee.

Why two checks from different banks in the same envelope with no return address? Where had they been in the meanwhile?  Ah, conspiracy theories.  That is why I am taking this no further than the present rant.

So:  I had asked two separate banks to send a substantial sum from specified separate accounts, the same amount from each bank's account, to the same Payee, an investment place nearby. Informal record follows.

Day 14.  Request to both banks to send amounts, transactions separately online.

Day 18.  Date that each bank specified that the payment would be made.

Day 26 or so.  Nothing received by payee, no deductions from the accounts.  Visit both banks.  Yawn.  Don't worry.  Give it time. Bank A -- sent an email requesting somebody to check it out. Bank B:  just wait.

Day 28 or so.  Bank A says don't worry, there was a weekend there.  Bank B then calls to check on things.  Ah!  The check was mailed on Day 14, not Day 18 as the records show online.  So where is it? Don't worry.

Day 30 or so -- Here is the oddest part. Two checks from the different banks were delivered in a plain envelope with no return address to the Payee, and both dated April 18.

How could transactions from two separate banks be in one envelope, unless they use the same outsourcing bill-pay, and one bank did say their payments were processed in the midwest, and that envelope have no return address.

Holding money longer than proper used to produce, I understand, substantial amounts over the course of time with many, many clients affected, when interest rates were decent.  Still, even with low return, as a policy of skimming something off the top before money is processed is a worry.

Consumer alert.  Do not use bill pay for anything substantial; do electronic transfers. And watch your payouts from bill pay.  Scam slam spam.

The payee A normal person has no way to check these things, but suspicions grow.

Sunday, April 21, 2013

Morality and Policy. Debate Nerds Ask re Gun Control. Update to Boston. Use of Aid Fund, Newtown: Foster Debates. Propose First 47% Forum. Free Market, Guns; Arms

Morality and Guns. Update 5/1/2013

Debate Nerds Ask re Guns.

What policy best builds moral character.
Or will legislators continue to focus on personal profit by adopting a position.

Is there immorality in failure to report with verifiable factual evidenceon the full complex of issues.The Nation's Debate Nerds seek a series of Nationally Televised Debates. Voter Education Focus. The Senate and House and special interests in media and industry are not interested in educating voters, just in getting them to sign on as directed. Proposed Panel:  Essayist historians, culture and political movement specialists, other broad-based individuals not running for office. 

Trompe News. Disenfranchised debate nerds seek sponsors for a proposed Essay-Debate Format for a 2013 issue:  gun control, other political hot potatoes. These debates would combine essay and debate forum comprised of specialists and others not running for office.  This framework balance would satisfy even David Brooks, see his Op-Ed Engaged or Detached,

Add to the topic issues from the Boston Bombing:  why are persons lawfully in this nation barred from sports competition?  I understand immigration laws changed in 2010 providing for that.  Do we fear legitimate competition? Does shattering hopes of advancement, even pre-citizenship, breed anger and retribution that could otherwise be avoided.  Guns.  What is the charge against the surviving suspect, found with a gun, underage according to Massachusetts law. Are the laws of a State enough to protect public safety, see Massachusetts gun laws at

In 2008 at the John Templeton Foundation, a Pennsylvania group, posed the question:  Does a free market corrode moral character, see and some 12 respondents' views were published. The 2013 issue is proposed as an upgrade: Does a free market in the specific commodity, guns, corrode moral character?  This requires cool economists, for example, to address issues of how profitable commodities are used, and should the market care. 2008 Conversation Upgrade to 2013.

The topic planners propose using the same fonts of wisdom as participated in 2013, none of whom held elective office at the time.  They were economists, authors, an politician in suspended animation, and others. The mix is a way to offer more depth than could the solely Political-Special Interest, Smackdown Body-Count, Derbies of the last major election. Would Newtown's fund for the children there become a sponsor for a long-term contribution to national debate on that issue and others as are agreed. What are they?  Newtown Promise?

Focusing on the broader interests of the Proud 47% so far, and welcoming any from the 53%, the Nerds report that polls show that The People are sick-tired of hearing obstructive echo-chambers preserving their own election or ratings hides.  They feel a let-down by shallow and repetitive media political and issue coverage during and since the last election 2012.  With TV talkers puffing pointlessly, Nerds seek to amplify voices too often left to wither in print, in obscure sites, but representing a broader diversity of people's views.  The participants in 2008 took the time to consider, communicate, about important issues, not motivated by immediate political goals.  Even if some had political connections in 2008, that adds to the diversity of the discussion proposed.

What do they say now? And about guns?  Would no regulations on guns corrode moral decision-making? What does history say about how power is gotten and kept. How did people under the gun, or sabre, respond.  Each will be expected to provide data or verifiable history relied upon, and if no data is available, address whether it is needed and how to get it and report back.

Contacts have been made with two groups to date, for funding and sponsorship purposes:

 A. The John Templeton Foundation, a philanthropic organization headquartered in Pennsylvania, offering grants and funding for investigating Big Questions for the Nation and the World, see; and

B. The community of Newtown, including 1. Newtown Memorial Fund  trustees of the Newtown, CT funds aggregated from individuals and groups offering tangible sympathy and repair, and hoping for long-term resolution of issues. Is this the holding organization? See  ; and  2.  Newtown Promise, see

The format envisioned in draft will be

1.  A Forum of the John Templeton participants with sub-debates, as the moderator (perhaps Ms. Hirsi Ali, a citizen of the world (see below) may elect, and

2.  Televised nationally primetime, on cable and broadband; with funding for successor Forum-Debates anticipated, also with non-political, non-special interest participants, anticipated. Any 2008 participant subsequently elected to any office with legislative power, or whose enticements from special interests (see disclosure requirements below) arise above $1000 in value in a given year, shall be disqualified.

Nerds cheer. "Information has long been the goal of political debates," said one supporter, "but they degenerated into circuses, and zingers for entertainment, not fact-examination.  We applaud a focus on views supported by data and facts laid out simultaneously with the argument, as these Forums will be.  There are too many tainted and slanted Fact check sites for mere that kind of lok-back source to be really useful. Too many fact-check sites are heavily agendaed:  competition in propaganda by factoid.

A.  The John Templeton Foundation.

 In October 2008, before America's election of Barack Obama, and before the full extent of the financial world's deceit-manipulation-implosion-explosion was appreciated, the John Templeton Foundation funded a "conversation" (that overused word for spin-competion). Its topic, Does the Free Market Corrode Moral Character? elicited essays from a variety of non-political or at least not in active politics at the time, academics, scientists, public figures in many Walks.  The specific issue of whether moral character corrosion results from the free market is found at

Of interest now is a subset of that issue:

Does the free market, as applied to a specific commodity, guns, corrode moral character?

The same essayists as in 2008 shall, if they accept, address this new issue on the subset of guns as a specific commodity within an untrammeled market.  Their overviews in 2008, to the broad issue of whether the free market corrodes morality, was a general idea. Too broad to really get a comparison on responses. Each used different examples, different interpretations.  Note that the participants, however, were not just American, an important perspective.  Let them loose on Guns -- a microcosm of the larger, global issue of force and who gets to flaunt it, use it, and why, and under what circumstances.

Essay participants 2008: Read full responses at

1.  Jagdish Bhagwati, Economics Professor, Columbia and other laudits, see the site. Response:
 "To the contrary." (the free market does not corrode moral character)

2.  John Gray, professor emeritus, London School of Economics, author, False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism.  
"It depends."

3.  Garry Kasparov, former chess champion, leader of The Other Russia, a pro-democracy coalition (did he survive?), author of How Life Imitates Chess
 "Yes, but ..."

4,  Quinglian He, Chinese economist, former senior editor, Shenzen Legal Daily, author of Pitfalls of Modernization: The Economic and Social Problems of Contemporary China, The Fog of Censorship: Media Control in China, and other works.

5.  Michael Walzer, professor emeritus, School for Social Science, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, contributing editor of New Republic, co-editor of Dissent.
 "Of course it does."

6.  Michael Novak, Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute, author including The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism and No One Sees God. 
 "No.  And, well, yes."

7.  Bernard-Henri Levy, philosopher and author of, e.g., American Vertigo, and Left in Lost Times:  A Stand Against the New Barbarism. 
"Certainly.  Or does it?"

8.  Kay S. Hymowitz, William E. Simon Fellow at Manhattan Institute, contributing editor, City Journal, author, Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age;
"Yes, too often."

9.  Tyler Cowen, Holbert C. Harris Professor of Economics, director of Mercatus Center, George Mason University, author, Discover your Inner Economist,  
 "No, on balance."

10.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali, emigrant from Somalia, former member of Parliament, the Netherlands, research fellow, American Enterprise Institute, author of Infidel.
 "Not at all."

11.  John C. Bogle, founder and former CEO of Vanguard, president of Bogle Financial Markets Research Center, author, Little Book of Common Sense Investing, and Enough: True Measures of Money, Business and Life.
 "It all depends."

12.  Rick Santorum, former Senator, former member of House of Representatives, [most recently, former presidential candidate]. In 2008, contributer to the Philadelphia Inquirer (who owns that now?), and Sr. Fellow at Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington, DC.

 Bring in no other essayists; let whoever is willing (no substitutions) among these focus their thoughts today on the gun sub-issue.

Each shall also disclose all memberships, contributions made by special interest groups to them or their causes, paid speaking gigs, and shall not identify as any particular political party in their country of vote.

B.  Newtown Promise, Newtown Memorial Fund

Newtown Connecticut's fund-holders increase the amounts from donations on an ongoing basis, a marathon this weekend bringing in at least or some $400,000.

Observers conclude that trustees may well be interested in supporting with some of the funds a program of forums with controlled debates and broad-based participants not running for office,  nationwide and from the world.  With Foundation funding for the essayists here, Newtown could even set up its own Foundation for national "conversations."

Why a need for an ongoing set of educational, issue-based conversations by those including most not politically involved?  Nerds note that this offers a course correction for the old fairness doctrine but applied to human and cultural and philosophical interests of the 47%.

  •  In Hartford, for example, the old multiple newspaper setting is reduced to a onesy Fox machine.  One is tempted to cross one's index fingers and back away at the acts and omissions of slant. And TV offers body counts, or inanity, or emotional hype, or morning java slants based on opinion jousting and self-promotion,  but few reliable facts.
  •  An essay format is less useful today, in reaching too small an audience. No one reads, even this. How did you get here?? So, use TV as well,  for views that are not primarily tainted by agenda, and  could be part of school and other group programs where newspapers used to be reliably used (like the trusty Weekly Reader when I was in school).  That takes grants and funding, and NPR and Public TV may not be able to fill the bill. Privatize issue-discussion.  Big Bird has to lay low.

The response at Newtown has been positive to date, to the idea of an ongoing contribution to the culture discussion of guns, and other matters apart from elected officials or control by special interests. Newtown is an ideal contributor to funding for real dialogue. That community is riven by opposing views on whether a particular commodity, with its own status included in an interpretable Constitution, can or should be addressed separately as a moral issue, and if so, under what conditions. Listen, all of us in the 47%, to specialists without agenda, that is why we go back to 2008's roster; and to other significant contributors to our cultural life.

Whatever trustees (are there such? who is watching the money?) is holding the donations of cash and specie and looking for a just use to benefit all This topic and others that it and Templeton may propose as Big Questions avoid direct reference to controls or rights, specific industry profits and payments, and goes directly to the issue of value to a society. If the essayists can agree on a response, fine.  If they cannot, fine.  But explore.

Debate Nerds are energized at the possibility of real debate-discussion, privately sponsored in order to protect Big Bird.

Update the 2008 discussion of whether moral character, whether of the reporter, or the arms carrier, is affected by free market in guns.  Free market in guns:  time for reassessment.  Look at the resources in the Newtown Aid Fund, from the CT tragedy there.  Could part of it be used for the public interest, used to foster debates by those not running for office.  See the NYT Op-Ed, Whither Moral Courage.  Can we actually focus not on retribution and blame, but on the morality of our positions that advance our own selves. Salman Rushdie, April 27, 2013, asks why we are quick to see the bravery of a physical act, but not the bravery of taking a moral position. Debate it.

Update to Boston, the marathon bombings.  The Marathon issue involves immigration to the degree that one suspect was suddenly barred, in 2010, from proceeding to the higher rung of serious boxing competition, because he was not a citizen.  He was here legally, but not yet "in." Immigration policy, misguided, seeds anger where it imposes arbitrary loss of hope, denies recognition to talent for bureaucratic reasons. a young man who cannot wait ten years for  a process to include him.  Newtown. What hope for a future including him, did that shooter have.  Similar issues.

The Boston issue is not primarily immigration, however; this is arms control.   MA gun laws.

Ask, in the larger context of arms issues, and not just Newtown or Boston,  Does a Free Market in Guns Enhance or Undermine Moral Character. This topic was addressed in 2008 in the John Templeton Foundation Conversations.
Broaden the discussion to today, to comparisons of media coverage.  Thoughtful discussion, not targeted spin.
The Nation's Debate Nerds Seek series of Nationally Televised Debates.

The Senate and House and special interests in media and industry are not up to the task.

Panel:  Essayist historians, culture and political movement specialists, other broad-based individuals not running for office.

Will Newt's consultants run from this idea of open, fact-bound debate?

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Leak: Pending Papal Bull: Dogma of Immaculate Motivation. Assumption of Cardinal Stepinac

I. Pending Papal Bull:  
Dogma of Immaculate Motivation

 Ineffabilis Sententia sub Virga Clergiorum 
(re Clergy Decision Under Stress)

Possibly leading to expansion of other Dogma, including some Saintly Assumptions

Trompe News Corp. Anonymous sources affirm that Pope Francis I is in process of issuing his first Papal Bull, setting forth the new dogma of Immaculate Motivation, leading for the beatified to a possible associated Assumption.  The immediate subject is one Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac, Croatian national, WWII era, and around whom issues of why he did not lay down his life to save those being led to death including Orthodox in WWII, instead converting whoever he could.  Orthodox view, see 

Pope John Paul II beatified Cardinal Stepinac in 1998, a step welcomed by some, but for others, further evidencing a bootstrapping by hearsay to sainthood, based on an illusory consensus by which dissenters, regardless of qualification and direct knowledge, were marginalized. See  The Vatican fosters a process by which stories, myths, wish-lists, conjecture, institutional agenda, can swirl until ultimately a great broad-based Push to actually find the elements of tale as fact can take over, and eventually, irrefutable dogma results from what otherwise would be nada, say Vatican observers.

Buttressing the bull is the dogma of Papal Infallibility, fixed by Pope Pius IX in 1869, effective forwards and backwards, see  Accordingly, any position of Pope Francis I on anything ex cathedra, will be virtually irrevocable, say many; or what options do the good-faith faithful on the outside have. Must it remain the institutional fixed position that Bible reading is not for everyone, see  See Papal Bull, Clement XI in 1713, Unigenitus, at Orthodoxinfo site.

 What of insiders? Where do the powers roll next. Will Pope Francis I be molded by the Vatican, or will he himself mold the Vatican, see  Watch the process, the wordings, the means by which stories and positions repeat each other, set up rungs upon which the next idea can sit, up and up regardless of foundation, take on a life of their own, and in the absence of fact, creating it. Clerical groupthink, political groupthink, what future for autonomy, vetting what is hawked as truth, ask emerging thinkers.

 The Papal Bull.

Papal Bull:  see background of such official proclamation or Apostolic letter authenticated by a special seal, at A modern example of the Papal Bull on the topic of Assumption, used for form here for purposes of simplicity, is that issued in 1950 by Pope Pius XII establishing as new dogma the Assumption of Mary, Municifentissimus Deus, see ; full text at There had been venerating events and treatises earlier, in abundance, but no dogma until Pius.

Assumption does not occur in a vacuum.  Nor will it apply to pedophilia.
  •  The closely related dogma precedent, and from which the idea of Assumption flows, was for a qualifying condition of Immaculate Conception, established by Pope Pius IX in 1854, see  The subject was elaborated there upon by Pope John Paul II in 1996.
  • A grounding for an Immaculate something is thus required for any later Assumption.  
  • Do the Qualifying Immaculate Something and even a later Assumption apply to Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac? 
Purpose and Course of Bull re Immaculate Motivation (and possible later Assumption)

Controversy has whirled around acts and omissions of clerics, including the Vatican itself, in the face of genocides, systematic exterminations, etc., so as to (apparently) preserve the Institution even at the expense of the murdered.

An official approach is needed, in the view of the Holy See, to dispense with unnecessary preoccupations and put to rest prejudicial investigations.  In the context of Immaculate Motivation, however, it is clear that this exemption from prosecution or investigation does not extend to situations of sexual abuse of children, although Immaculate Motivation may be invoked to set up a wall against investigation or question regarding any exploitation, abuse, and marginalization of the Institution's greatest competition if allowed to be other than barefoot or pregnant, or veiled: the subcategory of  Woman, sources say.

  • On this issue, according to the draft in hand, this sentence is full of cross-outs (pun) and gets longer and longer in order to proceed sub radar, at which word Woman the Institution lifts its collective index finger and crosses it with the other index finger, at the idea of a practical-for-reproduction if desired, but still offensively cloven human body, itself (horrors) like the cloven hoof of the unclean, non-cud-chewing animals, and if it should ever rise to the exalted level of the crest, self-proclaimed as crest is, the world ends.
Steps in process:  Investigations

Sources affirm that, by this Bull, once certain and nominal investigations are complete (those at the discretion of the Holy See), the Bull will indeed issue.  By it, the Pope expands Immaculate Conception to Immaculate Motivation, such that the judgment calls of the newly immaculate one shall not be questioned; and, then, the Assumption of such immaculate one may then follow.

Cardinal Aloysius shall, therefore, if the process completes, be declared by dogma to be Immaculate in his Motivation matters under stress in WWII whereby his decisions to act so as to appear to collaborate (the dead cannot speak) with those engaged in genocide particularly of the Orthodox, see Jasenovac, Croatia, and its mass graves.

Stepinac's burial place, either

a) in the wall of the Cathedral of St. Stephen, Zagreb, Croatia, where a plaque commemorates his prayers on his knees, some say for forgiveness;

or, as is told to tourists and others about Stepinac the patriot,

b) in an elaborate casket  near the altar, at center; where indeed clergy bow the knee but is there anything there?

meets the requirement that it not be clear where the body was at the time of Assumption (as was the case with Mary).

Objectives of the Holy See

The Pope accomplishes another goal:

Once this precedent for walling off investigation on grunds of clergy Immaculate Motiation (again, excluding motivations for pedophilia) is set, then all clergy who make choices during conflict, thereby preserving the institution and self, but failing to protect the weak, may well be included by later blanket Immaculate Motivation Bulls.

Whether Assumption follows, it is too soon to tell.  Pope Francis I would himself benefit from the Dogma of Immaculate Motivation, as this step would set all such discussions about actions in times of conflict aside, in faith that all works toward good.  Edifice:  St. Stephen's, Zagreb, see and citations to arguments pro and con therein.

Status of testimonials, pro forma or not.

In process now are secret orders for authorities to submit findings and desires as to a possible declaration of new dogma.  Question posed:  Shall clergy, even bishops and cardinals, who put the survival of the institution first, above the more minor consideration of laying down one's life for one's friends, and thus elect not to challenge a secular or other authority that seeks to take lives through violence,  be declared subjects of Immaculate Motivation, and part of the Divine Purpose to over time their deeds may work together for good, and therefore free of further investigation.

The effect, if the response is positive, shall be this:  All investigations into behaviors of such clergy in any conflict at any time, secular or religious, shall be prohibited following the issuance of the Bull.  To this end, the specific case of Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac, a Croatian national, elevated to Cardinal in 1953 by Pope Pius XII, see, shall be the first to be ascribed the privilege of bodily Assumption.

Preliminary orders herein request investigation of all matters to be concluded and submitted as set forth herein, such that a Bull may issue.

II.  Text:  Dogma of Immaculate Motivation; to be followed in this case by Assumption


Episcopus servus servorum Dei.
Clergy Motivation Under Stress

(Summation, in English) (written to suppose the anticipated positive response to the review of submissions in the larger investigation now in process, such conclusion to be at the discretion of the Holy See and not subject to review)

Suggested language, using Assumption of Mary Bull as sample:

1. God the wise and loving interposes with his own secret purposes joys to temper individual sorrows, so that eventually all may work together for good for those who love him.

2. As recurs, our pontificate is weighed by cares and troubles, by reason of calamities and many straying from truth and virtue. It consoles us that piety toward those in Apostolic succession who serve in times of conflict, here Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac, daily grows more fervent and shows a better and holier life emerging for the church. More than just a cleric with those duties extended also to those redeemed by the blood of Christ, those duties now arise to a more assiduous level, arousing many to an expanded consideration of his prerogatives. 

3. God eternally regards Cardinal Stepinac with unique favor and affection and generously ascribes to him privileges and prerogatives in the perfect harmony of grace, and as time has passed, his bodily Assumption into heaven has shone forth more clearly.  Indeed, he is said, to the tourists, to rest in the center of the church; but a side plaque to many designates his real burial place, where he asks forgiveness, it is said.  It is time to lay to rest any debate about which is which.   

4. That privilege of Assumption received new radiance with Pope Pius IX proclaiming the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Her Assumption is closely tied. As Christ overcame sin and death by his death, similarly, the baptized who are born again supernaturally conquer sin and death; but the just must wait as a general rule until the end of time. As the bodies of the just are corrupted after death, only on the last day will they be joined to their glorious souls. 

5. Now God wills that Aloysius should be exempted from the general rule, by unique privilege, that others in time may also share. His was not an Immaculate Conception,  yet his love of institution overcame sin so he was not subject to remaining in the grave or waiting until the end of time for the redemption of his body.  His prerogative is, therefore, Immaculate Decision.

6.  This Immaculate Decision alternate route to freedom from original sin not from the beginning (Immaculate Conception, as from the moment Mary was conceived) but from the Time of Choice of Action, the faithful hoped strongly that the dogma of the Assumption of Mary would also be defined for others by the Church's supreme teaching authority. 

7. There have been urgent petitions to this effect, for Assumption, from individuals, those speaking for nations and ecclesiastical provinces, and even a considerable number of Fathers of the Vatican Council.

8. During the course of time such postulations and petitions did not decrease but rather grew continually in number and in urgency [does Aloysius qualify, do enough care, this note in the personal hand of the Holy See].   Many investigations to date have illuminated the fact that the dogma of the Assumption even as stemming from Immaculate Motivation contained in the deposit of Christian faith entrusted to the Church. More petitions beg and urge the Apostolic See to define this truth.  [we hope, this note again in the personal hand of the Holy See in this draft]

9. There have been petitions as the faithful associate with their bishops and by the thousands.

10. Consequently, we issued private orders for more advanced inquiries so all matters should be gathered together and evaluated

11. We also asked for formal statements from all our venerable brethren asking do they judge that the bodily Assumption of Aloysius be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith?  Do you want that?

12. As was true, we are told, in similar requests upon the issue of Assumption of Mary, we have received substantially unanimous affirmative responses to the Immaculate Decision and then Assumption of Aloysius Stepinac.

  • As set forth therein:  (citations omitted)
    • 'This "outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful," affirming that the bodily Assumption of Cardinal Stepinac into heaven can be defined as a dogma of faith, since it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church's ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way, manifests this privilege as a truth revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse [the Pope?] to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly. Certainly this teaching authority of the Church, not by any merely human effort but under the protection of the Spirit of Truth, and therefore absolutely without error, carries out the commission entrusted to it, that of preserving the revealed truths pure and entire throughout every age, in such a way that it presents them undefiled, adding nothing to them and taking nothing away from them. For, as the Vatican Council teaches, "the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in such a way that, by his revelation, they might manifest new doctrine, but so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith." Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Servant Aloysius Stepinac's bodily Assumption into heaven- which surely no faculty of the human mind could know by its own natural powers, as was the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of God is concerned-is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church. For, as the Vatican Council asserts, "all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed." '
13.  We also have various testimonies of this common belief in Immaculate Motivation of clerics from remote times to the present, as in our noble Crusades and Inquisitions, wherein the Holy See had its own armies and the killing of any unbeliever was the killing of an evildoer, and desired by God.  [Note in the hand of the Holy See:  Some call this an illusion of consensus, whereby dissenters are marginalized, see Op-Ed by Paul Krugman, Marches of Folly, see Note to self:  be prepared to counter the illusion of consensus argument]

14. Christ's faithful have learned much of Aloysius' life through their pastors' teaching and leadership[marginal note: Again, Mr. Krugman would characterize this process as showing an "exaggerated and inappropriate reverence for authority," supra.  By that doctrine, only persons in authority are to be respected; giving rise to "groupthink" where none of the faithful ever ever vet or listen skeptically, supra. The added danger, says he, is a blur of advocacy and reporting, such that the faithful believe the advocacy to be fact.  I leave that to God.  The Lord's Institution is indeed one of authority, and that shall stand, regardless of merit or vetting, blast the word]

15.  Men's buildings and temple and sacred images, and places where Aloysius is set for patronage, also attest to faith in his Immaculate Decision and Assumption. Search for all the high schools in his name.  

 There is no Rosary of Aloysius, but Aloysius indeed prayed as so many Orthodox were led to death, and he converted many in the line, even though he saved them not from worldly death, perhaps they achieved eternal life, who knows.

16. And think of the liturgical offices commemorating the Assumption privilege."[I]t is the profession, subject to the supreme teaching authority within the Church, of heavenly truths, [that] can supply proofs and testimonies of no small value for deciding a particular point of Christian doctrine."  We therefore can expand it.

17. Everything agrees that Assumption can follow from Immaculate Whatever, and especially Immaculate Motivation.. In the liturgical books which deal with the feast either of the dormition or of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin there are expressions that agree in testifying that, when the Virgin Mother of God passed from this earthly exile to heaven, what happened to her sacred body was, by the decree of divine Providence, in keeping with the dignity of the Mother of the Word Incarnate, and with the other privileges she had been accorded. 

Go specifically to history:  Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself."


And here the Papal notes on the draft begin to end, and the original Bull regarding Mary's Assumption follows with some scanty changes and rough notes of Talking Points.
Clearly the Pope is a work in progress on this issue:

18. What is here indicated in that sobriety characteristic of the Roman liturgy is presented more clearly and completely in other ancient liturgical books. Aloysius is not so presented in ancient books,  but his service to Christ's Church is enough.  We also have no idea where her body was at the time of the Assumption, but assume it was incorrupted.  We make that assumption as well as to Aloysius.

19. The fact that the Apostolic See, has elevated the feast day of Mary's Assumption for centuries, thus it follows that it should be dogma.

20. However, since the liturgy of the Church does not engender the Catholic faith, but rather springs from it, in such a way that the practices of the sacred worship proceed from the faith as the fruit comes from the tree, it follows that the holy Fathers and the great Doctors, in the homilies and sermons they gave the people on this feast day, did not draw their teaching from the feast itself as from a primary source, but rather they spoke of this doctrine as something already known and accepted by Christ's faithful. They just distilled it and made it clearer.

21. The logic is inescapable.  We have no idea if Mary kept her virginity intact in childbirth, and yea the word Virgine only means one not married at the time, thus could be young or old.  We assume she kept herself incorrupt even after death.  Who can prove otherwise?  And she clearly ranks.  How then can we demand more proof as to Aloysius?

22. Look at all the authorities saying the same thing.

23. When this liturgical feast was being celebrated ever more widely and with ever increasing devotion and piety, the bishops of the Church and its preachers in continually greater numbers considered it their duty openly and clearly to explain the mystery that the feast commemorates, and to explain how it is intimately connected with the other revealed truths. And that we gladly do.

24. Aloysius, being afforded the same privilege from Immaculate Decision, is in accord with divine truths in Scripture.

25. Various proof can be mustered to enlighten this privilege. Watch me now. 

26. Often there are theologians and preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers,[20] have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption.  That is no barrier to our expanding it. 

27. Moreover, the scholastic Doctors have recognized the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God as something signified, not only in various figures of the Old Testament, but also in Mary.  Why not, then, Aloysius and others similarly situated?  Mary countered the curse of Eve, why not then Aloysius counter the curse of self-seeking, of cowardice, of failing to lay down one's life for one's friends, even if not a friend, another soul.

28. The testimonies go on.  And on. 

29. And on.  Anybody who wrote anything is listed. 

30. And saints fall in line.  Proofs and authorities are all we need. 

31. Everybody agrees that Mary's body had been assumed into heaven along with her soul. Not everyone may agree as to Aloysius, but I act as that instigator of authority.

32. Some indeed confuses as to Mary, thus avoiding convolutions is to be desired as to Aloysius:  "From this we can see that she is there bodily...her blessedness would not have been complete unless she were there as a person. The soul is not a person, but the soul, joined to the body, is a person. It is manifest that she is there in soul and in body. Otherwise she would not possess her complete beatitude."

33. On with more testimonials.  Both Mary and Jesus had nobility in body and soul, thus they should be together.  Add Aloysius. "Finally, since the Church has never looked for the bodily relics of the Blessed Virgin nor proposed them for the veneration of the people, we have a proof on the order of a sensible experience." Similarly, we request no exhumation of Aloysius.  He is not there.

34. More testimonials.
35.  Jesus would have wanted it.

36. So, it is fitting and right to assume the Assumption not only of Mary, but of Aloysius, he of the Immaculate Decision.

Conclusion, according to Papal Notes to be reworked as appropriate:

Heresy Issue:  Is any of this heretical, this idea of Assumption following an Immaculation decree:
 Once the mystery which is commemorated in this feast had been placed in its proper light, there were not lacking teachers who, instead of dealing with the theological reasonings that show why it is fitting and right to believe the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven, chose to focus their mind and attention on the faith of the Church itself, which is the Mystical Body of Christ without stain or wrinkle[40] and is called by the Apostle "the pillar and ground of truth."[41] Relying on this common faith, they considered the teaching opposed to the doctrine of our Lady's Assumption as temerarious [reckless, characterized by temerity] , if not heretical. Thus, like not a few others, St. Peter Canisius, after he had declared that the very word "assumption" signifies the glorification, not only of the soul but also of the body, and that the Church has venerated and has solemnly celebrated this mystery of Mary's Assumption for many centuries, adds these words of warning: "This teaching has already been accepted for some centuries, it has been held as certain in the minds of the pious people, and it has been taught to the entire Church in such a way that those who deny that Mary's body has been assumed into heaven are not to be listened to patiently but are everywhere to be denounced as over-contentious or rash men, and as imbued with a spirit that is heretical rather than Catholic."[42]
And here follows the rest of the original Bull as to Assumption, 
notations in the private study with the secretary to the Pope, awaiting fulfillment. 

Learn the language of the Church of the People
37. At the same time the great Suarez was professing in the field of mariology the norm that "keeping in mind the standards of propriety, and when there is no contradiction or repugnance on the part of Scripture, the mysteries of grace which God has wrought in the Virgin must be measured, not by the ordinary laws, but by the divine omnipotence."[43] Supported by the common faith of the entire Church on the subject of the mystery of the Assumption, he could conclude that this mystery was to be believed with the same firmness of assent as that given to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Thus he already held that such truths could be defined.

38. All these proofs and considerations of the holy Fathers and the theologians are based upon the Sacred Writings as their ultimate foundation. These set the loving Mother of God as it were before our very eyes as most intimately joined to her divine Son and as always sharing his lot. Consequently it seems impossible to think of her, the one who conceived Christ, brought him forth, nursed him with her milk, held him in her arms, and clasped him to her breast, as being apart from him in body, even though not in soul, after this earthly life. Since our Redeemer is the Son of Mary, he could not do otherwise, as the perfect observer of God's law, than to honor, not only his eternal Father, but also his most beloved Mother. And, since it was within his power to grant her this great honor, to preserve her from the corruption of the tomb, we must believe that he really acted in this way.

39. We must remember especially that, since the second century, the Virgin Mary has been designated by the holy Fathers as the new Eve, who, although subject to the new Adam, is most intimately associated with him in that struggle against the infernal foe which, as foretold in the protoevangelium,[44] would finally result in that most complete victory over the sin and death which are always mentioned together in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles.[45] Consequently, just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part and the final sign of this victory, so that struggle which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her divine Son should be brought to a close by the glorification of her virginal body, for the same Apostle says: "When this mortal thing hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory."[46]

40. Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination,[47] immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages.[48]

41. Since the universal Church, within which dwells the Spirit of Truth who infallibly directs it toward an ever more perfect knowledge of the revealed truths, has expressed its own belief many times over the course of the centuries, and since the bishops of the entire world are almost unanimously petitioning that the truth of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven should be defined as a dogma of divine and Catholic faith-this truth which is based on the Sacred Writings, which is thoroughly rooted in the minds of the faithful, which has been approved in ecclesiastical worship from the most remote times, which is completely in harmony with the other revealed truths, and which has been expounded and explained magnificently in the work, the science, and the wisdom of the theologians-we believe that the moment appointed in the plan of divine providence for the solemn proclamation of this outstanding privilege of the Virgin Mary has already arrived.

42. We, who have placed our pontificate under the special patronage of the most holy Virgin, to whom we have had recourse so often in times of grave trouble, we who have consecrated the entire human race to her Immaculate Heart in public ceremonies, and who have time and time again experienced her powerful protection, are confident that this solemn proclamation and definition of the Assumption will contribute in no small way to the advantage of human society, since it redounds to the glory of the Most Blessed Trinity, to which the Blessed Mother of God is bound by such singular bonds. It is to be hoped that all the faithful will be stirred up to a stronger piety toward their heavenly Mother, and that the souls of all those who glory in the Christian name may be moved by the desire of sharing in the unity of Jesus Christ's Mystical Body and of increasing their love for her who shows her motherly heart to all the members of this august body. And so we may hope that those who meditate upon the glorious example Mary offers us may be more and more convinced of the value of a human life entirely devoted to carrying out the heavenly Father's will and to bringing good to others. Thus, while the illusory teachings of materialism and the corruption of morals that follows from these teachings threaten to extinguish the light of virtue and to ruin the lives of men by exciting discord among them, in this magnificent way all may see clearly to what a lofty goal our bodies and souls are destined. Finally it is our hope that belief in Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven will make our belief in our own resurrection stronger and render it more effective.
43. We rejoice greatly that this solemn event falls, according to the design of God's providence, during this Holy Year, so that we are able, while the great Jubilee is being observed, to adorn the brow of God's Virgin Mother with this brilliant gem, and to leave a monument more enduring than bronze of our own most fervent love for the Mother of God.

44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: 
that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

46. In order that this, our definition of the bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven may be brought to the attention of the universal Church, we desire that this, our Apostolic Letter, should stand for perpetual remembrance, commanding that written copies of it, or even printed copies, signed by the hand of any public notary and bearing the seal of a person constituted in ecclesiastical dignity, should be accorded by all men the same reception they would give to this present letter, were it tendered or shown.

47. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

48. Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, in the year of the great Jubilee, 1950, on the first day of the month of November, on the Feast of All Saints, in the twelfth year of our pontificate.
I, PIUS, Bishop of the Catholic Church, have signed, so defining.