Update no.263

Update from the Heartland

No.263

18.12.06 – 24.12.06

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
Merry Christmas to our friends of the Christian faith.
Someday, may we know peace on Earth and truly good will toward all people.
May God bless you all.

At 07:00 EST, Thursday, 21.December, Raytheon CEO Bill Swanson and Raytheon Aircraft CEO Jim Schuster made the public announcement that Raytheon “intends to sell Raytheon Aircraft Company to Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, a new company formed by Goldman Sachs Capital Partners, an affiliate of Goldman Sachs, and Onex Partners.” The following day, the Wichita Eagle’s front page, banner headline was “Beechcraft is Back.” The sale price was US$3.3B. The deal should be closed and final in the first half of 2007 – regulatory wickets and all – and will take the company private. The current executive management team will remain and report to a separate board established by the partnership. Goldman Sachs was a major investor in Adams Aircraft – the new start-up company – and, Onex, a Canadian capital investment company, is in a partnership that bought Qantas Airlines, and they bought the Boeing Wichita Commercial Division, now known as Spirit Aviation. So far, this looks like a pretty good deal. The next six months to a year should tell the story.

The last four months have been rather nightmarish. The best description for this nightmare seems to be a T-shirt caption:
FAA Charter –
We're not happy,
until you're not happy.
As such, the FAA must be ecstatic. Any good, competent, engineering organization bases their decisions on facts, not on emotion, hunches and feelings. While a powerful urge exists to write a book about adolescent incompetence, such an exposé in the present situation is inappropriate. I shall resist the urge. As is so often the case, we must suffer in silence and endure this ridiculous trial. This too shall pass.

Al-Qaeda deputy chief of radical propaganda Ayman al-Zawahiri released another video tape message this week. He makes the usual threats against the United States and our allies as well as those trying to help find a peaceful solution in the Middle East. This tape is hardly noteworthy among all the other video and audio messages. However, one phrase did strike me as particularly illuminating as the mindset of these animals. Al-Zawahiri said, “The only path to freedom is holy war, and not by elections.” He went on to say, “Those who are trying to liberate the Islamic territories through elections based on secular constitutions, or on decisions to hand over Palestine to the Jews, will not liberate one grain of sand of Palestine.” It seems al-Qaeda is quite angry with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas because of the leader’s call for early elections to resolve the confrontation with the militant and obstructionist Hamas party as well as Abbas’ effort to find peace with his neighbor Israel. After all, peace between Israel and the Palestinians would eliminate one of the principle irrational justifications for war on the West. They do love blaming everyone else except themselves – sounds kind of adolescent doesn’t it?

Apparently President Bush is listening. He has begun talking about increasing troop strength in Iraq by 30,000 and increasing the size of the military, specifically the Army and Marine Corps. A day late and a dollar short, but hey, at least reality appears to be creeping into the mix. I do agree with the Joint Chiefs . . . a modest increase in deployed troops in Iraq will not alter the situation. My opinion: the mission must be changed and the troop strength substantially increased. If we are going to fight a war, let’s fight the damn war, and forget this freakin’ war on the cheap. About the only positive I can see in the current public disclosures might be a signal that the United States is not backing down or giving up on Iraq. In addition, refreshing signs in the Press began to sprout; a Tuesday Washington Post editorial titled “The Army We Need” presented a glimmer of optimism regarding efforts to raise the Army we need to fight the War on Islamic Fascism. Hope springs eternal.

On Friday, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1737 implementing sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, after two months of protracted debate, haggling and diplomacy during which Russia managed to strip off the serious provisions. I am not a proponent of sanctions for a host of reasons, and I seriously doubt sanctions will have any positive effect in this case. However, if they help the world feel better about the probable consequence, then so be it. I find it quite interesting that Russia's Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin chose to remind the world that the resolution was passed under Article 41 of the UN Charter. Article 41 involves measures not including military force and comes from Chapter VII of the Charter -- Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression. I am always fascinated by the optimism of Neville Chamberlain at times such as these.

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas – covetous presidential candidate – decided to remove his senatorial block on the nomination of Judge Janet Neff to the Federal District Court. You may recall his ill-advised and yet enormously illuminating action to block the entire list of judicial nominations upon which Judge Neff was listed simply because she attended a private affirmation ceremony for the daughter of her long-time neighbor and family friend. [254] Even more egregious at the hands of dear ol’ Sam, he sought a blood-oath from Neff to recuse herself from any future homosexual related cases including same-gender marriage in trade for his allowing her nomination to proceed. Dear ol’ Sam apparently acquiesced when his colleagues convinced him he was way-out on a new precedent limb that could not be supported. The persistent question that keeps coming back to me is, what more proof do we need to establish his way-beyond uber-Right status and unworthiness for public office . . . set aside the presidency?

Leonard Pitts, nationally syndicated columnist with the Miami Herald, recently wrote an article titled, "My freedom linked to others -- including gays." <http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/16243773.htm>
He wrote, "I have yet to learn how to segregate my moral concerns. It seems to me if I abhor intolerance, discrimination and hatred when they affect people who look like me, I must also abhor them when they affect people who do not. For that matter, I must abhor them even when they benefit me. Otherwise, what I claim as moral authority is really just self-interest in disguise." Well said, Leonard. We can all take away a lesson from his words. Labels are for folks who cannot respect people as they are and need to place folks into nice, little, discreet bins so that they can be ignored or worse, discriminated against or violated in some strange infantile self-gratification process. As long as we do not act upon our bigotry to interfere with or impose upon another person’s equal rights to freedom, I can accept that bigotry; I don’t like it and I wish it was not so, but I can tolerate it – the price of freedom for each of us. The bottom line, respect others as we wish to be respected, and we will all get along fine.

Nine parishes of the Episcopal Church of the United States, in Virginia, decided they could no longer tolerate the liberal leanings of the church leadership, so they decided to secede and affiliate themselves with Archbishop Peter Akinola of the Episcopal Church of Nigeria. While this action is indeed within the rights and privileges of those parishioners, the event is nonetheless sad and only highlights an equally sad reality. These parishes of a church born of the American Revolution and based on all men being equal decided in their frame of reference that noble principle is not true. Making the sad event even worse, they chose to align themselves with a rabid homophobe and theocrat. As good Americans, they are entitled to their bigotry as long as they do not seek to impose their beliefs on other American citizens – as Akinola would seek to do.

Comments and contributions from Update no.262:
“As Marines, we should be the last to lose our nerve.”
My reply:
Indeed! Semper Fidelis.
My opinions are as a citizen, not as a Marine. If this Grand Republic needs me to bleed as a Marine, I shall do my duty in service to the Nation.

Another contribution:
“Why not allow two brothers, or any siblings, to marry and enjoy the benefits? The problem, you see, is in having granted married couples unequal protection in violation of the constitution. Instead of arguing about who may marry, we should eliminate all discriminatory treatment of unmarried citizen as compared to married. (Or was there some valid public policy for favoring classic marriage, such as for the proliferation of citizens, which may have been constitutional after all? But then, same sex marriage would not qualify, would it, unless it were for the purpose of adopting foreign children...) Just some old thoughts that began to form long before the homosexuals stole the beautiful word "gay" and insisted on rights that I didn't realize existed.”
My response:
Yes, I do see unequal protection in violation of not only the Constitution but the very principles of unalienable Rights upon which this Grand Republic was founded. While my advocacy for equal protection, equal rights and respect for a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy may suggest an unbounded condition, there are limits to even my liberal social opinions. My lines are derived from the public good and the boundary of the public domain. There are several elements of marriage that cross the boundary and thus are appropriate for public interest and concern – free, willing and informed choice; public health; and child welfare. The State has a proper, legitimate and just interest in those areas. Since marriage is predominately a private contract between consenting adults, the State must ensure that the participants are beyond the age of consent (or with the consent of parents), and that the participants are healthy, id est, not suffering from communicable diseases that could affect the spouse or children. The common law in most states provides for demonstrated commitment by cohabitation; I think the specified duration of that demonstration is too long in most cases. Intra-familial relationships present a multitude of potential public domain concerns from abuse of power to genetic in-breeding consequences, and thus warrant State intrusion. However, beyond those specific elements of public interest, the vast majority of inter-personal relationship factors is well beyond the proper public interest and should be excluded from public law.
The welfare of potential progeny presents the most difficult challenge as I have written numerous times. [161-4, 217, 260] Children have little protection from an abusive parent. The State’s intervention usually occurs or should occur when signs or indications of abuse present in the public domain. Where these arguments break down is the selective application, which then raises the equal protection concerns. I am and have been an outspoken advocate for children, and as a result, I am enormously intolerant of those parent(s) who abuse, neglect or fail to fulfill their societal responsibilities. My opinions go to the extreme to protecting children and prohibiting the procreative ability of any incompetent parent. Concomitantly, I cannot accept the equal protection violation when we have shown so little willingness to protect child and eliminate irresponsible parents. Let us truly protect the children first, and then we can talk about regulating private relationship contracts. Further, while I do accept the hereditary biological basis of procreation, I cannot support that model as the only acceptable family model when we have so many bad examples. There are simply just too many homosexual couples who have clearly demonstrated their exemplary performance as parents; we cannot and must not ignore that reality. In fact, I have yet to hear of any homosexual (or polygamous for that matter) couples producing criminals, serial killers or child abusers. There are certainly many heterosexual bad examples.
My point in all this is, let us allow people to live their lives as they see fit and judge individuals, couples and families by their public performance rather than against some arbitrary, notional, preconceived, pro forma metric.

Another contribution in a thread that began in Update no.261:
"To take exception, in this season of good will, I don't believe the 'American People have lost the will to win.' Rather, the strategy of the Bush administration in the war against Islamic fascism has always been questionable. Throwing increasing numbers of American troops into harm's way in an occupied country that has dissolved into anarchy, largely because of the American presence, guarantees the increasing escalation of internecine, inter-tribal, inter-religious rivalries within an emergent state (see Samuel Huntington) and a convulsive region.
"This is NOT a conventional war. We cannot defeat Osama and his ilk by dedicating massive manpower or equipment to an area of the world that holds such a special place for the three revealed religions--Judaism, Christianity and Islam. You cannot fight faith with bullets. Bullets create martyrs and martyrs inspire fanatics. And our military volunteers should not be asked to be ineffective sacrifices for a religious and ideological war that does not have the urgency of the principle players. Shiites against Sunnis. Shiites and Sunnis against the Jews."Americans already won this war in Iraq as it was defined initially. We steamrolled the Republican Guard, occupied the major cities, and captured Saddam in a miserable hole in the ground. And we verified there were no weapons of mass destruction. We ensured the Iraqi people their first opportunity in 50 years to elect a reasonably representative government--not effective, mind you, but representative.
"My take? Redeploy and initiate a serious war against terrorism. Return to Afghanistan as part of the NATO effort to eradicate the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Step up our efforts to cut off all support to the Wahabists and all groups and nations who embrace a resurrection of a medieval view of Islam and an Islamic caliphate. Demonstrate by word and action that the United States of America has solutions other than armed might to problems of global crises. Institute a Marshall Plan for all nations impacted by international terrorism and demonstrate an alternative. This country cannot counter the rigid and intractable views of Al Qaeda with rigid and intractable views. The greatest strength of America has always been openness and innovation."Let's hope the New Year will give us more hope."
My response:
As always, you offer some exceptional points for debate. We have borne witness to the failure of the current tactics in Iraq and to an extent Afghanistan, largely due to an ill-conceived notion of the leaner-is-better hypothesis of the former SecDef. The sectarian divisions within Iraq (indeed within virtually all the Middle Eastern nations) are certainly not new. The British experienced the reality nearly a century ago. Our failure lies in the gross underestimation of those divisions and overestimation of the power of freedom with people so encumbered by theocracy. So many of those tribes, sects, neighborhoods and such have no concept of what freedom means, and thus turn to the bravado machismo of their men folk for safety and security. The addition of modern munitions makes the consequent bloodletting all the more graphic and indiscriminate. Winning the peace in such an environment is predominately political, not military, in character, however, the political action has no hope of success without security on the ground. The control of each street, market, building and bridge must be maintained for the political to succeed, thus the requirement for a powerful, overwhelming military force. Playing musical hotspots with seriously limited combat forces was a tactic destined to failure . . . and this is not hindsight, but many of us predicted the consequence of Rummie’s misbegotten ideology. Such is life and death on the battlefield.
Again, as is so often the case, your thinking is clear, crisp and direct. Yes, indeedie, we are NOT in a conventional war, and bullets will not resolve a conflict of religion. I find myself largely in agreement with your hypothesis with one significant exception. The Marshall Plan worked because the Allies controlled the ground and the indigenous people wanted peace. I doubt the Marshall Plan could have or would have been successful without both. Maslow’s often-maligned hierarchy correctly suggests safety and security are just above the fundamental physiological needs -- without them, higher order social interaction becomes virtually impossible. We have few basic choices:
1. Commit overwhelming force to secure the ground to allow a political solution,
2. Fracture Iraq to establish sectarian aligned tribal regions or perhaps even separate nations, or
3. Abandon the region to let the chips fall where they may.
I like the Marshall Plan approach for a host of reasons. However, just as our choices are in order of our involvement, so to is the order of potential for success of a Marshall Plan solution. Regardless, we must penetrate the veneer of machismo to deal with the true root cause -- children being taught to hate, and clerics who encourage and foster that hatred. I do not imply a simplistic path, just a clear vision. We cannot reach the hearts & minds of peaceful people until we engage, neutralize or eliminate those intent upon evil.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)

Update no.262

Update from the Heartland

No.262

11.12.06 – 17.12.06

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
Happy Hanukkah . . . to our friends of the Jewish faith.

On Monday, the Federalist Patriot published the words of Suzanne Fields: "Marriage is not only a private contract, but a public one, too, with attendant laws governing care and responsibility for children. Traditional marriage, at its best, fosters social attitudes to help build self-reliant, competent, industrious, self-governing citizens. ‘The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families,’ John Adams wrote in 1778" – I note: private, not public. The Wichita Eagle recently published several opinion articles on marriage. With everyone talking about marriage, I thought I would add a few thoughts. First, generalizations and labels wash out the uniqueness of every individual, so let us try to avoid them. Modern technology and science enabled procreation by choice, and when desired, beyond the genetically biological manner. The historically traditional union of a male and a female begetting progeny defines the common unit we call a family. Societal forces and religion evolved rules to draw order out of chaos and among those rules was the notion of monogamy and the eventual codification of that process in marriage. We could argue the genesis of marriage, but let it suffice to say that rules were intended to protect ordered procreation. Just as science has provided more options for procreation, so to has changing social conditions altered the options for families and marriage. Perhaps one common point is, individual parental performance should be the appropriate metric rather than gross generalities that those so inclined may well use as a hammer to force individuals into the prescribed form. I suggest we have more room for and should encourage those responsible adults to form relationships for a stable, nurturing family environment for raising children to productive, contributory adulthood, and leave them to make the best decisions for their relationship(s) and family. Lastly, the public element of marriage should be quite limited and specific since there are very few aspects of marriage that exist in the public domain. Marriage is predominately a private matter.

In Update no. 260, I wrote about moral projection. The paragraph was submitted separately to and published by the Wichita Eagle on 5.December.2006, and titled “To each his own.” A reader reacted to the original opinion, and as a believer in vigorous public debate, I responded.
Scott Blades wrote:
“In reading ‘To each his own’ (Dec. 5 Reader Views), a response to Brent Castillo's column ‘Getting rid of religion won't solve problems’ (Nov. 30 Opinion), I was struck by a phrase I had never heard before. The phrase was ‘moral projection,’ and it was used to describe Christians living out their faith in the public arena. While the phrase was used in a negative sense, I was more struck by the irony of it.
“If it were not for ‘moral projection,’ there would be no rule of law. All law is the logical extension of a set of moral values. If one embraces the rule of law, then by default he is embracing the moral values on which laws are based. One who believes that religious morals should be concealed within the confines of conscience should relinquish the right to demand justice for himself at any level of personal or civil life. To demand justice is to demand the practical application of moral values. The caveat here is that the set of moral values used as a base of law must offer provision for grace, mercy and justice. Otherwise, as we are seeing in current world events, the results will be disastrous.
“All the generations of this land should be overwhelmingly grateful that our Founding Fathers chose to project a set of Judeo-Christian moral values into the foundations of our government. Unfortunately, our citizenry had departed from those foundations in a manner that seems irreversible. I often see bumper stickers that say ‘God Bless America,’ and when I see them, I always ask, ‘Why should He?’”
To which I submitted this rebuttal on Wednesday, 13.December.2006:

Moral values and moral projection

Scott Blades’ Reader Views “Essential morality” makes an important point – moral values are an essential basis of public law; in that, he is precisely correct. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) said, “Absolute morality is the regulation of conduct in such a way that pain shall not be inflicted.” Further, morality may be defined by our conduct when no one is watching.
Moral values are taught to us by our parents, our families, our religion, our schools, and fellow citizens, and are a matter of personal integrity, not common law. In an authoritarian, autocratic or dictatorial society, the government defines acceptable conduct by its citizens, and depending upon the degree of intrusion, the government has the capacity to inject itself into the most intimate of private affairs.
The Founders of this Grand Republic chose to create a representative democracy, based on the rule of law with the Constitution as its foundation and umbrella. An essential element of the Founding principles is the supremacy of the People over the State along with a carefully constructed process for granting the State authority to act on behalf of the People. The Founders also worried about the majority dominating and imposing its will upon a minority, and as a result, provided numerous checks and balances intended to protect the rights of a minority in the face of a willful majority. The essence of our Republic is the Liberty and freedom for each and every citizen to live their lives as they choose, not as the State or anyone else wants them to live.
The question was asked, what is meant by moral projection? A simple definition is the imposition of one citizen’s moral values upon another citizen, or in more blunt terms, the demand that other citizens live their lives as we want them to live. Moral projection is NOT about the definition of standards of conduct in the public domain – the laws that govern our public behavior – but rather, using the instruments of State to dictate the private conduct of free citizens.
The path terminus of moral projection is George Orwell’s Oceania (“1984”). Once one faction, majority or otherwise, believes that is perfectly acceptable to use the instruments of State to further their moral agenda, the thought police are not far behind. The inverse of this image is our commitment to those unalienable Rights – among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
In a free society that cherishes Liberty, we should accept the frailties of human nature and the vast diversity of species homo sapiens -- as it is, not as we wish it to be. Free societies have many flaws by their very character, thus tolerance, compassion and public debate are critical hallmarks that must be exercised, stressed and adjusted as societies mature.
The avoidance of moral projection is easy. Each of us should live our lives as we choose and accept that other citizens should enjoy the same Liberty. Further, we must steadfastly resist the urge to pass laws beyond the public domain, and we must respect the fundamental right to privacy of every citizen.

On Thursday, the New Jersey legislature passed [Senate, 23-12; Assembly, 56-19] a law authorizing same-gender civil unions to remedy the inequity illuminated and rejected by the New Jersey State Supreme Court in the case of Mark Lewis and Dennis Winslow v. Gwendolyn L. Harris [NJSC: (A-68-05)]. [256] Governor Corzine is expected to sign the bill into law. Thus, New Jersey joined a few other states eliminating discrimination in relationship contracts between consenting adults.

From Wichita Eagle, Reader Views, Friday, December 8, 2006:“Stem cell clarity”:
“Thank you for the story about Nancy, Patti and Ron Reagan and their work to encourage embryonic stem-cell research ("My mother's courage," Dec. Life magazine insert). They are devoted to this issue and are to be admired for their passion. Both of my parents also died of Alzheimer's disease, and I know personally how devastating it can be.
"However, the story was somewhat misleading. Patti implied that embryonic stem-cell research has been hindered by the government in the United States. There are no federal laws banning that research. Billionaire biotech lab owners have asked to go on welfare in order to pursue it, but President Bush vetoed that idea in July of this year.
“He did the right thing. No one is asking for tax money to fund adult stem cell research. This is because it is successful and private investors are lining up to give their support. An added benefit is that no human life is destroyed when adult stem cells are removed.
"In the 35 years since adult stem cells have been identified, 72 cures and therapies have been developed. This is the real promise for cures.
“In the 25 years since embryonic stem cells have been isolated, there have been zero cures or therapies. This is why private investors are not interested. If private investors are not interested, it would be a poor investment of billions of tax money as well.”
To which I responded and submitted:
Marilyn Hein’s opinion (“Stem cell clarity,” December 8, 2006) presented several critical misconceptions.
1. The suggestion that adult stem cell research has yielded medical benefit and that embryonic stem cell research has not resulted in any “cures or therapies” is deceiving and dramatically simplifies the science involved in each area of research.
2. The Federal government is involved in funding adult stem cell research.
3. The Federal government involvement is NOT for biotech lab owners, pharmaceutical companies, or any other commercial entity. The Federal government’s involvement in any research including stem cell research must be for the public good, period.
4. Perhaps the most important reason the Federal government funding of embryonic stem cell research is to ensure that the research remains in the public domain, open to public review and scrutiny, subject to constraints that protect and benefit the public, and not hidden behind the shroud of secrecy and proprietary rights.
5. The biological mechanisms of single cell division and differentiation are believed to be similar but unique from those involved in the differentiation of cells farther down the maturity string. The molecular controls and processes of zygote division and differentiation can only by determined at that level, not by some notional projection of reverse engineering.
In closing, embryonic stem cell research is a vital and viable area of medical research. A vigorous public debate of the issues is essential to extend and protect the public good. As such, we must make every attempt to keep our arguments in the factual rather than emotional domain.

On Tuesday, Islamic Republic of Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the International Conference on World Vision on the Holocaust, in Tehran, which was sponsored and hosted by the Iranian president. Ahmadinejad said publicly, “The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon, the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom.” This is not Ahmadinejad’s first statement of genocide or offense. The reminders and similarities with earlier historic events continue to mount. In 1923, a young, firebrand, former Army corporal publicly advocated the overthrow of the legitimate German government. He was arrested, convicted of treason, imprisoned and released a year later. He wrote a book titled “My Fight,” published in 1926, in which he clearly stated his objectives and intentions. He was properly elected Chancellor of Germany in 1933, and six month later, his henchmen ensured by intimidation the passage of the first of the Nürnberg Laws - The Law for the Protection of Hereditary Health. On 20.January.1942, they completed the codification of der Endlösung von die Judenfrage – the Final Solution of the Jewish Question. Millions upon millions of innocent citizens paid a dreadful price for the complacency, acquiescence, wishful thinking, and appeasement of the day. Today, I truly wonder how much longer it will take the world to recognize history repeating itself before our very eyes? Or perhaps the more relevant question is: WHAT will it take to convince peace-loving people of the evil intentions of today’s rendition of a megalomaniacal ‘president’?

Army Chief of Staff General Peter J. Schoomaker added his voice to Commandant of the Marine Corps General James Conway [259] in testimony before Congress that, in essence, he needed a larger Army or a smaller war. I vote for the larger Army. I wonder if the President is listening.

Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota suffered what is believed to be a ruptured brain aneurism. We hope the doctors are able to help him recover. If he does not, the ramifications to the control of the Senate comes into question. Then, in a particular sad commentary on our society, the Press inquisition focused on the Democrat control of the Senate far more than on Tim Johnson’s health. My cynical vein suggests the Democrat will insist upon keeping Tim on life support at all costs to avoid South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds, a Republican, from appointing a successor, and thus tilting the balance of power in the Senate . . . talk about disgusting. I have zero doubt that the Republicans would do the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.

The rabid bigots of Reverend Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, were ordered to pay costs and fees associated with the suit filed by Albert Snyder of York, Pennsylvania, against Phelps and his church. Snyder filed the suit after the Phelps bigots carried out one of their disgusting anti-homosexual protests at the funeral of Synder's son -- Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder. I hope this ruling against Phelps will be added to more and that they will get the message – keep your bigotry and homophobia to yourselves and out of the public domain.

Comments and contributions from Update no.261:
“[I had] time I don't normally have to pay close attention to the Iraq Study Group's recommendations. Time for ‘hindsight being 20/20;’ ‘I told you so’ and ‘What the f[***] were they thinking?’ Almost 3000 American troops killed and probably 60,000 Iraqis killed and for what? A Hobbesian situation wherein all are pitted against all and where life is ‘nasty, poor, brutish and short.’ Hobbes' solution? An autocracy, and the region returns to the status quo ante. Except that American and Iraqi lives will continue to be sacrificed in the name of half-ass democracy and corrupted self-determination. Not even Woodrow Wilson had such misbegotten goals.”
My reply:
We do not share the same views or opinions of the Battle for Iraq. And yet, I suspect we do share the same opinion of the administration’s mismanagement of the Battle to date, perhaps for different reasons or from different perspectives. Tom Friedman had a rather succinct and sober assessment of the situation in Iraq. We cannot and must not return to the status quo ante. I won’t bore you with more of my gibberish.
. . . and this follow-up:
“Just remember that even retired Marines with that funky Y chromosome are beginning to question the sanity of Americans remaining in Iraq as the target of every disaffected and disgruntled jihadist, insurgent, tribe member, neighborhood protector, criminals, etc., all the way down to the garbage collectors who are furious because they cannot do their jobs.
“I agree there is no ‘civil’ war in Iraq. What exists is pure anarchy and U.S. troops are an easy and identifiable mark for all the disgruntled and vicious Iraqis.
“Do I believe we should pull out precipitously? No. Colin Powell's comparison to a Pottery Barn still holds true.”
. . . and my follow-up reply:
You are precisely correct. I do not want American lives at risk for one more second, if the American People have lost the will to win. So, if the People are mentally and emotionally prepared for the bloodbath that will ensue, then so be it. Let’s withdraw to the safety of our homes, let Iraq implode, and hopefully we can find the will to prepare for the onslaught inevitably ahead and sure to come. Doing a half-assed job is not helping the Iraqis, the region, or those who stand in harm’s way on our behalf. I find it quite depressing that our children’s generation is being subjected to nearly the same insanity our generation endured. The lives of our children are far too precious to be squandered on a noble but hapless endeavor. And, yes, again, you are precisely correct . . . “even retired Marines with that funky Y chromosome are questioning the sanity of American youth remaining in Iraq” under these conditions.

Another contribution:
“Didn't know about McCain's son.
“Good for Gates.
“The media should leave Mary Cheney alone. Period.
“I just don't understand Louisiana politics. They never seem to learn.”

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)

Update no.261

Update from the Heartland

No.261

4.12.06 – 10.12.06

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
Sixty-Five years ago . . . “a date which will live in infamy.” Lest we ever forget!

Erratum:
In last week’s Update [260], I used an ill-advised word in my paragraph on the New York Times disclosure of leaked information from the Iraq Study Group. Leaking information from the open, unclassified portion of the Study Group report does not qualify as treasonous behavior. I may despise leakers and those who facilitate them, but I must not label them as traitors, to do so diminishes my argument. I offer my humble apology to everyone for what amounted to a rash, emotional reaction.

A friend and subscriber announced his son's graduation from Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego – top rifle shooter, honor platoon, and a new Private First Class Marine. Senator John McCain’s son graduated in the same class. May God bless them as they enter service to this Grand Republic. Semper Fidelis.

For us wanna-be space travelers, we enjoyed an exceptional week. We saw comparative images from the Mars Global Surveyor of recent flowing liquid, presumably water, on the surface of our neighbor planet. The mounting evidence continues to raise hopes of subsurface liquid water that could contain microbiological material. The photographs are quite intriguing. Adding to the excitement, NASA announced more detailed plans to go back to the moon by 2020 and to establish a permanent manned base on the Moon by 2024; the initiative intended to learn how to safely make the journey to Mars. Then to cap the week of space news, the Space Shuttle Discovery (STS-116) lit the candle for a magnificent night launch to rewire the International Space Station (ISS) -- a complex, essential and dangerous mission. The shuttle launches never cease to amaze me. Awesome! Bravo!

The bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group (ISG) issued its anticipated report to the President and the public. The contents certainly offer fodder for regurgitative debate regarding the Battle for Iraq. However, the peripheral dialogue bothers me greatly. Politicians of both persuasions seem to have fallen into coherence by using a myriad of words synonymous with defeat. Regardless of our opinions on Iraq, we must face this sad reality. The retrospective of history is premature and likely to change, but the image is sharpening. We may well look back, years from now, to see 22.February.2006, as the turning point in the Battle for Iraq. On that day, al-Qaeda carried out a coordinated, multiple bombing of the Shrine of Imam el Hadi (al-Askariya Shrine AKA the Golden Dome mosque) -- an important Shiite shrine in the predominantly Sunni city of Samarra, Iraq – sparking sectarian violence that has continued to escalate. [220] The precursors were quite evident two years earlier; we chose to ignore them. By not dominating the ground with overwhelming combat power, we allowed the forces tearing at the tattered fabric of Iraqi society to exercise the initiative of offensive operations. The facts on the ground substantiate the success of the Golden Dome Mosque bombing – ignition of decades of Shia resentment toward the Sunni minority as an unavoidable anchor for Allied forces in Iraq. I heard Thomas Friedman of the New York Times hypothesized that the Allied first choice for Iraq is a unified, strong, democratic nation, which is the second choice of the Iraqis. He suggested that their first choice actually comes in three parts. The Kurds want an independent country of Kurdistan. The Shia want a theocratic carbon copy of Iran. And the Sunnis want Saddam Hussein to return to power to bludgeon the non-compliant into submission. Great Britain, the United States, and our few allies are caught in the web of tribal, generational, and religiously fueled animosity and resentment. In this instance, Tom is accurately reflecting the situation of the ground. The question to us remains, do we have the will to win the peace? The ISG says . . . not really.

I am amazed! Bob Gates was recommended unanimously, 24-0, by the Senate Armed Services Committee and confirmed by a 95-2 vote of the Senate. Oddly, Senators Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Jim Bunning of Kentucky -- both Republicans -- voted against Gates, citing his criticism of progress in the Battle for Iraq. Three senators abstained. Bob will assume the role of SecDef circa 18.December.2006.

U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton tendered his resignation to the President. John was never a popular choice. Initially, I reluctantly favored his confirmation, but turned against his candidacy as the Senate debate played out. [176, 180-185, 191] The President publicly stated he did not want John’s resignation but regrettably accepted it. While John was ambassador to the UN, his public conduct was exemplary, dignified and measured . . . in short, he did a good job . . . so much for proving yourself. I can admit that I was wrong. The country loses an aggressive ambassador. Oh well!

For reasons I know not, news of Mary Cheney's pregnancy flooded the media, and once again, we return to the issues of family, marriage and homosexual rights. For those outside the United States, Mary is the daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, which is the relationship that makes this pregnancy news. As I have written many times, unless or until we seriously hold parents accountable for their performance or the consequences of their actions on society and the public domain, I find little proper rationale for intruding upon adults making informed relationship decisions or raising children as best they can. I would rather encourage homosexual caring and loving parents than abusive heterosexual parents who produce criminals and leeches upon society. So, my advice, let's wish Mary Cheney and her partner our very best wishes as they enjoy their pregnancy, and the birth and the nurturing of their child.

The cause of aviation safety took a drastic and dreadful wrong turn on Friday, 8.December.2006. Brazilian police charged Joseph Lepore and Jan Paladino for the crime of "lack(ing) of necessary diligence that is expected and required" of pilots, in the case of the midair collision between a U.S. registered, ExcelAire Embraer Legacy 600 and a Gol Airlines B-737-800 (Flight 1907) -- both relatively new aircraft equipped with sophisticated Traffic and Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS). The 29.September.2006 accident killed all 154 passengers and crew on the Gol Airlines flight. The ExcelAire flight landed safely despite serious wing damage. The Brazilians have selectively released / leaked information about the accident; that evidence suggests a controller error. The incredible oddity in this accident appears to be that the TCAS equipment in both aircraft was inoperative or switched off. Set aside the pilot mumbo-jumbo, the impact of criminal charges vice civil liability litigation may seriously chill the participation of pilots in the furtherance of aviation safety investigations. I have seen nothing criminal, as yet. After they were charged, they were released and allowed to return home to the United States with the commitment to return to Brazil if the case goes to trial.

The citizens of the Louisiana 2nd District gave us another low point in American electoral politics by re-electing Representative William “Dollar Bill” Jefferson to Congress. Perhaps we have become so accustomed and comfortable with corrupt, money-grubbing politicians that such negative examples as “Dollar Bill” Jefferson can be knowingly re-elected by a clear majority (57%).

Comments and contributions from Update no.260:
“I humbly disagree with the need for obligated national service. You know, as well as I, that the U.S. military was greatly improved when we went to a volunteer force. The most basic ideal of the founders and the Constitution was that the government was obligated to defend individual people's rights and not the other way 'round. The draft and any other sort of mandatory national service is nothing more than the majority forcing slavery on some minority. For example, the draft was basically old folks, who vote, forcing young folks, who generally didn't vote, to provide the national defense on the cheap, essentially slavery in all but name. It is not fair, it is not in accordance with our founding principles and is not the best way to man our defense. There is a fair market price to hire people to defend us, or provide any of the other "national services" and we should bare that expense.
“Damn, maybe you aren't quite ready to be a true Libertarian after all.”
My reply:
Libertarian, huh. I’m a proud independent, non-partisan. I can find resonance with elements of most political parties, including the Greens for that matter. So, indeed, I am not and will not be a true or faithful Libertarian. That said, I admire some of the essential principles of the Libertarian Party, just not all.
I would vastly prefer an all volunteer military. I see the draft as a choice of last resort. However, and more importantly than all that folderol, there are two critical factors that lead me to conscription.
1. Insufficient troops on the field of battle means those troops in combat will suffer greater casualties – less than overwhelming force – i.e., a generation of Americans will bleed more than would otherwise be necessary, and
2. I am far more interested in winning this damnable war. Given no.1 above, we should have 3-4 times more ground combat troops / units than we do now. If we can fill the ranks with volunteers, all is well and good. However, we need those troops to win this war, and as I said, I am more concerned about winning than I am about any of the dilution of conscription. We must do what we must do to win!
I do not accept the Charlie Rangel notion that paying soldiers more money will gain more recruits. While some in the military chose the profession for economic reasons, I respectfully suggest that most, like Specialist Patrick Daniel Tillman, Jr., USA – 75th Ranger Regiment, may God rest his immortal soul [124] – enlisted because they considered national service their patriotic duty during wartime. Thus, I do not accept the supposition that “the majority (is) forcing slavery on some minority.” Pat Tillman and many of his brethren chose to enlist and serve for a very noble and genuine purpose. Our soldiers deserve our praise and admiration, not our disdain.
. . . with this follow-up:
“Rumor is that RAC is almost sold and that Baron & Bonanza production may cease? What news there?
“BTW, I am all for volunteers for national service and especially for an all-volunteer force except for the most dire national emergency. No matter what a pain in the butt the rag-heads are, they are not really a serious threat to the United States. Compared to WW-II and the cold war they're just an annoyance. There is a fair price to pay someone to volunteer to take the risk of being in the military and all Americans should share in that price via their taxes if we decide we want that level of protection. The draft, or a mandatory national service, is not volunteering and it goes against the basic principles of our founding.”
. . . with my follow-up reply:
The sale of Raytheon Aircraft could be announced any day now. Three investment banking firms made the final cut. Given the sale to money guys, I expect the company to be cut up and downsized even farther; they don’t have much interest in building airplanes – only in making as much money as possible in as short of a time as possible. Whether Pistons meets its demise in the process is beyond our horizon, but the prospect is quite plausible. We shall see.
I respectfully do not agree with your assessment of the threat from Islamofascists. I would say, you are probably correct based on a direct military confrontational threat, but that is not how they have chosen to operate nor is that the principle threat we face. The threat is quite real in terms of social and political erosion both internally and more likely externally as they knock off weaker governments and cultures. The VisiGoths were certainly inconsequential militarily to the Romans, and yet they marched into Rome, burnt the city, raped the women, and slaughtered thousands of men. The Romans were not beaten militarily; they no longer possessed the will to win; they defeated themselves. That is what I fret about in our time.
. . . along with this rebuttal:
“Islam has almost nothing to offer the modern world. They are in the death throes and lashing out in frustration as other societies pass them by. We kill more Americans on the highways than they can possibly kill. I fear our loss of liberty and individual responsibility more than any threat from those rag heads; not that it will effect my remaining life but that the increase in government power and the loss of our personal liberty will leave a much diminished life for following generations.”
. . . and one last comment from me in this thread:
It is easy to judge Islam by the conduct of rabid radicals like Usama bin Ladin, but that is like judging Christianity by the actions of Pope Clement V or Cardinal de Richelieu, in my humble opinion. Islam serves the same purpose for its believers as Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism serve for their believers. If Muslims can attain a more stable state – tolerance and disavowing radical, violent evangelism – Islam can take its proper place among the world’s major religions. We must help them mature as we eliminate the vermin in their midst that threaten us.

A contribution from the United Kingdom:
“You may not be aware that we in UK are embroiled in the debate to renew or not to renew Trident. (That is indeed the question) Although not a supporter of the present incumbent at No 10, I agree we must maintain the ultimate deterrent against a re-emerging USSR and any other wild states that might wish to use a dirty or live weapon against us.
“Even so I see they are proposing to cut the number of boats to three and the number of warheads cut to an undisclosed figure, but we can surmise, as each boat carries 16 plus any 'in use spares.'
“The worry for me would be as you and I know in aviation there are down times when deep maintenance is required and major un-serviceability's occur. One must therefore ask is three boats enough?
“Must confess don't understand your American politics although we do, occasionally, watch CNN on satellite. Maybe I'm watching the wrong channels!”
My response:
I must confess I don’t think we, Americans, understand American politics. If you can filter through all the crap, we can sometimes find a worthwhile topic and content.
I had not heard of the Trident sub question in the UK. I share your concern. It’s the classic . . . in for a penny, in for a pound scenario.
All these murders presumably by Putin’s FSB (KGB) and/or NKVD operatives as well as his progressively more authoritarian rule certainly raises my level of apprehension regarding Russia’s intentions. Add the mixture the rogue states of DPRK and IRI, we have plenty of justification for maintaining such powerful deterrents. I hope the government resolves the question favorably.
. . . with this follow-up:
"Today is the anniversary of the 'day of infamy.' I've seen some TV today, mostly Bush/Blair and some CNN but no mention of the commemoration of Dec 7th. Is it that we have no wish to offend the sensibilities of our former enemies?
"We should always remember those who gave their lives that we might live in peace. Both your countrymen and mine suffered at the hands of the Japanese and I don't believe we should ever forget that fact. The past shapes the future, ignore it at our peril.
"We're told we are putting too much emphasis on WW1 and WW2 in our schools curriculum, turning our children into war worshipers. Nonsense, they need to know the truth, they need to know about the wickedness of extermination, of life in the trenches, of 'acts of infamy' in the Pacific.
"With a remerging Russia and our other friends in DPKR and IRI, with global terrorism seething under and bursting through the nice sunny surface of democracy we must remember and prepare. Remember and Prepare."
. . . and my follow-up:
All news channels in the U.S. showed commemoratives of Pearl Harbor. A number of channels broadcast specials about the remaining survivors . . . most in their 80’s now. Yes, we must always remember those before us who have sacrifices for our freedom.
Interesting comment on education. One of the elements that inspired me to write my “To So Few” novels was the fact that in our children’s history books, the Battle of Britain was relegated to one sentence . . . “The Battle of Britain was fought in the summer of 1940.” We must never forget.
Our first President, George Washington, said, “Being prepared for war is the best way to avoid it.” So it is. And yet, so many people fail to heed that lesson.

Another contribution:
“In the 1st Gulf War, the Coalition went into Iraq with Totally overwhelming forces. Hit hard and fast with everything except nukes. Likely WAY more than perhaps needed. I say good. That's the way to fight a war! Totally and entirely smash the enemy till he just flat no longer exists. Then, if you want, pick up the pieces and try to help those who have suffered collateral damage. 100 hours to subdue the enemy and accomplish (so the story goes anyway), what they had intended to do. Obviously that doesn't wash anymore because we are now back there and have been since what---2003? With no real end in sight yet (good one anyway) -- no matter what everyone says.”
My reply:
We did an incredible job in subduing Saddam’s Iraq. Unfortunately, we had significantly insufficient number of troops to control the ground, and that was an essential requirement to deal with all the aspects of the post-assault consolidation. Instead, we chased mice around the countryside, or perhaps a more appropriate image might by Walt Disney’s animated rendition of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice.
Civil pacification is one thing. Building a democratic system of governance in a nation that has never known democratic processes is NOT a military task. And yet, the nation building political task becomes impossible without realistic and reasonable security and safety for the populace. In that task, the administration grossly underestimated the problems, failed to listen to those voices of dissent or caution, and now we are faced with a chaotic, disintegrating, sectarian, quasi-government that is not likely to stand on its own anytime soon. A direct consequence of insufficient boots on the ground is more good folks will die and the process will take even longer . . . up to the point we cut and run. If the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group conclusions are what the New York Times says they will be, we may well have already passed a viable recovery point. As a reminder for ourselves, World War II lasted 6-14 years depending on markers (millions died, not thousands), and solidifying the peace along with democratic governance took another 10-15 years after the war was done . . . and that was in countries with no violent, sectarian, tribal heritage.

And, this last contribution for this week:
"I agree with you on points, especially voting… as long as one is informed, and serving your country! I do however, disagree with you on others.
"So who is Senator Sam Brownback and why would someone say he isn’t outraged by child abuse? I would think that would be political suicide. It would be like saying you are against Motherhood, the American Flag and Feeding the Starving! Politicians just don’t say things like that unless they are looking for a change of employment. So why would Senator Sam Brownback feel that way? For answers I turned to the internet. After some research, I was even more confused than ever, as I did not find any such information. What I did find however, was information on Sam Brownback, working across party lines, sponsoring and cosponsoring bills protecting children.
"So what’s really going on? I can only guess by what’s going on in my neck of the woods. That is Democrats accusing Republicans of shooting down child protection bills. I saw it time and time again last election. Thousands of commercials were aired on television and ads printed on political flyers claiming that such and such a person (always Republican) voted against a bill that would strengthen our child protection laws. One channel decided to research those claims, and gave them a grade as if they were a classroom assignment. …and they received a BIG FAT D (at best).
"The truth be known, although maybe there was SOME truth behind them, they just weren’t an HONEST depiction of what REALLY happened. The truth is, nearly every Republican voted against that, because the Dems had thrown in a bunch of GARBAGE at the last minute, having absolutely nothing to do with child protection. So GET the Republicans in a “Catch 22”, vote for the bill the way it stands… GREAT!!! Vote against the bill and we can proclaim you are against protecting children… REALLY GREAT!!!
"To me, this is an extreme example of childish behavior. If we are to come together as ONE GREAT NATION, we need to put those childish games behind us!
“If my assumptions are wrong, my apologies. But I still feel we can support Senator Brownback on one position, and disagree with him on another.“The position I would like to agree with him then, is the point I feel strongest about!
“We all have certain unalienable rights. When someone’s unalienable rights infringes upon another’s, the State may step in and make a decision. But how do they decide?
“Not all rights stand on equal ground. In other words, there is a hierarchy to them. Some are more important than others. When two rights clash, it is sometimes for the State to decide which right has higher precedence. The greatest of these unalienable rights I feel, is the very right to exist!
“I may feel I have the right to carry and use a concealed weapon, but if I walk up to someone on the street, put the barrel to his head and squeeze the trigger, I would be guilty of murder. Why? Because that person’s unalienable right to exist is greater than my right to carry and use a concealed weapon.
“It is very important to me that women have the right to choose… I would not deny them of this. Even in matters of their reproductive health. I do take exception to this however when this right infringes upon another’s right to exist. So when a baby within it’s mother’s womb is aborted, it’s very right to exist becomes violated.
“There are cases where a pregnancy endangers or threatens the life of the mother, where an abortion should be allowed. It’s the right to exist verses the right to exist… an even draw. So the choice should be left to the expectant mother. Some may even argue the case of incest and rape… something I don’t agree with in entirety. But the point I’m trying to make here, is that the vast majority of abortions performed in this country every year, are clear cut examples of individuals having their unalienable right to exist violated by a much lower right to choose. I don’t GET why people have trouble understanding this concept!
“Maybe the confusion lies in the understanding where human life actually begins. And for that discussion, I would like to ask this question: Why do so many people think human life start when the head passes through the birth canal? To me that event is so arbitrary, when considering when human life begins, arguing such borders on pure foolishness!
“Considering recent research, advancements in the medical field and technology, each and every day we are getting a clearer picture of when human life actually begins… and believe you me… it is NOT when the human head passes through the birth canal! Incredible advancements in ultrasound technology are lifting the shroud of invisibility. No longer is a baby in a womb something that is hidden and a mystery. These humans already are capable of showing emotions through facial expressions. They have thoughts, they dream, they suck their thumb, kick their legs, thrash their arms… they have personality, they are sensitive to touch… and they definitely can feel pain! Nothing we have learned recently could lead any sane person to conclude that these humans were not human at all, but merely TISSUE!!! If I have my tonsils or appendix removed, YES, the doctor is removing human tissue. When an abortion is performed, a human life is ended! PERIOD!
“So if you were to ask me when I think human life begins. I don’t think I could successfully argue that it begins at conception. I haven’t even convinced myself that a zygote or blastula constitutes an individual human life. I can’t say! But what I do know is, if the embryo (or fetus) has brain waves and a heartbeat, then it is human, and already posses the same unalienable rights as born humans!
“Everyday, because of my profession, I work with expectant mothers, most out of wedlock. When I ask them what people (parents, peers, boyfriends) said after they announced their pregnancy. Ninety percent it seems always use the same four words… ‘Get Rid of IT.’ In my opinion, it is a very sad commentary on our times. We are so self absorbed, we do not want to be bothered with a pregnancy. So we are willing to kill our unborn children if they are of slightest inconvenience to us!
“I have a better solution. We need to hold ourselves to a higher level of accountability. If you choose to have sex, along with that comes the possibility of a child… that’s just how things work! If you choose not to have a child at the time, consider lowering your chances through contraception or eliminate your chances altogether through abstinence. We need to do a better job of training our young people in sex education and contraception. Parents need to get their children more involved with church or other religious institutions of their choosing where moral and ethical values are best addressed. Parents also need to spend more time with their children at home, giving their children the attention they deserve so they don’t feel compelled to go elsewhere for attention. We need to get rid of the stigmatism behind adoption and we need to do a better job providing services to expectant mothers and single parents.”
To which, I replied:
I am sorry I left you with the impression that I accused Sam Brownback of not being outraged by child abuse. My question was an implied relative state, not a direct accusation, since I have not discussed the topic with Sam. Based on his public actions and statements as well as his legislative initiatives and voting record, it would be easy to assume dear ol' Sam only cared about stopping abortion, since he has done dreadfully little about preventing child abuse or protecting children.
My opinion of Sam Brownback is not a function of political affiliation, political bias, or predisposition . . . only based upon his public statements and actions. Yes, there are some topics and positions I can and do agree with Brownback. But, when he puts on his sanctimonious, I-know-the-correct-path cloak of righteousness, my anger levels rocket into orbit.
You’ve raised numerous aspects of the volatile topic of abortion. Succinctly, I agree with and accept Justice Blackmun’s analysis in Roe v. Wade. Intellectually, I cannot accept that life begins at conception; that argument can be extended to synaptic activity that leads to the intersection of an ovum and a sperm, or the molecular construction of those cells. A woman’s body is not a birthing vessel belonging to or controlled by the State; a woman is a citizen with all the rights and privileges afford all citizens. That aside, I could accept (and I think most reasoning citizens could accept it as well) the State’s elimination of a woman’s sovereignty over her most intimate physiological functions, if we demonstrated a will to care more for the unwanted child. We have spent an inordinate amount of time, energy and resources trying to defend an inanimate zygote than we have protecting the welfare of a child. In short and in very blunt terms, I would rather terminate a pregnancy prior to that point of extra-corporeal sustainability than condemn an unwanted child to a lifetime of abuse, neglect, suffering and injury. [91, 149, 152A/B, 168, 173, 177, 189, 214] Then, not only do we have destructive parents, but we also have added potentially destructive children to society. In my humble opinion, ALL serial murderers were abused children, as an example. That is what I think is hypocritical and disingenuous about the anti-abortion argument . . . rather than deal with the more threatening and serious issue of uncared for children, they take the easy argument of protecting the unborn. Furthermore, the anti-abortion debate has been taken to such an extreme that we have girdled embryonic stem cell research, and we endured tragic episodes like Terri Schiavo [171, 173] that violate personal dignity at our most intimate moments. A poster child for the point I am trying to make is a New York woman who has had seven (7) children ranging in age from 8 months to 12 years with seven (7) different males AND the six (6) older children have been remanded to state custody with six different foster families, of course at taxpayer expense. [161] In summary, until our society can deal with the insanity of irresponsible and injurious parents, like that New York woman, to protect the children and allow them to grow in a supportive, nurturing, instructive and loving environment, I cannot support removal of a woman’s control over her body, especially in cases where she knows she should not have children. I have made numerous suggestions [189] on how we might eventually eliminate abortion as a viable medical procedure; my desire has been to find an appropriate, committed compromise, rather than the current bludgeon-each-other-into-submission approach now in play.
I have rather strong opinions regarding the place sex should occupy in our lives from adolescence to death. Further, I also have strong opinions regarding the ridiculous societal attitudes we – and here I mean Americans since a goodly portion of the world hold more reasoned attitudes – we hold toward our sexuality, our sexual conduct and the teaching of our children. Abstinence is not a realistic option in my humble opinion. That shall be a topic for another day.
I laud your suggestions. I do not agree with all aspects, but I certainly agree with a number of the elements. In fact, you will see several of your elements in my proposal [189] to remedy this tragic impasse we suffer.
. . . and this follow-up:
“Isn't it great that we live in a country where people are free to openly speak their minds!!! We may agree on some things, and not on others, and remain on good terms! I can only speak of what I know deep down inside of me... to do anything else would make me a fake.”
. . . and my follow-up:
Very well said . . . we are truly blessed as we enjoy the unalienable Rights endowed upon all of us by God. I genuinely hope we will continue to debate issues and agree or disagree as our opinions take us.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)

Update no.260

Update from the Heartland
No.260
27.11.06 – 3.12.06

To all,
Army - 14 -- Navy -26. The domination continues -- five straight.
Sorry Greg and Sandy . . . not good enough . . . again this year.
As a good Marine, I must say, Semper Fidelis. Go Navy, Beat Army.
May God bless them all as they enter service to the Nation during wartime.

I think every citizen has an obligation to vote. I believe every citizen should give two to four years in national service of some form – the Peace Corps to the Marine Corps. Along with the sense of contribution to this Grand Republic, we also bear some commitment to humanity. It is in this light that I pass along this information. The leadership of the National Marrow Donor Program and The Marrow Foundation have asked us to notify our family and friends of the continuing need to help ill people with the Living Gift of Life. I ask you to visit:
http://pub.psbpr.com/marrowdonor/e-invite2/email.html
and, for information on how to become a marrow donor as I have been for more than 15 years, I urge you to visit the NMDP website:
http://www.marrow.org/helpnow
If every person on the planet could meet just one person who has been cured of a fatal disease by giving a marrow donation, everyone would be active volunteers on the Marrow Donor Registry. Please try to help in any manner appropriate for you.

Now, I must publicly thank Wil, Linda and others for their encouragement, assistance and advice in converting this forum into a Web Log [AKA Blog] format.
Second, I must publicly apologize for the inadvertent disclosure of contributor identity information over the span of a day or two. One of my contributors utilizes to blog Alert prompt to receive a message that his name appears in a blog. He immediately notified me. Unfortunately, as I was learning to use the blog system, I transferred text from my master files to the blog post for manipulation. In the transfer process I was using at the time, the hidden text, where references, links, contributor information are protected, crossed over as open text. Thanks to his alert, I was able to amend the transfer process to ensure none of the reference information goes into open text.
That said, I am pleased to announce the initiation of the Update from the Heartland Blog. For those so inclined, the URL addy is:
http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
I will continue to distribute the eMail version in addition to the Internet accessible blog format. Anyone is invited to comment or contribute via any media they wish. I also encourage comments on the new blog.I still have a lot to learn with the blog medium. The principle benefit is the worldwide accessibility. This is an open blog, which means anyone can read it and anyone can contribute to it. All subscribers are welcome to pass along the Update Blog URL to anyone they think might be interested. As is the nature of the medium, links to my website, and thus my books may help others become familiar with my writing.

A Monday Washington Post editorial, "Rape is Rape," illuminated an important aspect of the Maouloud Baby vs. Maryland ruling that I failed make. [256] "The common law, the court said, 'views the initial 'de-flowering' of a woman as the real harm or insult . . . after this initial infringement upon [her husband or father's] interest in a woman's sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was considered to be less consequential. The damage was done." We can only hope Maryland and all other states with similar disgusting statutes, rapidly remove this blight on American law. The title of the Post editorial succinctly frames this issue and exposes certain grossly antiquated laws that fail to protect the personal integrity, privacy and body of every citizen.

The convulsions within the mere majority in the House of Representatives continue. Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi of California has apparently rejected the ranking Democrat, Representative Jane Harmon also from California, as well as the number two Democrat Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida for the position of chairman of the important House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I can understand the rejection of Hastings; he is as corrupt as “Dollar Bill” Jefferson and “Duke” Cunningham (although the latter is the only one in prison for his crimes, as yet). In fact, I am gobsmacked that a man of Hastings' dubious conduct is even allowed in the chamber, set aside membership of such an important committee. On the other hand, the Harmon rejection appears to be simple and barely disguised political retribution for not being liberal enough for Pelosi’s liking. As predicted, this is becoming quite entertaining. On Friday, Pelosi named Representative Silvestre Reyes of Texas to be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee – a Vietnam Vet and former U.S. Border Patrol agent. Reyes has been and will probably continue to be a loyal Democrat and outspoken critic of the Battle for Iraq . . . not quite as visible or as outspoken as John Murtha, but close. Thus, Pelosi continues her efforts to set the stage and ostracize anyone just a smidgen to the right of her uber-Left politics. We know what is coming and where this is headed . . . like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that the congressionally mandated, Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group will recommend to the President a pullback of troops from Iraq. Once again, the Times chose to be the conduit for a traitor and apparently feels no obligation to the Nation to protect classified material. The President of the United States has not yet received the Baker-Hamilton report. The conclusions and recommendations of the Baker Group have been positioned as potentially pivotal in the Battle for Iraq, and as a consequence may have a profound impact on our conduct of the War on Islamic Fascism. During wartime, there are elements of information we do not deserve to know or need to know. The Times editorial staff has apparently decided long ago that they have no obligation to help win the war -- a sad statement of American society -- while our soldiers and Marines continue to die for the very freedom they use to enable more sacrifice.

The sad part of so many articles, opinion columns, and editorials seems to bubble up from the supposition that anyone not publicly espousing fundamentalist, evangelical, Christian interpretations must be rejecting or attacking religion. I am compelled to note that religion or religious citizens are NOT under attack. And yet, anyone who seeks to project their moral values, lifestyle choices, or standards for living on any other citizen must recognize there will be resistance no matter how noble their intentions. In my humble opinion, the best advice for those who rejoice in the purity of their Christian moral values is to celebrate within themselves and their families, and leave other citizens to live their lives as they choose. Moral projection is a dangerous path, and we can see the consequences all around us in our troubled world.

If we truly believe the immortal words of our Founders . . .
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
. . . when does the State have the right to infringe upon a citizen’s unalienable Rights, and by what authority? An easy answer might be, when one citizen’s exercise of his unalienable Rights infringes upon another citizen’s equally valid, unalienable Rights. Given this argument, the rub comes in the definition or interpretation of infringement. For example, the current chief of the thought police might proclaim that immoral dreams are a crime against humanity, and thus the State has legitimate interest in stamping out lust. By the Founder’s statement and implication, does the State have the authority to decide when its interests exceeds a citizen’s individual rights, and if so, how do they draw the line? One person believes the limit is his property line; another the front door, but the moral projectionist might well want the line drawn at expressed thoughts or eventually the neural synaptic sequences that define lewd or lascivious thoughts. This administration has pressed far beyond commonly accepted limits, and the likes of Senator Sam Brownback seek the power to push even farther beyond those limits. Asking each of us to sacrifice or give way a little in wartime is one thing; institutionalizing, or making permanent, those intrusions upon our private lives is all together something different. We, the People, must decide where that line is to be drawn in wartime and in the permanent peace time (when it comes). The State must not and cannot define such things as they continue their encroachment upon our unalienable Rights endowed by God.

The odd thing about the attitudes and drive of moral projectionist politicians like Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas remains the selective application of their morality. Brownback is a widely known, aggressive, and unabashed advocate for governmental intrusion on a citizen's freedom of choice. He is morally offended by a woman's fundamental right to privacy and right to choose to remain pregnant. If moral projectionist Sam can be so offended for an unborn embryo that is unwanted by its mother or not even in a uterus, why isn't Sam vehemently outraged by the child abuse and neglect of born children? His obvious lack of moral outrage for the living virtually negates his sense of offense for the unborn. He forfeits his self-professed moral position.

Comments and contributions from Update no.259:
"Rangel has lied repeated about the makeup of the current military to inflame the passions of his supporters stuck in the 60s. The following quote from "Feeling the draft" by Oliver North is more accurate. Enough said. We do not need the draft yet, but we do need a larger Army and Marine Corps.
"'Despite denigrating comments like Sen. Kerry's 'If you don't study hard you get stuck in Iraq,' today's soldier, sailor, airman, Guardsman and Marine is better educated than his civilian counterpart. And according to the Department of Defense, the overwhelming majority of military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq -- nearly 74 percent -- have been white. Hispanic/Latino deaths make up about 11.5 percent; blacks account for less than 10 percent. Yet, the overall U.S. population of more than 300 million is 14 percent Hispanic and 12 percent black.'
"Murdoch did understate the travesty of justice that continues to this day regarding the murderer Simpson, but he did the right thing to cancel it. I would not count on not hearing from that scum again. He will continue to resurface and create more agony for the families of his murder victims. Sadly, there are still those who continue to profess his innocence.
"Making hypocrisy public is a good thing for all sides of an issue or debate. It cannot be for one group - it must be for all.
"Agreed on the Oswald. But, I'm sure the conspiracy theorists will continue."
My reply:
I certainly agree on the falsehood of Rangel’s logic and rationale, and yet we are still faced with an available ground combat force that is too few in number to conduct proper ground control operations and sustain itself. The Army has had some difficulty recruiting a volunteer force of the present size. How will they triple the ranks of infantry and special operations units? General Conway rather clearly articulated the Marine Corps dilemma. Ollie North’s points against the draft are valid and accurate, however, the implicit assumption in his argument is the current force structure is adequate for the task at hand, and that is where I fundamentally disagree with him. Thus, the question for me is, how do we significantly increase the size of our ground combat forces and control the ground to allow the new government time to sink roots and establish authority. The current game of musical chairs with our available forces is not cutting it.
To take up the topic of mission, I see it in very clear terms (in priority order):
1. deploy sufficient forces to control the security and safety of the country to include local police to border control and national defense,
2. train and equip indigenous forces to assume security responsibility without diminishment of local, regional or national security,
3. assist the government in the establishment of proper infrastructure for adequate, sustained, standard of living for all citizens,
4. assist industry in the development of sustainable growth and self-sufficiency at the earliest possible date, and
5. assist the government in the education, training and engagement of the citizenry in the democratic process of governance.
Those are the mission objectives as I see them for any nation-state that required intervention . . . in this case to date, Afghanistan and Iraq; might include Syria and Iran, if necessary.
The only, reasoning people who could profess Simpson’s innocence are those who did not hear the testimony or review the evidence, or are so blinded by racial bias as to refuse to see the evidence. Fortunately, I was living in the UK at the time of his trial, and the proceedings were broadcast live, largely without commercial interruption. The physical evidence was not lock tight but it was extraordinarily compelling. However, it was the DNA evidence that was irrefutable, especially when placed in the context of the other physical evidence. The defense put on a masterful show, as they are obligated to do. And, I knew the prosecution was in trouble at the bloody glove fiasco – long before Johnny Cochrane’s “if it does not fit, you must acquit” soliloquy. I listened to the verdict live, and to say the least, I was absolutely gobsmacked as my British brethren would say. That man is as guilty as it gets, and yet, the jury acquitted him, which does not mean he was innocent. I can only hope that one day he meets an end appropriate to his crimes.
Oh yes, conspiracists are alive and well . . . several were preaching their theories the very day we went to Deely Plaza.
. . . along with this follow-up:
"Your mission priorities are clearly stated and important to pursue. I wonder, however, if the first objective should be met first - defeating the enemy. I would say that our first obligation is to win by stamping out the bad guys with force. Then we can pursue your well stated mission steps. Perhaps one reason it appears we cannot deploy proper forces is because we are deployed in places that can be reduced or eliminated for the time being. I could be wrong, but doing the math tells me we have enough forces and firepower if we have the will to deploy them. I realize it is a difficult position for most people to take, but it must be taken or we will continue this war until it breaks us. A clear military victory may not be easy, but it is possible to break the will of a people. Just look at our will right now, shaky as it is. What would happen if we sent another 100,000 troops in right now from all corners where they are not really needed and stepped on the bad guys with all the force necessary to win without reservation? We would be condemned by some and hailed by some just like now. I say, play to win or don't go."
. . . and I had to add this point:
For clarity, my no.1 objective of security and safety gives the allied forces virtually unlimited authority. For example, we might declare any person not authorized to be in possession of a weapon or explosives in the public domain is subject to death; every vehicle or person subject to immediate search without a warrant; and there are no safe havens – no home, no mosque, no church, no hospital, nothing. In other words, if you carry a weapon other than authorized by allied command, you will be engaged. The borders should be sealed and only inspected, authorized traffic will be allowed to pass; any violation will be subject to death. That is a glimpse of what I mean by “control the security and safety of the country.” I also mean stay and maintain control, not just pacify and move to the next hotspot, thus my call for three or more times the number of boots on the ground that we have now. Germany, Italy and Japan did not have ethnic factions at war with each other. Iraq and Afghanistan do. We must provide an environment secure enough to allow the government to assume control. We lost our opportunity. Now, we would have to be invited by the fledgling government.
. . . to which was added:
"Very good thoughts on your part and thanks for clarifying. Agreed with one point - the terrorists will have to be defeated somewhere on this planet or we will be assimilated eventually unless we are willing to kill them without reservation."

Another contribution from a different person:
"Based on my personal experiences, expanding the reserve and national guard forces (emphasis on recruiting and enticing troops leaving active duty) is preferable to the draft for increasing our counter-terror capability. The Iraq/Afghan messes have been fought by the reserve/guard folks to a large degree. The cost of increasing the benefits for these folks would draw a larger number of those leaving active duty and result in a more experienced and mature fighting machine for the US."
My response:
Well said, actually. If the reserves and national guard could recruit sufficient troops and those appropriate units were federalized to full-time service, then perhaps it might work. While the mobilization I propose is not to the scale of World War II, I would say we need to be at least halfway to that size. If we can grow our ground combat force as large as it needs to be with volunteers by any reasonable means, we must do it. A volunteer force is far better than a conscript or mercenary force. Nonetheless, we must control the ground if these fledgling governments are to have any chance for maturity. We only controlled the ground for a short time after the beginning of Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM. Because we had insufficient boots on the ground, the remnants of our adversaries along with al-Qaeda operatives and other jihadistanis were allowed to regroup, rearm, and redeploy, and now the sectarian murder squads are added to the mix. E voila . . . c’est la guerre. The news from al-Anbar Province seems to punctuate this reality.

Another contribution:
"A thought on the draft by Ringel:
"I don't believe we (USA) have ever drafted a woman - if that is right I think everyone will do a double take regardless of the performance to date of the women in uniform."
My response:
Good point! I’m not aware of women being assigned to ground combat units. If they are, then women should be subject to conscription as well. If we are unable to recruit sufficient numbers of support troops, then that should open the draft up to women also. I’m not in favor of drafting men let alone women. However, I am interested in winning the Battles for Afghanistan and Iraq, and decisively winning the War on Islamic Fascism, and for that we need a much larger Army and Marine Corps. We haven’t yet committed to winning this thing decisively, so we are even farther away from growing the ground combat forces. We need to make a clear statement. We should get a good indicator of where this will be going when we see the results of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)

Update no.259

Update from the Heartland
No.259
20.11.06 – 26.11.06

To all,
Americans celebrated the Thanksgiving holiday. We did, as well. The cacophony of our family gathering once again brought refreshment, joy and the reward of basking in the radiated warmth of our children's progressing lives and the broadening circle of family and friends. We have much for which to be thankful, and we are. We hope all Americans rejoiced in the Thanksgiving holiday, and all our friends, world-wide, enjoyed the embrace of their children. May God bless you all.

Representative Charlie Rangel of New York continues his call for a general military draft. The detractors claim a military draft would weaken the most powerful military in world, and they are precisely correct. I am not a fan of the draft; I never have been. However, in wartime, the exigencies of ground combat, especially over long durations, as we are currently engaged, demand far greater numbers of combat troops. While Charlie Rangel’s motives may be social and largely erroneous in that context, they have merit in our present national security environment. As the new Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James Conway, so clearly stated, we need a shorter war or a bigger Marine Corps, and he is precisely correct as well. Truth is, since we are engaged in a very long war, we need a significantly larger Marine Corps and an Army as well. That said, I must expose the erroneous mythology sprinkled throughout Charlie Rangel's rationale -- a disproportionate burden on the poor and uneducated citizens sustaining a volunteer armed services. He is wrong! Rangel has also made disgusting statements that we would not have gone into Iraq if we had a draft, and the children of the rich and powerful were in military service. Charlie's barely disguised remarks are not much better than John Kerry's disparagement of those engaged in combat in Irag in his "botched joke." The reality is we have only just begun what will be a very long War on Islamic Fascism, and we need at least three times the number of infantry divisions along with the associated support troops. We are a long way from the size of combat forces necessary to fight the Battle for Iraq and the larger War on Islamic Fascism.

Apparently, News Corporation’s Chairman Rupert Murdoch personally cancelled the O.J. Simpson book and interview deal, and labeled the project as “ill-conceived” – a serious understatement from my perspective. However, the best descriptor for this project came from the title of a Wall Street Journal editorial – “An illiterate double-murder’s killer book.” We can only hope we are so blessed to never hear from or about this erroneously acquitted murderer again.

Every citizen, every human being, is entitled to the hatred, bigotry, and social phobias they are taught by their parents as children, or they learn from twisted mentors and teachers. When the bigotry of individuals enters the public domain, civilized society has a responsibility, an obligation, to confront those who transgress. When individuals take on the mantle of leadership in their profession or in society in general, as in the cases of Mel Gibson, Ted Haggard, Michael Richards, and too many others, the transgressions are far more serious and explode into hypocrisy, and thus demand equally serious social disdain and ostracism. Society’s obligation must be making a public example of hypocritical leaders.

Just to make sure no one thinks I have forgotten, I continue my research and evaluation of the web blog format for this forum. I still have much to learn.

Residual comments from Update no.257:
"[Xxx], are you saying that if you voted in the Democratic primary you are precluded from voting for the Republican in the general election? That sounds very bizarre but if indeed that is the rule in Washington, I would agree with [Xxxxx] that it's unconstitutional.
"Constitutional law on elections is very confused as a general matter, because the Framers didn't have political parties or global corporations in mind when they wrote it. Major complications are of course

(1) that people in involving themselves in political parties are engaged in exercising their First Amendment right of association, so the parties have constitutional rights about how they want to conduct candidate selection,

(2) how minority parties get onto the ballot varies from state to state and have an overall effect of preventing them from full participation in the national level,

(3) First Amendment problems with regulation of the extent of influence of money in the elections at all levels.

The Constitution is ill-equipped to deal with these problems. There is consensus in the two major parties on a broad range of issues that creates gridlock on matters that in fact need serious attention, and a healthier array of minority parties would to some extent alleviate that. I think most people, left or right, perceive that by the time it comes to the four-year choice between the Republican and Democratic candidates, they have been largely shut out from consideration of their concerns, but whether that means the selection of candidates to be on the national ballots is unconstitutional, is something else again.
"I'm sure [Xxxxx], as someone who has actually participated in running for office, has better insights on all this than I do."
. . . and this follow-up from a different contributor:
"I am no longer sure what I mean on this subject, due to all the e-mails back and forth on it. I just know that when I get my mail-in ballot each time I am only given Republican candidates to choose from because I registered as a Republican. I believe I am REQUIRED, when I register to vote, to choose a party affiliation. At present that is Republican, Democrat, or I can register as an independent. The ballot I then receive will reflect that choice.
"Now that may be legal in the Primary's, (I don't think so), but it surely cannot be in the Generals. I need to be able to vote for the candidate I feel best suited for the office---regardless of party!!
"[Xxxxx] ran for a judgeship. Here in WA, all judgeships are listed as non-partisan. No party listed. So I can vote for whoever I want."

Comments and contributions from Update no.258:
"I am guessing that being a former Marine you have some expertise with firearms. Having been there and seen the spacing between the hits on Kennedy. What is your opinion that both hits came from the same gun? If I remember correctly the motorcade would have taken less than 10 seconds to have traveled that distance."
My response:
Any marksman with experience using a bolt action, scoped rifle like Oswald’s Mauser at such a close range would have no problem squeezing off three or four rounds in the span of 4.56 seconds with deadly accuracy. I have seen considerable conjecture based on associated facts that does leave some questions unanswered, as is so often the case. While the Warren Commission Report was hardly an exhaustive examination of the assassination, subsequent high technology analysis of the available data tells me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the fatal shot came from Oswald’s rifle and the sixth floor corner window of the book depository. Seeing the space for myself adds to my conviction.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)

Update no.258

Update from the Heartland
No.258
13.11.06 – 19.11.06

To all,
This weekend, Jeanne and I met Melissa and Tyson along with Baby Loe in Dallas -- always a genuine treat and one of the pleasures of life to see your children -- happy and doing well. Beyond the abundant family conversation, we went to the Sixth Floor Museum, or as it used to be known, the Texas School Book Depository. I would expect any American of my generation or older to know precisely what is significant about that place. Like an earlier visit to the Oklahoma City Memorial [176, 184], we felt the need to walk the ground of that day 43 years ago. The curators have done a magnificent job of capturing that moment in history -- the mood of the Nation before, during and after -- and the controversy that still whirls around that horrific event. As many times as I have seen the images, the analysis, the narratives of that day, I was impressed by how close the space of Deely Plaza is . . . close range is the operative term. Not surprisingly, normal automobile traffic continues to traverse Elm Street much to the hazard to those citizens and tourists like me that felt the urge to stand on and between the two painted "X's" in the center lane of the roadway and look back to those few seconds of time. On Sunday, we enjoyed watching the Dallas Cowboys beat the until-then undefeated Indianapolis Colts, 21-14 -- great fun with the kids. The process of extraction took nearly as long as the game. Melissa and Tyson drove back to Austin; we spent another night in the hotel . . . to drive back to Wichita in the morning.

The stage is set for what could be a cataclysmic confrontation between the Executive and Legislative branches of government, and yet before the first sparks of the expected conflagration could ignite, convulsions within the House Democratic Caucus overshadowed the larger arena.
Representative Nancy Patricia Pelosi of California AKA Nancy D'Alesandro – the next Speaker of the House and the second heartbeat in constitutional succession –decided to move quickly to set the tone for her tenure as Speaker. Nancy publicly professed her support for Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania to be Majority Leader, thus rejecting the more centrist and appropriately positioned Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland. This choice alone appears to foretell the mood, attitude and direction of the new Speaker – adversarial is probably the operative word. My opinion, Nancy could not have made a worse choice; even William Jefferson of Louisiana [233, 240] would have been a better selection than Murtha. [For those that might be interested in such trivia, William Jennings Jefferson AKA ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson won the most votes (30%) in the recent election, despite his extensive corruption woes, and he will face another Democrat in a special December 9th runoff election. He has not yet been indicted, charged or tried, but with stacks of marked currency wrapped up in his freezer, he looks as guilty as O.J. in the white Bronco.] On Thursday, the House Democratic Caucus smote the new Speaker and elected Hoyer as Majority Leader – a very early public and serious defeat for Pelosi.
Senator Harry Mason Reid of Nevada AKA Pinky Reid will become the new Majority Leader of the Senate when the new Congress convenes, which means the independent senator, Joe Lieberman, will play a more influential role, although he has currently cast his lot with the Democrats giving the party its majority.
The last vestiges of any likelihood for a wartime unity government evaporated last week. If an opposition Congress helps us move back to the center of the political spectrum, we might be able to look back on these next two years in a positive light. Given Nancy’s choice for Majority Leader, we shall bear witness to a volatile, partisan, political circus. If my premonition comes to fruition, I suspect We, the People, will cast this lot out and try another bunch in two years.

These are indeed interesting times when Kansas politics makes the editorial page of the New York Times. “What’s Right With Kansas,” published on Wednesday, closed with this paragraph: “And for us, one of the most satisfying results was the resounding defeat of Attorney General Phill Kline, an anti-abortion zealot who gained national notoriety by misusing his office to further his ideology. He tried to force health care workers to file reports on the sexual activity of teens, and to seize women’s confidential medical records. That gross assault on privacy and legal rights was a major issue in the campaign. The 58-to-42 landslide that elected a former Republican, Paul Morrison, was a victory for moderation and the rule of law.” ‘Nuf said. Spot on . . . satisfying indeed. Now, we can only hope one of the remaining stalwart moral projectionists, Senator Sam Brownback, gets the message. We shall see.

This disgusting and morally despicable action by O.J. Simpson is beyond civilized description. I have absolutely no intention of listening to or reading anything by this erroneously acquitted murderer. Sadly, beyond the debasement of civil discourse by Simpson, the abandonment of all propriety by Harper Collins and FOX Entertainment represents the equally disgusting lengths corporate America will go for money. We can only hope no one buys the book and no one watches the TV interview; we must make this a financially stupid move for these two companies.
On a different plain, these companies found it so easy to cast aside their morals to publish anything by Simpson, while I continue to struggle to find an agent and publisher for my writing. Name notoriety counts for a lot in the publishing biz – sad but true. Nonetheless, Cap ‘Don Quixote’ Parlier continues his valiant effort at the windmill.

Should homosexuals be denied equal protection under the laws, id est, should they be denied equal rights afforded heterosexual citizens? In a larger context, should any citizen in good standing be denied equal protection under the laws based on any one or a combination of social factors – age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or disability? And, the concomitant question, when should the authority of the State exceed a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy?

Here is a news flash: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has re-approved silicone breast implants for human use after a decade plus hiatus and thousands of liability lawsuits.

Comments and contributions from Update no.257:
"I suppose I was right in that angry Republicans and independents put the Democrats back in control of the congress. Of course, it did not take a rocket scientist to make that prediction. I am disappointed that Harry Ford lost. He's a fresh approach to decision-making sorely needed these days. I suspect he will get in at a later date and we haven't seen the last of him. I'm quite glad Lieberman won for a number of reasons. I hope he sticks to doing what is right and never again falls prey to the wrong turn he took with Kerry. I voted electronically for the first time and it was smooth and easy. I also voted early and will do so as often as possible. My wife stood in line for 3 hours to vote on election day. Many people walked away. Let that be a lesson.
"Why the Rumsfeld decision was made right after the election is another example of why the Republicans lost. It was way too late. Like you I've been saying for a year that he is this era's McNamara. Shock and awe entering Iraq is one thing and it was masterful. Occupying requires a substantial larger force to police the pockets of resistance. He's a smart guy and helped transform the military in many good ways. But, he'll never live down not sending enough troops. And, President Bush was foolish to stay with that strategy. Along with that thought, I'm weary of retired Generals speaking their mind. They need to do so while wearing the rank on active duty. Any General who is not prepared to lose the job over doing what is right is not fit to be one. Perhaps if more had taken a stand, things would be different today. Squawking as a talking head on TV is a little late. I hope Gates has the good sense to prosecute the war to win and not just hang around.
"Now it's time to watch the Democrats. If they can lead us to victory, I'm all for it. If they, however, lead us to cut and run, it will be our undoing. We are one of the causes of the current situation for Iraq. We cannot abandon them now. It's time for the Democrats to show some courage and conviction to get it done and beat the terrorists. Islamic Fascism will be the gallows for the world if not defeated. I'll be watching the Democrats. Let's see what they've got now that they own the congress."

Another contribution from a different individual:
"Our Corps is alive and well, led by Marines newer than you or I, but led well. And that is important because we are once again on the pointy end of the sword, and have been for maybe too many years. Due not to Our prowess or ability but the politics behind the scenes. Shades of Vietnam.
"I honor all Vets---those who served when called upon and did not run away from their responsibilities as American citizens. Obviously that does not include at least one recent President. Does Clinton ring a bell? So many made the ultimate sacrifice. Sad, but that is war. Yet others answered the call and replaced them. Such is the American way when we are threatened and/or attacked.
"I predicted in my own mind that the Dem[ocrat]s would win all of Congress. For Bush Jr it means he will be a really lame duck for the next 2 years.
"I see that Bush Sr, 41st Pres[ident], is trying to help his son some. But his efforts will be for naught, in my opinion. Bush Sr was a good to almost great Pres[ident], but he lost to Clinton because he did not read the minds of the American people in time to salvage his re-election. Clinton, the Ultimate Politician, did.
"Both Dem[ocrat]s and Repub[lican]s always say that now is the time for bipartisan cooperation to get things done. Yet that never happens, and both sides KNOW it will not happen.
"I am a bit sad that James Webb, a man I admire and respect a lot, ran as a Democrat. But I am glad he won. No way to know yet how he will act as a Senator, but I have hopes he still will remember his heritage, and past.
"I am glad to see Lieberman elected. He is a powerful man with a lot of good sense. It remains to be seen how he will insert his influence into the politics of our next Congress.
"I think Rumsfeld knew his job was on the line, and knew he was out as soon as Dem[ocrat]s won Congress. That Gates was the then choice is, in my opinion, Bush Sr inserting his influence to try and bail his son out.
"I agree with Glenn Beck, who I don't particularly like, that we all should be able to vote 'American' and not be tied to having to vote along particular party lines. At present, in WA, we have to declare as Republican or Dem[ocrat] or Independent---and then vote for ONLY candidates who are of that particular persuasion.
My reply:
Well said, indeed. I should have added Jim Webb’s election to my list of good outcomes. I’ve never been a fan of George Allen; he always reminded me a slimey weasel, and that insults the weasels. Our democracy is a work in process. I hope we will be a better nation for the lessons of this election.
. . . and this follow-up:
"I vote by mail. Never actually go to a polling station. But---in WA, we have to declare for one party or the other. THAT I don't like. On this I agree with Glenn Beck who says we should all be allowed to vote 'American'---not have to choose a party. Just vote for who you think is the best candidate.
"As an addendum to my last [message] on this subject, here is my situation in WA: I have to register to vote just as all voters in all states do. But in WA I have to declare as Republican or Democrat----or in some cases I can vote for independents, if someone is listed as independent. Mostly that is in the case of voting for various Judgeships.
"So---Let's say I register as Democrat. Then Hillary Clinton becomes that party's nominee. I hate her as possible President but I have only 2 options. Vote for her or don't vote at all. Neither then is a good option. By not voting I concede my rights of citizenship to complain when I don't agree with what she does if she wins. By voting for her I first give her one more vote, and therefore make her closer to winning. It sucks!
"I look forward to how Webb and Lieberman will influence Congress."
. . . along with my follow-up:
Election rules that force a citizen to declare a political party affiliation are offensive and an insult. Since my days on active duty and I was old enough to vote, I have been and remain proud of being a non-partisan, independent citizen and voter. The institutionalization of the two-party political system is wrong and must change; the only question is how long it will take.
Like you, I look forward to watching how Webb and Lieberman affect the new Congress. I suspect Joe will remain independently minded. Jim Webb should be fairly independent, and yet, it will be interesting to see if he can stand up to the party hacks that seek their pound of flesh. We shall see.

Another contributor offered these comments:
“Not to minimize the importance of all the other aspects of No. 257, but I am outraged at the time it took for you to cast you absentee ballot. More to my point of concern, however, is that I am alarmed at the lack of identification routine indicated by your message. I realize that this was not your point, but as a topic for future discussion, voter fraud looms as we discover huge fraud in lax absentee voting controls and 'trust me' attitudes about election machines without paper trails. The machine I voted on worked nicely, but it created no paper record for me or anyone to review and use later for a recount. Many voters I observed had a poll worker looking over their shoulder while they voted by 'secret ballot.' In addition, the summary page, supposedly accepted at the end of the process when one pushed the 'VOTE' button, did not identify the candidates for the federal offices by name--it only showed a vote for the party. Made me wonder. I think we are in for a rude awakening. Our enemies have good hackers, and some of our enemies are political operatives living next door.”
My response:
I share your outrage. We have accepted the trusted citizen approach for too many years and our troubled times justify a more controlled electoral process. I was surprised I did not have to show positive identification, but I saw the ledger, saw my name and address, and signed the ledger that I am me. No one would have been able to sign after me, and if someone beat me to the polls, I would have raised the alarm of fraud immediately. So, the process is not without safeguards.
To clarify, I requested an absentee ballot in case I was not in town on election day. I chose not to use the absentee ballot and wanted to use the machine. The time delay entailed the precinct station official calling the county election office to validate what I had already checked on – I simply had to turn in my unmarked absentee ballot, and then I was allowed to vote on the machine. I watched as my absentee ballot was physically voided, so that one else could use it.
I hope the Supremes settled this voter ID question definitively, and we can move on. We shall see.
. . . along with this follow-up:
"It not only sucks, it is unconstitutional, in my humble opinion, unless is a party primary election where candidates are merely nominated for the general election.
"Mississippi, accused of all manner of voting rights violations, is ahead of WA on this. I sincerely believe that you are deprived of your right to vote if you are prevented from voting for the candidate of your choice in a general election. How could this not be a violation of your constitutional rights?
"Surely someone has tested this. I hope you will take the time to call, write, or e-mail the ACLU and ask for the legal authority that has held this to be constitutional, or if they cannot provide that, then ask them to challenge it or tell you why they won't."

And, another contribution from a different person:
"Thanks for your update-- don't forget in the election coverage that Jim Webb (USNA '68) won the Senate seat in Virginia. I think that's great--and not just for his pragmatic views on Iraq and Afghanistan. but for his views on the economy as well. For the first time ever, I sent in money to support a campaign -- Webb's. He wore his son's boots (a Marine infantry corporal who just left for his second combat tour overseas) on the campaign as a symbol. Another USNA grad, Joe Sestak won a Congressional House seat from "Crazy" Curt Weldon--who had some very questionable dealings with organized crime figures from Russia. He also was a crackpot who tried to organize a personal mission to Iraq to uncover WMD that he had 'inside info' on where it was hidden. Good riddance.
"I was born and raised in South Dakota, and while I haven't lived there in a while, can provide some insight on the abortion vote. I think South Dakotans were put off by perceived government interference in their personal lives. They just wanted government to butt out of their lives. I was home this summer and this is the sentiment I discerned. Coyote State voters can be quirky--to whit sending George McGovern to the Senate during a generally Republican period.
My reply:
Thank you for your view of the South Dakota abortion vote. Most folks have not read Roe v. Wade, but the essence of that ruling is not abortion, but rather each individual citizen’s fundamental right to privacy in the conduct of their lives. Justice Blackmun’s opinion for the majority was well-written, thoughtful, expansive and articulate, despite being the source of countless arguments and debates. One of these days, we will recognize the sanctity of a citizen’s privacy and the exclusion of government from that domain. We are not there yet.
. . . along with this follow-up:
"An added comment on Rumsfeld. This is from a soldier returned from Iraq. It says a lot-- I was in DoD from 2002-04, and senior leadership was very lax and slow in getting more armored Humvees out. DoD spokesmen were outright lying when they said they were doing everything to increase production. At the same time suppliers were wondering why they weren't being given ramped up orders--which they could have met. Just one aspect to the man's arrogance and incompetence.
'Our Battalion was only given five armored Humvees for over 600 soldiers. I often had to patrol the streets of Baghdad in a Humvee with canvas doors that provided no protection to our unit from the rampant road side bombs.
'We tolerated these conditions for far too long.
'We were outraged when Rumsfeld responded with the now infamous line about going to war with the 'Army you have, not the Army you want.' When America decides to go to war, it has the responsibility to provide its soldiers the gear it needs to win -- that is all we asked. It was Mr. Rumsfeld's responsibility to provide that.'"
. . . and my follow-up response:
Rummy’s street-fight-on-the-cheap strategy is today’s version of the politically inspired rules of engagement we suffered during the Vietnam War. The troops on the field of battle are paying the price for improper political alignment at home, just as our generation bled 40 years ago. John McCain seems to be one of the few leadership voices who has consistently advocated for more boots on the ground to win this damnable fight, and surprisingly, he continues to say what is correct for the War on Islamic Fascism. Hopefully, the Baker-Hamilton Study Group along with the new secretary of defense will have the stones to espouse what is best for the War on Islamic Fascism, rather than what is politically expedient to feed the introspective yearnings of the uber-Left. We shall see.

Here is the last contribution this week:
"Dem[ocrat]s who are led by left-leaning 'Everything is America's fault' morons or Republicans led by spineless, testicularly-challenged girly-men. Not much of a choice if you ask me. My biggest fear, like many have expressed in this Update, is that the Pelosi/Murtha/Kerry/Kennedy cabal will leave Iraq before the job is done. Some of them have said that won't happen, but how do you know a politician is lying? Their mouth is moving. No doubt we live in a highly partisan era, though whether it is, as one woman I know told me, '[the country] has never been this divided,' I disagree whole-heartedly. Scanning the history books will show the Civil War, and even the American Revolution, will back me up. The other thing I found very humorous was after the election how the punditry and pols got together and did the usual 'yes, we'll work together, blah, blah, blah.' Then when they mentioned all the very personal attacks that went on, the response . . . 'Well, that was said during a campaign and the people who said them didn't really mean it.' As Norman Schwarzkopf put it, that's Bovine Scatology. If you don't mean to insult someone, then don't do it (the usual friendly ripping of your buddies aside)." Like you, Cap, I take William T. Sherman's famous quote to heart. 'If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve.'"
My reply:
I’m afraid we are headed down the road of retreat, unless the President can grow some really big stones, right fast. The new majority is going to make it so painful the President will concede to stop the pain. I agree with you . . . kinda hard to top the division of the Civil War – we were killing each other by the thousands. I don’t think we are divided as much as we were during the Vietnam years. The instant response of modern communications significantly amplifies the voices of the minority, which makes them sound more fearsome than they are. Nonetheless, we have what we have. I was thinking of Lyndon B. Johnson when I offered up the phrase, but I think you are right Bad Boy Willy T. Sherman said it first, I do believe.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)