Update no.264

Update from the Heartland

No.264

25.12.06 – 31.12.06

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

To all,
Happy New Year to all those who recognize the Gregorian calendar.

For those of the Islamic faith and making their pilgrimage of the Hajj, may God bless you with a safe and peaceful journey.

The 38th President of the United States of America, Gerald Rudolph Ford Jr. (AKA Leslie Lynch King, Jr.), passed away on Boxing Day. The accidental president brought dignity and candor when the country so desperately needed it. May God bless his immortal soul.

The Press has widely reported on advance disclosures from the anticipated report of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation in the House International Relations Committee, regarding the Oklahoma City bombing (19.4.1995). Taken in isolation, the bombing appears to be the act of deranged fanatics consumed by hatred. In the far broader context of world events over the last nearly 30 years, the event looks quite different. We may never know whether al-Qaeda facilitated, instigated or colluded with Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, however the inclusion of the OKC bombing on the list of Islamofascist attacks on the United States and our allies seems far more plausible than not. Apparently, the House investigation sharply criticizes the Federal Bureau of Investigation for their failure to vigorously pursue numerous leads that hint at wider involvement. Although I cannot present an essay, journal, diary or update on my thoughts in the aftermath of that attack, I was quite suspicious of al-Qaeda involvement or some other foreign connection. We may not have sufficient facts to build a wider scenario, but the suspicion persists.

Kansas politics seems to be a popular topic in the national press. A continuing series of newspaper articles and editorials in the Washington Post, New York Times and other sources reflect upon the turmoil in the Kansas Republican Party. Despite his trouncing in the election, defeated Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline refuses to go quietly into the night. After he was rejected twice by a judge, bad boy Phill appointed a special prosecutor to go outside the prosecutorial process in his ideological campaign against Dr. George Tiller, MD, since a special prosecutor will have life after Kline's tenure expires next month. And, as if that is not disgusting enough, Johnson Country GOP leaders appointed Kline (not sure I understand that process) to fill the unexpired service of Paul Morrison -- the man who defeated Kline -- despite the fact that Kline did not do well in the county. My wish that Kline would take his distorted ideology and disappear apparently will not be fulfilled anytime soon.

The Iraqis executed Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti by hanging on Saturday after his conviction and automatic appeals for crimes against humanity. Saddam’s crimes were far greater and more heinous than those that sent him to the gallows. The Iraqis put an end to Saddam’s reign of terror. Le tyran est mort.

Comments and contributions from Update no.263:
"We must prosecute the war to its end, regardless of the price now. The price of losing is too much to pay ever. Notwithstanding the JCS reservations, sending more troops sends a message. Let's do it. The time for killing terrorists without reservation is here. It is the only way out for the world. Reason and commonsense won't work with the terrorists for their aim is to kill or own all of us. That is why the UN is such a farce. The idea of a UN always sounds good - in practice it does not work. Time to save the world and us regardless of the nonsense spewing from the UN. Once saved they will quickly get over our lack of listening to them.
"The gay debate is fraught with danger. I'm content with letting people live their lives without my interference as long as they don't parade it in front of me and ask for my blessing for whatever they wish to do. There are many types of behavior that I admit to not supporting, but as long as those behaviors do not infringe upon me, my rights, or my life, I cast my bias aside. Gays do not need my blessing - they need to be left alone and should leave straight people alone regardless of their beliefs. When that private to public line is crossed judgments will be made and we will never agree across the board on this one. Nor will many of us ever have the tolerance to accept legislation forcing us to do so since many people like me reject the notion of government in our private lives, regardless of gay or straight. But, the history and factual nature of biology cannot be overcome by shouting down its truth, regardless of the bad examples of biology producing some bad people. I will be surprised if we ever come to an acceptable place on this one as long as the court of public discourse includes governmental intervention and as long as tolerance means you must see the world as I do. Like most things, only time passing will produce tolerance or more intolerance depending upon the basic nature of a society. That is why freedom is the critical step for all people of the earth - to be free to choose as well as accept the consequences of choosing is our way."
My response:
Sadly, the UN depends on the inherent good nature and good will of people; they depend upon wishful thinking; case in point, the UN Security Council's work on Resolution 1737 -- well-intentioned, wishful thinking. The UN, like its predecessor League of Nations, is ill-equipped and disinclined to confront megalomaniacal madmen like Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Men with evil in their hearts are quite like rabid animals; there is only one solution.
Your comments on the homosexual rights issue illuminate a critical point. I do not think anyone is, or should be asked or expected to accept, anyone with whom they have no affinity regarding any one or a combinations of the social factors – age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, language, or disability. And yet, we all share the same right to associate with whomever we wish. To me, there are important differences between acceptance and tolerance that hinge upon a similar demarcation between private and public. Unfortunately, we use the term ‘homosexual rights’ in perhaps an erroneous context, id est, there is no such thing as rights for homosexuals. There are only rights for citizens. Thus, I usually try to confine my arguments to ‘equal protection’ rather than ‘homosexual rights’ for one principal reason – Liberty and Justice for all means just that – there are no qualifiers. Lastly, homosexuals would have no need for the in-your-face protests of Act Up and other similar groups if they truly enjoyed equal protection under the laws. My arguments in this forum have been intended for one purpose, to help us examine the societal forces that led to the brutal lynching of Emmett Till or the disgusting beating death of Matthew Shepard. This is about public tolerance. Private acceptance must come from the heart and will likely take much longer. I think Leonard Pitts presented a similar argument in his article noted in last week’s Update [263] – tolerance.
. . . with this follow-up:
"Noting today that Sadaam Hussein is headed for the gallows supposedly in a month, I wonder if anyone in the UN will notice? Their piety to the UN system may have underlying motivations that frequently change as power passes. It will be interesting to watch.
"There's no question that rights for citizens is the foundation for all of us, regardless of our differences. My point is about consequences for public behavior that will always be prevalent when citizens demand that other citizens accept it no matter what. That sticky point is where the trouble rests. Some public behavior is more acceptable than others noting the recent public flashing by Ms Spears that bastion of cultural refinement. We agree that debating it in the forum is a good thing, particularly if it prevents one poor soul from being killed for who he is, not what he does. It is unacceptable to do otherwise. This is a fruitful conversation for it brings home to all of us the true nature of freedom to choose, but not choice without consequences in my view. No question we are closely aligned, and this topic will continue to evoke emotions from all. In effect, rights for citizens is a germane point you made. So is consequences for public behavior of citizens. The debate rages on..."
. . . and my follow-up response:
You noted the news of the day . . . Saddam Hussein [has met his fate]. We know this action by the Iraqi government will not be popular. My support for capital punishment especially in cases like Saddam's remains unwavering. Saddam's sentence comes from his conviction for one of his lesser crimes against humanity. The UN will note the punishment but not the crime . . . the nature of the beast. The world will be a slightly better place [with] Saddam gone, and the Iraqi people shall be free of his scourge.
Sadly, there is question about the rights for a minority of our citizens; they do NOT enjoy equal protection under the laws . . . that is the essence of my argument. We have state constitutional amendments passed by an overwhelming majority of citizen's in those states including my own (Kansas) that expressly denies equal protection to a class of citizens based on their sexual orientation and their choices for their pursuit of Happiness. How can this condition possibly be seen as consistent with our Founding principles and the stated law? You raise an important point -- public behavior. We can and should define acceptable public behavior . . . as long as those laws are neutrally constructed and equally enforced, exempli gratia, if holding hands is unacceptable for two men, then it must be unacceptable to a man and a woman. Further, public law must be focused upon public behavior, not private conduct, and limited to those factors directly associated with the public good. Unfortunately, we tend to blur the boundary of the public domain at our convenience, and we exhibit a penchant for imposing our values on other citizens not to our liking in the fallacious name of the public good. This tendency is the salient of my verbal assault. The bottom line for me, I want ALL Americans to enjoy the benefits of citizenship regardless of the social factors.
Now, a word on the Britney Spears kerfuffle. Seventy years ago, the Press purposefully chose not to publish and in most cases not to even take photographs of a politician crippled by poliomyelitis. Today, the paucity of conscience or sense of propriety in the tabloid press and the pervasiveness of the Internet have presented celebrity with unprecedented intrusion into their private lives. Britney Spears is hardly the only person on the planet who chooses not to wear undergarments, but she is one of a small fraction that is subjected to obscene intrusion. Whether she intentionally sought this exposure only she can answer. If an intentional public act, like Janet Jackson's exposure during the 2004 Super Bowl [113], we have a right to be outraged, but these intrusive photographs are not the same. In my humble opinion, we should be demonstrably outraged at the paparazzi and the publishers of those photographs rather than Briteny Jean Spears. She may have been a tad indiscreet; the photographers were down right loathsome. Lastly, to an extent, we must blame ourselves as we buy those damnable tabloids and privately seek those photographs on the Wild Wild Web.
Perhaps we should focus the public debate on the identification of the boundary between the private and public domains, and the proper expression of public law to avoid transcending that boundary and intruding upon the private affairs of citizens. The debate does indeed rage on . . .
. . . and this continuation:
"The fact remains that two men holding hands in public is not against the law in most locales, but is unacceptable to many people in those same places because of societal norms. If two men choose to do so, they have the right to do so and also face the consequences of some people disapproving just as I expressed about Ms. Spears. She has the right to go naked and also will be held accountable for doing so by the press since she is a public figure. The media has rights with public figures that are clearly written in the law for bad or worse. My own disapproval is my choice. I am also outraged at the media for exploiting her as are you. The plastering of Miss Nevada all over TV and the web is unfortunate, but she will be held accountable by public opinion either way for she made herself a public figure. Unfortunately, the media will not be taken to task.
"Notwithstanding public behavior, private behavior is none of our business as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others whether we approve or not. So, my position is that I praise or fault both the media and the person. That is why worthy parents teach kids to behave with integrity and then hope for the best when they grow up. Society has norms that change over time. We'll see how these norms change, because laws won't do it. I hope norms evolve in a way that promotes good behavior; however it gets defined, without messing with our private lives.
"Within the context of this discussion, I retain the right to disapprove of public behavior without prejudice, whether legal or not, particularly when I do so privately as most people do. It is nobody's right to tell me what to approve or not just as it is unacceptable to violate another's legal rights. Laws are on the books, societal norms are in our lives. In effect, my point is not one or the other - it is both. Some behaviors should be kept private given our current norms. The freedom to choose is sacred and facing the consequences for public behavior, legal or illegal, is reality.
"This discussion should give anyone pause regarding the Islamofacists that want to kill us all. Can you imagine having this discourse in their world? If they win, we either die or lose our private and public liberties. Time to take care of that fear once and for all. Anything less and we are doomed."
. . . along with my response:
The issue of acceptable public behavior raises the important point of how we define and enforce the line. Disapproving is one thing; violating a law is quite a different thing. Using the instruments of State to enforce that disapproval raises my sense of wariness and concern. The burden of proof regarding harm to the public good is much greater with any penetration of the private-public threshold, and I believe there is still a demonstrable burden even in the public domain. Being naked in public as compared to a photographer stalking someone and jamming a camera up her skirt are two entirely different conditions. While public figures such as presidents, princesses and entertainers do carry some burden of public access, I think we have allowed the passive intrusion to go too far in the name of the First Amendment. Unfortunately, an activist fraction of our society seems quite comfortable seeking laws to enforce their "disapproval" with little if any demonstration of harm to the public good. Even more regrettable, that fraction also seeks to use the law to dictate private conduct as well. This lack of respect for the Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness of every citizen raises my hackles and stimulates my fingers to dance on the keyboard. I hang up on the "legal" aspect . . . in that, legal involves reach, id est, how deep into private affairs is the law allowed to reach?
The penetration of our private domain appears to be one of the essential factors in this question. What is the proper extent of that penetration . . . for another citizen or the State? The law addresses, to an extent, the active process – the law requires a judicial warrant of some form. The law gets very misty regarding passive means available by modern technology. Is it reasonable for another citizen to use a powerful, infrared camera to ‘peer’ through my curtains, and then file a public complaint because they saw me naked inside my home? While the question may be rhetorical, it does illustrate the dilemma we face regarding the definition of the boundary between public and private behavior. Modern technology combined with society’s voracious appetite for the salacious substantially blurs the boundary of proper and acceptable conduct.
I like your term "worthy parents." To me, worthy parents also teach their children to deal responsibly with the harsh reality of life . . . as it is, not as we wish it to be. They teach their children to judge situations and evaluate people, to choose their friends wisely, and to stand up and be accountable for their decisions and actions. I have long taken the view that my responsibility as a parent was to prepare my children to act properly and to possess the tools to make their life decisions. I have rarely taken the position of trying to alter their environment, to protect them from trials of life. I make no claim that my views of parenting are correct; I am simply stating my approach.
I suspect too many Americans take our freedom and Liberty for granted, and do not believe our freedom is at risk. We can only continue to persistently and consistently remind folks of the very real risks in the War on Islamic Fascism. After all, fascism is fascism no matter what the ideology is that drives it.

Another contribution from a different person:
"A couple of things--who will be the lead in 'Hawker Beechcraft Corporation'- Hawker or Beechcraft? Just curious. Hawker, as you well know, is an old British firm, one that constructed aircraft in WWI and WWII, and post-war, including such famed aircraft as the Hawker Hunter and Hurricane.
"In the early 90's, we lived in Chantilly, VA and attended Trouro Episcopal Church, one of the Virginia Episcopal Churches that have now affiliated themselves with the Episcopal Church of Nigeria. It is one of the oldest churches in Virginia and didn't seem that out of the mainstream back then. Since then, I have heard that they have gotten a little off the "normal" Episcopal way, such as having a revival tent outside the Church at times. It is a shame that such hard-core militants got an historic church to make such a jarring move. And the head of the Nigerian church is as you described.
"Also this piece is chilling, and illustrates part of the cost of the Iraq war:
"'Somalia may be the place that best illustrates a trend sweeping across the African continent: After Sept. 11, 2001, the United States concluded that anarchy and misery aid terrorism, and so it tried to re-engage Africa. But anti-American sentiment on the continent has only grown, and become increasingly nasty. And the United States seems unable to do much about it.
"'A number of experts on Africa trace those developments to a sense not of American power, but of its decline - a perception that the United States is no longer the only power that counts, that it is too bogged down in the Middle East to be a real threat here, and so it can be ignored or defied with impunity....
"'The actual ability of the U.S. to influence circumstances on the ground in Africa has declined dramatically,' said Michael Clough, a former director of the Africa program at the Council on Foreign Relations. 'But the symbolic significance of the United States is still there. So we become the perfect target.'
"'For proof, please see Sudan, Congo, Eritrea, northern Nigeria to a lesser extent, and even South Africa....
"'We learned that we don't need the Americans anymore,' said Lam Akol, Sudan's foreign minister. 'We found other avenues.'
"'Another reason is Iraq. The ceaselessness of Baghdad's bloodshed has greatly undermined the United States' credibility, fanned anti-American feelings in Muslim regions like the Horn of Africa, and drained resources that might otherwise have been available to address other problems.
"'There is significant blowback coming from our catastrophic decisions in Iraq that is affecting our ability to do anything about Sudan or Somalia,' Mr. Morrison said...."
My reply:
When Raytheon bought Corporate Jets, Ltd., from British Aerospace, they also acquired the rights to the Hawker name. That name has been preserved through the formation of Raytheon Aircraft Company and now the sale to the new partnership. I am told the name was chosen by the sound rather than by any implied superiority. The new company will be privately held and will maintain the brands. Yes, indeed, I know the venerable Hawker history . . . and I am very proud to be a part of that history.
I truly and genuinely hope all religion can find its way to focus on comforting individual souls and abandoning this political activism that is radicalizing so many churches, temples and mosques, and our political process. The world would be a better place if everyone lived their lives as they chose and leave others to live their lives as they choose. Parochialism like moral projection infringes upon everyone’s fundamental right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. We are a long way from Utopia.
Perhaps you are right regarding potential American influence in Africa, but I’m not sure we ever had much influence to start with. Africa has largely been the forgotten continent when compared to Europe, Asia and the Western Hemisphere. I abhor the sectarian bloodshed in Iraq, and the associated impact on American and allied lives, but I still think Iraq is the proper battleground for the War on Islamic Fascism. Americans are easy targets; we always have been . . . at least for the last hundred years. And, I can think of no better battleground upon which to engage the jihadistanis and radical Muslims; I would rather kill them there than in Germany, France or the United States. American choices in every war we’ve fought in the last hundreds years have not been popular with various elements of American and international society, but such is the cost of war.

Another contribution from a threat begun in Update no.261:
“Yes, well we agree that establishing security in Iraq is paramount. But can we also agree it is too late? The time for additional ‘boots on the ground’ is two years overdue. Considering our commitments around the world and the debilitated condition of major end combat equipment, I, like General Pace, doubt there are more than 5 combat ready brigades cobbled together from units across the country that can be activated for an Iraq mission within the next month. And once there, what the hell are they supposed to do? Pick sides?
“The Iraqis must take responsibility for the safety and security of their own country. Americans can't do it because American don't even know who the ‘bad guys’ are anymore.
“As for the Marshall plan, obviously it would need modification for the particular exigencies of the Middle East crisis. Like everything worth doing, it would be difficult. But America has never shirked the most complex challenges and I expect we can devise a solution to this one.”
My reply:
We are agreed on all points except one . . . and a couple of nuances.
I am not convinced things are too late for success in Iraq, if the American People seek to be successful. And, success is far more complicated today due to the establishment of a recognized Iraqi government, no matter how ineffective; in that context you are precisely correct. As I have said numerous times, most wars are won by the will of the People; the military is simply the instrument of that will. As you have noted numerous times, we are in the political phrase of the aftermath. While we certainly had adequate forces to depose Saddam, we had grossly inadequate forces and a mission too narrow to win the peace. Thus, my perspective of the point I think you are making, perhaps it is too late, if the allied People have lost their will to win. If that hypothesis is correct, I am absolutely in favor of withdrawal. However, part of that withdrawal should include a decision as to where we intend to fight the next battle, since the War on Islamic Fascism is far from over – Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, France, New York. Where?
In my humble opinion, the identity of the ‘bad guys’ is quite clear; anyone – man, woman or child – carrying a weapon and not part of a known, controlled, and authenticated military or police unit. The concomitant factor remains consistent and persistent control of the ground; without that control, the ‘bad guys’ are allowed to disappear into the innocent populace and hide in mosques. If we are not willing to control the ground including the borders, then we face a bountiful enemy and the quagmire to which so many refer.
We certainly agree on the need for a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan, Iraq and portions of the Islamic-dominated countries. My thinking is not sophisticated enough to see the path through those “exigencies of the Middle East.” It would seem the salient elements must include communications media, education, and gestures of goodwill at the periphery and beyond the combat zones. We must reach the hearts and minds of the peace-loving people in the region.

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