Update no.270

Update from the Heartland

No.270

5.2.07 – 11.2.07

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

To all,
The political maneuvering in the Senate to publicly disagree with the President regarding a battle in the larger war continues unabated. This week, the floor vote to invoke cloture (end debate) on “A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq” [S.470] failed by a vote of 49-47. Joe Biden’s S.Con.Res.2 [267] remains open with no further official action indicated, as yet, and John Warner’s S.Con.Res.4 [268] has been referred to the Foreign Relations Committee for consideration. John McCain’s proposal [S.Res.70] takes a demonstrably different tone from the Biden & Warner proposals. Beyond all the whereas-es, the text of the McCain resolution is simply:Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) Congress should ensure that General David Petraeus, the Commander of Multinational Forces-Iraq, and all United States personnel under his command, have the resources they consider necessary to carry out their mission on behalf of the United States in Iraq; and
(2) the Government of Iraq must make visible, concrete progress toward meeting the political, economic, and military benchmarks enumerated in the preamble to this Resolution.
Sounds reasonable to me, if they really must make a public statement. The McCain proposal has been referred to the Foreign Relations Committee as well. What all this means is, the Senate continues to probe for a path to publicly rebuke and criticize the President. Fortunately, I do not think the President is waiting on the Senate. Someone has to fight the War on Islamic Fascism while the Senate plays its corrosive games. Frankly, if the Senate debated this issue for the next two years, no outcome would be better than continuing to widen the chasm.

The topic of climatology continues to grow, and sprout new branches and leaves. We have the former vice president of the United States Al Gore's global warming movie, "An Inconvenient Truth;" and, rumor has it that Al has been nominated for a Nobel Prize for his clarion work alerting the public to the looming menace. Especially on this topic, I must remind and recommend the third book and second novel of my TWA 800 co-author Kevin E. Ready -- Gaia Weeps -- an exceptional novel of what might happen. A contributor sent along a good counter-argument essay.
"Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?"
by Timothy Ball,
posted: 5.February.2007
<http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm>
Since this topic first sprouted, I have had mixed opinions for a host of reasons. I have never liked and often condemned industrial pollution of all kinds including spewing soot, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and all the other contaminants of partial combustion for the sake of megawatts. I have fretted over our consumption against a finite limit of fossil fuels and other resources. I laud Brazil’s near total divorce from automotive demand for gasoline (petrol) and institutionalization of ethanol fuel production. However, I must admit to being closer to Michael Crichton’s portrayal of environmental extremism associated with the global warming debate, in his novel, State of Fear. To take a 100-year snapshot of billions of years to climate change seems to be the ultimate folly. To illuminate the contracting ice sheet in the Artic and Greenland, and ignore the expanding ice sheet in Antarctica, appears to be selective data mining for political purposes. I remain skeptical of Al Gore’s apocalyptic rendition, and yet, I am an advocate of alternative fuels, cleaner industry, and minding our precious environment. I often wonder if our obsession with the notion of human presence and/or human activity affecting global weather is the ultimate in egocentric, self-inflated, delusional imagery. Do we really think we are that important?

Marriages, civil unions, or celestial bondings for that matter, are created and can exist for many reasons, not necessarily for civil or religiously sanctioned sex . . . or procreation . . . or family . . . or anything else other than what two (or more I might add) people wish it to be. I would like to claim precognitive awareness of inevitability, but alas I have no such skill. After the Washington State Supreme Court's ruling in Heather Andersen v. King County [WA Su Ct No. 75934-1] [242] last summer, Gregory Gadow filed a petition, creating ballot Initiative 957, to challenge the Court's contention that marriage was for procreation and family. The Initiative, if passed by voters, would require all marriages to produce a child within three years or be dissolved -- interesting hypothesis. The tragic fallacy of logic in the current DOMA debate . . . the heterosexual majority feels it's perfectly acceptable to dictate how anyone not like them should live their lives and what they must base their relationships on, and yet, they are quite averse to intervening with neglectful, abusive, inadequate, complacent or even distracted heterosexual parents. Clearly, the majority cares only about validating their image of marriage and could care less about healthy long-term stable relationships and raising healthy, stable, productive children. Moral projection or moral validation through the lives of others remains a destructive force, not quite as destructive as jealousy but close.

Episcopal Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori [237] heads to the global Anglican Communion in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, this week. The Anglican primates of 38 "provinces" will meet to discuss issues facing the church. Unfortunately, several of Schori's colleagues have publicly stated their intention to boycott any of the activities in which she participates. Why, you may ask? Well,
1.) because she is a woman, and
2.) she declared that homosexuality was not a sin. [174, 205, 263]
We shall watch the conduct of this conference. Regardless, basing ostracism on such shallow factors that disregard performance, character and commitment seems quite beneath learned men.

I try to avoid commenting on criminal cases, but some come along that are relevant to current affairs like the two advert’ yayhoos last week [269], or that are too bizarre to pass up. Such is the case this week. Tuesday, I awoke to breaking news surrounding the arrest of Astronaut Captain Lisa Marie Nowak, USN, 43 [USNA 1985, NFO, married (reported as separated), mother of three children, Navy test pilot school graduate, mission specialist on one Shuttle mission], allegedly for assaulting Captain Colleen Marie Shipman, USAFR, 30, apparently regarding their love triangle with Astronaut Commander William Anthony Oefelein, USN, 41 [naval aviator, Navy test pilot school graduate, divorced father of two children, pilot on one Shuttle mission]. Whatever the facts are, NASA has been and probably will continue to be quite averse to bad press of any kind – the Nowak-Oefelein-Shipman case certainly qualifies as bad press. Thus, life as Nowak knew it ceased that morning – a truly sad and miserable case. Further, Oefelein (while probably not entirely without social culpability in this case) will probably never fly another shuttle mission either – his involvement, passive or otherwise, will simply bring too much of the wrong publicity. Nowak is now charged with 1st degree attempted murder, among other related charges. Being the voyeuristic, prurient culture we are, I suspect more of the sordid details will play out as the judicial system and press carry out their duties. For me, the bottom line is . . . yet one more example of the horrendous destructive power of jealousy. When will we ever learn?

A New York Times’ editorial reported that Senator Chuck Schumer has opened Judiciary Committee hearings into the departure, dismissal and/or termination of numerous U.S. attorneys. [268] Hopefully, we will know more about these peculiar departures in the near future. Further, I truly hope these are coincidental occurrences and not part of some vindictive action by the administration; we do not need the complications of the latter scenario. Unfortunately, the public signs are not good.

Comments and contributions from Update no.269:
"It seems to me that as you go on with your updates, they get more and more complicated to wade thru. Maybe it's just me getting older. I like to read them, and sometimes think I would or should have something to say on this or that, but the enormity of the whole thing intimidates me and I decline to say what I wanted to."
My reply:
Making the Updates more complicated is not my intent. In fact, to do so would be counter-productive to my purpose. Perhaps, it was just this week. Perhaps, I am not using the correct words. Nonetheless, please do not be intimidated. The contributions are anonymous so every reader can feel free to say what is on their minds.

Another contribution:
"Just to note the incident in Boston was not so quite cut and dried. This was a publicity stunt for a movie--that had been run in about 20 other cities=- with no problem. It had been in Boston for over two weeks before someone noticed it and totally overreacted. While it was a sophomoric stunt - it was not criminal--no intent and so the authorities have decided. No charges. Turner will pay costs, but that is more for PR."
My response:
As is sometimes the case, I write before all the facts are available. I believe you have reflected the evolving facts. Perhaps the law cannot punish such a "sophomoric stunt." It is one thing to place an electronic device like the one they used on a tree, it is something all together different to place that device on a bridge girder on a main thoroughfare. If I was a good, conscientious terrorist, I would probe my targets in clever, little, innocent ways to establish what works and what doesn't. Those yahoos may have been exceptional actors or just social fringe simpletons easily duped. Who knows? Placing an unknown electronic device on a major highway bridge in today’s world is akin to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater – perhaps a prank, but an action that could cause injury. I doubt the prankster intended to injure, but that doesn’t matter. I do not think the police overreacted. The first time someone puts an explosive in one of the silly light board devices, the public will be seeking to hang the police for not reacting fast enough or aggressive enough. No, I do not accept the innocence of these two yayhoos, even if the district attorney chooses not to prosecute. We are at war!

Another contribution:
"[I think so much of the global warming issue is] junk science and yellow journalism that are perpetuating the myth that 1) it is a certainty, that 2) we should prepare for imminent disaster, and that 3) it is primarily human-caused. I'm not sure of the motivations for trying to cram this down people's throats other than there must be big money or significant notoriety in supporting this fatalistic conclusion.
"Also, [I see] appalling censorship and control of free speech that seem to be prevalent on college campuses and are perpetuated by the so-called teachers of our youth. The thought and speech police are functioning in full force at our universities. 'University' today is far from being a symbol of free thinking and free exchange of ideas from all sides.
"I am confused by the whole 'outing of Valerie Plame' prosecution that is going on. It is hard to sort out what the truth is with this whole incident. I have read that Plame's position within the CIA did not even put her into the category to be 'outed,' but yet charges to this effect continue to be pursued. To me this whole thing is nothing more than making a mountain out of a grain of sand for purely political reasons. It has taken on a life of its own to the point that it no longer needs a valid foundation...it keeps being pursued because the pursuers just do not want to let it go. Another good use of tax dollars.
"Why does someone like John Kerry, a high-level representative of this nation's government, a former candidate for President of the United States, a former member of the US military, and a professed patriot badmouth this country on foreign soil? This country may have its faults, and a person's opinion about them can be shouted from the highest mountaintop in this country...but to represent this country to other nations while denigrating this nation on foreign soil is highly unpatriotic (if not treasonous when speaking to enemies) in my humble opinion.
"Watching some talk shows recently has illustrated the epidemic levels to which PC has risen in this country. Joe Biden sure kicked off a firestorm of rhetoric with his personal description of Barack Obama...Joe had better choose his words more carefully in the future. But of particular absurdity is the condemnation of Bush by representatives of African-Americans for having the audacity to re-use the word "articulate" to describe Obama. Great offense was taken at 'singling out' Obama out as being an articulate black man as it reflects badly on rest of black men by implying that, in general, they are not articulate. The argument was...he (Obama) went to college, he is educated, of course he is "articulate". Somehow this has been twisted into an insult!...go figure! I always thought that being labeled as articulate was a compliment...it is both an enviable skill and an admirable talent to be able to communicate effectively (George Bush is not articulate...oops, not very PC of me). Believe me, I know many people who are college-educated, and "educated" is not synonymous with 'articulate.' Global warming must be causing everyone's skin to be getting very thin!"
My reply:
Universities sprouted political correctness, and now they are fanning the consumptive flames eating away freedom of speech. The real obscenity, though, is the blatant tolerance of the left’s freedom of speech, e.g., the Ward Churchill offense, while they condemn, ostracize and admonish the right’s freedom of speech. The hypocrisy is profound, glaring, and otherwise off-the-page. Political correctness has gone way too far, and I find considerable comfort being at a stage of my life where I don't much care.
The “Scooter” Libby trial is not about the “outing of Valerie Plame.” Libby is on trial for perjury – lying to the grand jury – the usual crime that trips up powerful people. He is not on trial for a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. If he had claimed executive privilege instead of responding with a falsehood, there would be no perjury, and there would be no trial, since the whole Wilson-Plame fiasco began as a political act, and probably would have passed away as such, if Libby had not told an untruth.
I do not think John Kerry intends to hurt the United States or our troops in the field. Like most politicians and especially those not in the White House, Kerry is motivated by one primary factor -- political advancement. Kerry along with a good many Democrats are against anything the President is trying to do. I don't think he is opposed to killing terrorists, however, since the President decided to fight the battle in Iraq, he has been against the President and the Battle of Iraq, because he must for political advancement. When was the last time you heard a Democrat praise the President for his bold and aggressive actions against those who seek to kill us? Kerry must disagree with the President on everything, to help Democrats regain the White House. Performances like Kerry's speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, are sad demonstrations that today's politicians largely place personal ambition before political party, and before country. I would love to have a debate with John Kerry, or any other Democrat or naysayer, regarding this observation. Not likely, but a nice idea.

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