30 April 2007

Update no.281


Update from the Heartland
No.281
23.4.07 – 29.4.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/


To all,
May I present the newest member of our family, Judson James, along with Mom & Dad . . .

We are proud of our kids. We can all celebrate new life. Everyone is home safe, and Nanni & Poppi are looking forward to spending some time with Judson James . . . oh yeah, and Mom & Dad. ;-)

I thought I would lead with a simple observation of no particular value. The new Washington dollar coin vastly exceeds the two earlier attempts -- the Susan B. Anthony and the Pocahontas versions. The mint code and year along with "E Pluribus Unum" and "In God We Trust" are stamped into the edge of the coin. I recount this little factoid not to impress you with my observation skills but to illuminate the metallurgy in the coin itself. The Susan B. Anthony dollar coin has a silvery finish, like a barely upsized quarter. The Pocahontas dollar dulls rapidly to a dirty brown, almost like an upsized penny. Thus, the shiny gold finish of the new Washington dollar sets it apart from all other coins, and frankly looks like a dollar coin should look. I do not know if the new dollar finish will dull with time and usage, but so far it seems to holding its unique shine.

I am a bit surprised no one picked up the banner regarding the travesty of the Maryland National Popular Vote law. [279] Let me add this . . . I used the example that the presidential candidate who won the national popular vote would win ALL of Maryland’s electoral votes even if he received zero votes in Maryland. Conversely, even if a candidate won all the individual votes in Maryland, he might receive none of the electoral votes. Thus, the citizens of Maryland cease to be relevant . . . other than as a very small fraction of the national voting population. Are we still really that angry over the outcome of the 2000 presidential election that we are willing to cast aside the Constitution and one of the few bulwarks standing for state’s rights and against simple majority rule? The current winner-take-all allocation of electors gives an individual state the most leverage or influence on the election of the Executive. Is this really where we are headed . . . to cast aside the wisdom of 200+ years of our constitutional republic?

Guillaume Dasquié wrote an article titled “11 Septembre 2001 - Les Français en savaient long,” [roughly . . . the French knew much about it] published in Le Monde on 16.September.2007, that disclosed a classified, 328-page report produced by the French Direction Générale des Services Extérieurs [General Directorate for Foreign Services] (DGSE) – roughly equivalent to the U.S. CIA, or UK SIS (MI-6). I do not know if the report is getting much Press or political play in Europe, and there has been nary a whisper in the United States. Perhaps our friends in Europe can offer an opinion. Apparently, according to Guillaume, the DGSE reports chronicled the activities, objectives and on-going operations of al-Qaeda from inception to the 9/11 disaster. I have no idea how this information plays against the 9/11 Commission Report or other official compendia, however, the implications are not positive. If anyone has seen quoted excerpts or public release of the DGSE 9/11 report, please send along whatever clues you may have.

After reconciliation in a joint conference committee, the House passed the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007 [H.R. 1591 (S.965)] [277] by a vote of 218-208-2-5, followed the next day by the Senate vote of 51-47-2. The President has threatened a swift veto. Since neither chamber has the votes to override the presidential veto, a compromise will have to be reached. Beyond adding another billion dollars to the emergency appropriations bill, presumably for more pork, two elements extracted from the text are of particular significance:
From Title I, Chapter 2, Section 1315 of this bill:
(a)(3) “United States troops should not be policing a civil war, and the current conflict in Iraq requires principally a political solution,” and
(b)(2) “The President shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all United States combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number that are essential for the following purposes:
(A) Protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure.
(B) Training and equipping Iraqi forces.
(C) Conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.”
The salient words are “civil war.” If Congress is correct and Iraq is simply embroiled in a civil war, in which American troops are caught in the middle, then this initiative is probably the proper action – leave Iraqis to their internecine bloodletting until they are satiated. However, I find it quite hard to ignore the evil hand of al-Qaeda and other nefarious external groups at the root of violence in Iraq. Thus, the separation of offensive al-Qaeda operations in Iraq from the internal sectarian and criminal violence becomes critical to assessing success. Al-Qaeda is an uninvited external combatant organization. Their interests are to bloody Americans as best they can and to wait out American popular and political support – then, like the DRV, they can declare a resounding victory over the Great Satan. The al-Qaeda objective is well served by attacking both Shia and Sunni communities to incite them to violence on each other, thus compounding the situation for the Americans. This is not to say that Iraq is devoid of revenge and retaliation killings between tribes or competing groups; there are clear examples. Perhaps our image of the Battle for Iraq is being dictated by al-Qaeda, and is thus erroneous; in that, Iraq is yet another victim nation to the radical hegemony of al-Qaeda. If so, then we must help the Iraqis to rid their country of this scourge; we have a shared enemy. If the congressional assessment is correct and al-Qaeda is an insignificant irritant in Iraq, then I must say perhaps the intended action is correct. At this moment, I believe the former state, i.e., I suspect the more horrific and larger or more daring events are al-Qaeda at work. So, what shall be the fate of innocent Iraqis?

On Wednesday's CNN American Morning, Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio explained his decision to file articles of impeachment against the Vice President . . . “If we impeached the President first, the Vice President would become President.” Kucinich sketched out three principle charges alleging that Cheney:
-- "manipulated the intelligence process . . . by fabricating the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction,"
-- intentionally deceived the American People and Congress "about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," all to justify going to war with Iraq; and
-- that he has "openly threatened aggression against the [Islamic] Republic of Iran, absent any real threat to the United States, and has done so with the United States' proven capability to carry out such threats."
Now, ain't that rich. I have a whole bunch of nasty thoughts runnin' through my little pea-brain, but I shall refrain. Perhaps, we can find some goodness in the insanity. If this absurd initiative gains even a little traction, the process may well divert and distract Congress from spending any more money and making any more silly laws. So, maybe we should ask Dick to take one for the team.

“Army Officer Accuses Generals of ‘Intellectual and Moral Failures’”
by Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post
Friday, April 27, 2007; Page A04
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W3RH02CD8A68A059C0E3930328F8E0
Tom illuminated a scathing indictment of the United States military general officer corps in a rare public article by an active duty, field grade officer. A ‘must read’ . . .
“A failure in generalship”
by Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling, USA
Armed Forces Journal
May 2007
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198
Lieutenant Colonel Yingling is the deputy commander, 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment, and has served in Iraq, Bosnia and in Operation DESERT STORM. He recounts the failure of the generals during Vietnam and makes a direct comparison to our current situation. Offering my kudos to Yingling for his courage, insightfulness, and his communications skills seems like trivial recognition in light of the rather extraordinary and rare step he took. I only have a few quibbles; I certainly do not think Tom Ricks’ book “Fiasco” is a tell-all, and Paul concludes with an appeal for Congress to get more involved and hold the general officer corps accountable for their actions. Injecting more politics into the flag rank officer corps hardly seems like an attractive proposition to me. Nonetheless, the bottom-line remains . . . generals have a far higher obligation to the Nation than political loyalty to their civilian minders and the exigencies of their in-uniform careers.

An interesting bill working its way through the congressional review process is the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592) that “amends the federal criminal code to prohibit willfully causing bodily injury to any person because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of such person.” Normally, assault, battery, and murder are state crimes. Since more than a few states do not find it necessary to protect the well-being of its residents from abuse, based on the social factors, the Federal government apparently feels the need. I would add political affiliation to the list of social factors, but that might eliminate the sport in the silly season.

Monday’s Patriot Post (v.7, no.17) quoted Tom Plate, former editor of the Los Angeles Times, “Not all of us are so proud and triumphant about the gun-guarantee clause. The right to free speech, press, religion and assembly and so on seem to be working well, but the gun part, not so much... [The students at Virginia Tech] were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9 mm handgun and a.22-caliber handgun.” Fallacious reasoning can be so disgusting. None of us are proud of the despicable and obscene murder rate in the United States and especially the tragedy of the VT Massacre. A few individuals choose murder to express their jealousy, resentment, outrage and such. An even fewer number murder for the thrill, notoriety, or pleasure they derive from taking another life. A civilized country should never have to bear the shame of mass murder like the VT Massacre. And yet, to suggest an inanimate object is responsible for these crimes defies rationale thought. I appreciate our collective frustration and perhaps impotence to prevent a disturbed individual like Cho from acquiring firearms, however, penetrating the doctor-patient boundary is wrong and restricting firearms for all citizens because of our frustration will not solve the problem. We may find it convenient to restrict gun ownership, but if we do, we must use the same logic to restrict automobiles, boats, knives, and other lifeless implements that have been used by human beings, intentionally or unintentionally, to kill or injure innocent citizens. Let us take the larger view.

Comments and contributions from Update no.280:
“Very good comments on the VA Tech shooting. Rational, yes. But like so many things, the irrational will surface, gain momentum, and unfortunately prevail. We can only hope this doesn't happen here. But at a minimum, it will certainly fuel the fire.
“Too bad about the loss of one of the Blues on Saturday.”
[NOTE: On Saturday, 21.April.2007, Lieutenant Commander Kevin J. Davis, USN, 32, of Pittsfield, MA, was flying Blue Angels no.6 (solo) – an F/A-18A Hornet airplane – during a scheduled airshow at MCAS Beaufort, SC, and crashed near the end of the aerial routine. The last Blues accident I know of was in 1999.]
My response:
The irrational build-up has begun, but not as fast as I expected. I suspect the crescendo may come in late July, as the congressional summer break nears. I hope we're both wrong, but I think not.
Indeed, a tragic accident with the Blues. They work so hard to fly safe while wow'ing the crowd. I'm waiting on the investigation outcome. Hard say what happened, but based on the fact he did not eject, I suspect he got too low on the merge, clipped the trees, and got dragged down. We shall await the official report.
[NOTE: As more information is made public about the Blues accident, the tragedy is looking more like a G-LOC event (G-induced Loss Of Consciousness). To my knowledge, the Blues have never worn G-suits (don’t want to mess up their fancy, custom, blue, flight suits). At those altitudes and speeds, even a momentary G-LOC could have disastrous consequences. If this was a G-LOC event and there were not other factors, it would still be very rare; these guys are highly trained, experienced pilots who practice their maneuvers incessantly. There may have been other factors involved like a bruised rib that might have prevented him from bearing down properly under high-G loading.]

Another contribution:
“In regard to Kennedy's assassination: As the autopsy shows (and didn't show), since it was not probed, the wound in the back did not connect to the wound in the front. The doctors and nurses at Parkland saw an entry wound in the front of the neck- about 3-6 mm. Some changed their minds after they were shown the autopsy report done later in Bethesda which implied (did not show) the wound in the back was probably related to what they saw in the front. Arlen Spector's careful wording for a question as to a scenario which might have allowed for the possibility of a rear entry shot to have gone through and out the neck and done the rest of the damage to Connally was answered in the affirmative by Drs at their Warren Commission hearings. Unfortunately the fact remains that the wound in the back was only about an inch deep and the wound in the front was smaller than the alleged magic bullet, and the lead in Connally's body was more than the magic bullet could have left behind. At any rate people who think Oswald did it have simply not studied the case- and if they say they have and still believe he did it then they are deluding themselves and the rest of us. It was impossible for him to get down the stairs and have a coke by the time he was seen by Officer Baker and Truit. But more importantly, two witnesses on the stairs at the time never saw him. Do the research and quit repeating official crap. Start with Vincent Salandria's early work and then read Gerald McKnight's Breach of Trust, written more recently. Or watch the History channel and ABC's Peter Jennings Special, and continue to live in La La land.”
My reply:
Wow! I'm not sure what to take from your opinion. As with any analysis of information, each bit must be viewed in terms of accuracy AND credibility; never easy judgments to make. Apparently, I have weighted some of those bits of information differently than you. I have studied the facts, supposition and conjecture. I’ve walked the ground myself and asked one crucial question, could I fire three accurate shots with a 6.5 mm Italian Mannlicher-Carcano M91/38 bolt-action, scoped rifle? I’ve not fired that rifle, but I have fired a 1903 Springfield and a custom [built by my great-uncle BTW], bolt-action rifle with a Mauser action. My answer: yes. And, I have little doubt I could hit a man-sized target at a comparatively close range of approximately 30m -- almost point-blank. I say this not to enter a debate, but only to reflect the questions I asked myself based on my interpretation of the available information – past and present. My opinion remains the same. I am not parroting the “official crap.” And, I do not live in “La La Land.” Let if suffice to say, we disagree on this topic, as we do on TWA 800. Nonetheless, I still appreciate your opinion and view of events.
. . . round two:
“Didn't mean any offense with my comment about ‘crap’ – nor did I mean it to you personally. Just frustration with over 40years of spin. Nobody doubts a good marksman could probably hit a target that Oswald supposedly hit. Even with the Mannlicher-Carcano, even though it is a bolt action that requires pulling away from the target to fire each time. The shots have been duplicated to some degree- but not in the exact way of the assassination. That is not my point- I have walked the ground as well- the point is Kennedy was hit probably by a small calibre in the throat. The wound in the back did not go through the body. One can draw up all kinds of laser tests and calculations til they are blue in the face, but an honest evaluation of the evidence- some of which had to wait decades to come out- shows that Oswald could not have done it. There were two witnesses on the stairs that he supposedly ran down in 90secs- yet they do not appear in the Warren report. They did not see him. I am not interested in whether your opinion changes or not- but for the sake of truth and history, someone with your degree of intelligence should investigate the available evidence thoroughly before you form such a concrete opinion. I do not have an opinion- I have a general impression based on the available evidence that Oswald did not kill Kennedy. For that matter it is the same in regard to TWA800- in order to have an opinion that a terrorist missile, manpad, or whatever hit the plane, one has to disregard the radar data that shows debris leaving the plane toward the south southeast at incredible speed, (as Tom has pointed out repeatedly),one has to disregard the fact that the entire nose was blown off the plane, one has to disregard the vantage points and testimony of Meyer and Bauer, who together suggest two missiles, one has to disregard the fact that Islip picked up the 30 knot track therefore indicating it was a large ship, disregard both eyewitness accounts from US air, Brumley and the kid behind him, who saw both a missile track and a boat wake- the missile track traveling farther than manpads can travel, and the fact that radar shows an unusual array of large boats out at sea at a time when it is accepted that some type of military activity was going on. To put Ramsy Yousef in this mix and suggest that all that hardware was out there to try and catch some terrorists in a cigar boat or something, and then let them get away, and ignore the sheer magnitude of the damage done to the plane seems to me to just force an opinion on the evidence. I don't have an opinion about TWA800, but the weight of the eyewitnesses, debris ejecta, radar data, possible drone activity, military activity, tend to suggest some type of military mishap.”
. . . my reply to round two:
No offense taken. I recognize passion on such things. I’ve seen as much of the autopsy and vector analysis data as I can find. I am not a forensic pathologist, but I have seen enough gunshot wounds to know what I am looking at. From the various sources I have been able to review – both pro & con I must add – I do not agree with your assessment. I have no idea why the government’s supposedly comprehensive investigation, AKA the Warren Commission Report, was so full of holes and anything but comprehensive. The Warren Report reminds me of the significant holes and deficiencies in the NTSB TWA 800 report. One day, I truly hope in my lifetime, government officials and politicians will learn that “the truth shall set you free.” The American People are not stupid. When they withhold information, suspicions are immediately raised, and as is the nature for some of us, we try to connect the dots with the information we have. I could easily construct a case that our societal distrust of government erupted circa 1964. I have an original copy of the Warren Report; I read it shortly after release; I was 16yo at the time, and I knew then that there was so much missing from the report – a very poor attempt at legitimate façade is what I remember thinking on my first reading, and that impression remains today. The same is true for the NTSB TWA 800 report, which is why we have FIRO. Just as we eventually learned of Enigma, Purple JN25, Barking Creek, Dieppe, Slapton Sands, et al, we shall eventually know all the facts associated with the JFK assassination; 2039 is the year the data is due to be released. And, I hope we shall see more of the government’s data on TWA 800 circa 2016. My curiosity remains unquenched.

A different contribution:
“I think your comments on Harry Reid need national press - how do we do that collectively without sounding like a bunch of overly conservative hawks - as opposed to real patriots who know personally the cost of combat and lack of public support from Vietnam?? We as a nation now have a bunch of ‘Jane Fonda’s. I hope their names are remembered in history in the same connotation as Benedict Arnold. None of these "leaders" understand those comments directly just cost additional American lives in the war on terrorism - doesn't sound right to me.”
My reply:
The Update goes to numerous national as well as local journalists I know, and goes to the Kansas congressional delegation. And, of course, the words are accessible by anyone worldwide via the weBlog. We certainly agree . . . too many Harry Reid’s in our political leadership. I suspect I have an unreasonable expectation that our generation can cast aside the deep-rooted distrust of government and the rampant me-ism so bloody common to politicians of our generation. The really sad part is, these yayhoos are contaminating our children’s generation. Easy to get discouraged, but we must press the fight until we are dust . . . or ashes, as the case may be.

And yet, another contribution:
“Good points all around on the VT shooting. There are a bunch of questions as to the timeline of the shooting and the police response, but there has to be some more investigation before we start laying blame. Now, in spite of all of Cho's weird and creepy behavior, who the hell can predict who will become a psycho mass murderer and who won't? That being said, there does need to be some law where if the court deems you a looney toon, that goes into the system and comes up in a background check if you try to by a gun . . . and you do not get said firearm.
“The one point I wanted to mention that was not brought up here is the controversy of airing Cho's rambling, psychotic video. The people who say the media should not have aired the video have very good, very valid points. For me, I believe airing the video was the right thing to do. Not for any sort of shock value, but I feel it is necessary to show the public just how sick and twisted this walking pile of javelina crap was. Why? For one, there are people in this country, hell throughout the world, who have a hard time believing such evil exists. On a slightly different slant, there are those who, for whatever whacked reason, refuse to believe in the concept of evil. Cho was not the only one walking this Earth with these demented thoughts and a will to act on them. The "Ostrich People" need to take their heads out of the sand and realize there are some really evil MFs in this world and we need to do what we can to neutralize them.
“Onto Harry Reid. He makes this stupid comment that the war is lost when there are statistics showing (despite the most recent bombings) terrorist attacks and civilian deaths in Bagdad are declining. Hey Harry, how about give the surge some more time to work? My God, Reid and his ilk make me sick. I list them as ‘the best friends a terrorist can have.’ If they think the war is going so bad, come up with a new strategy to win, instead of running away when things get hard. But their hatred of Bush will never allow that to happen.
“I just started reading a sci-fi novel called "Watch on the Rhine" by John Ringo. It deals with an invasion by an alien race called the Posleen, who plan to add the human race to their diet. Another alien race opposing the Posleen gives humanity technology to rejuvenate elderly former soldiers to their youth, giving us millions of soldiers with immediate combat experience. In Germany, this technology is used to rejuvenate former members of the Waffen-SS (shows you how desperate the situation is). Obviously, members of the Parliament and the public are very upset by this. Anyway, this leads to a great scene between the German Chancellor and an ally alien, where the alien poses this question . . .
“‘Why, when faced with an invasion nearly certain to exterminate your people, does your political opposition resist every attempt to improve your chances of survival? Why, when the [enemy] will extinguish most of your world and pollute the rest with alien life forms, do those most concerned with maintaining the ecological purity of your world do all in their power to undermine your defenses? Why, when the coming enemy is so powerful, are even your military leaders - some of them - so slow to push for rearmament, so almost incredibly incompetent in its execution? Why do those most in love with the notion of state control of your economy, high taxes and centralized planning, resist these very means to assist your people's survival?’
“With some modifications, this is the type of question that should be put before people like Reid and Murtha and Pelosi and all the others who seem to prefer letting terrorists and their supporters run amok in the world.”
My response:
The Cho video. Like you, I disagree with the criticism of NBC and other video news outlets airing the Cho video. While it does play to the psychosis in other disturbed individuals, I think it is important to understand the perpetrator as best we can. The video certainly does that. How can be whine about the public airing of such a disturbing video and at the same time criticize the government for withholding relevant information related to tragic events?
Gun background checks. I have mixed and conflicted views. On one hand, a disturbed person like Cho should have been identified as an individual for whom weapons would not have been appropriate; there were plenty of signs, and we learn more the deeper the investigation goes. Those few individuals close to him, failed him and society in general. Unfortunately, as with so many social aberrations, an individual can only be helped if he recognizes that he has a problem and seeks help; beyond that, our culture is ill-equipped to intervene. On the other hand, allowing the government deeper access into our personal lives to gain information like mental illness further extends the penetration and intrusion . . . taking us yet one more step toward Big Brother. Once again, I turn my wrath on the parents, family and close friends (apparently, very few in number, in Cho’s case), who must have or should have seen the signs; and, if they had cared enough for his well-being, they could have intervened. To protect our privacy and freedom, we must focus our attention on those in the private domain of potential offenders to find the means to prevent tragedies like the VT massacre.

And, our last contribution:
“Regarding no.6 on the VA Tech story – the school security people should have spread out their security and police officers to the entire campus. After the first shooting, there were over 100 uniformed cops around the dormitory. Since they didn't know where the shooter was, they could have been deployed around the campus. That might have stopped him from entering the academic hall where he shot 30--or at least have curtailed him.”
My response:
Yes, there are many things the police could have done in hindsight. Sure, they could have been deployed around campus. However, in the aftermath of the first event, I am having a hard time seeing it as part of some larger action. I have not seen the crime scene in the dormitory or even the data other than the public statements, but it could have easily been interpreted as a tragic love triangle rather than the opening shots of a mass murder disaster. We can always criticize the police, especially under the white-hot illumination of hindsight, but as I try to place myself in the position of the police early that morning, I cannot see the forecast of events that followed; thus, I cannot fault the police response or lack of response.

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

23 April 2007

Update no.280

Update from the Heartland
No.280
16.4.07 – 22.4.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
New life! Judson James – 8 lbs. 9 oz., 20 in. – born at 23:47, Sunday, 22.April.2007, Earth Day, to Melissa and Tyson in Austin, Texas. Mom & Dad are tired and doing well after the ordeal of child birth. We cannot wait to see and hold our newest grandchild. Another blessing has come to our family.

As new life comes, so life goes. Yet another day of infamy – 16.April.2007 – Virginia Tech (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University), Blacksburg, Virginia – the massacre of 32 innocent citizens, the wounding of at least 15 others, plus the shooter's suicide – the worst single incident in U.S. history. The shooter has been identified as Cho Seung-Hui, 23, an undergraduate, senior, English major who was also a South Korean native and resident alien. As is usually the case, I have some observations.
1. As most of us who have served in the security or shooting business know, there is no such thing as perfect security or perfect safety. A willful individual or group can penetrate any system. As such, all security processes are designed for and intended to provide time – to anticipate, to respond, to thwart. Security systems are all about balance.
2. The early outrage at the conduct of campus and public law enforcement appears to be misguided and misdirected. Our laws and our society allow for enormous freedom and resist preemptive action. And yet, we must react to actions, not thoughts. To seek the contrary heads us toward the thought police and Oceania.
3. There are always signs. The problem in such cases rests in the fact that many or most of the indicative signs exist in the private domain. Thus, those closest to potential offenders are best positioned to connect the dots. Unfortunately, especially with mass murderers and capital criminals it seems, those closest are often contributors, enablers or catalysts -- abusers by action or complacency.
4. Having been the leader of a university campus (in my case, a minute version of Virginia Tech), I can empathize with the president. Of all our institutions, universities must be open and extraordinarily tolerant places. I suspect most university educators and administrators can recount experiences with bizarre, strange or marginal students, and even professors. I certainly have my stories. While we had contingency plans, we did not have a plan for such a horrific event. As we are learning, the students and professors saw problems and appear to have gone beyond expectations to help Cho. Further, the administration and faculty have handled the aftermath with dignity, strength and respect.
5. This incident will undoubtedly bring a further and more determined direct assault on the 2nd Amendment. As is our common urge, we seek laws to constrain every single citizen in the fallout of the actions of one rogue person. If we truly seek intervention, let us look to the construction and conduct of a mass murderer rather than attack with band-aids on symptoms.
6. Interesting question: would Cho have acted so boldly if he had known that someone, anyone, might have been armed and fought back?
7. One last thought at this juncture: I see this tragedy in many different lights. And, without trying to be morose, I must say, suicide is one thing -- a final act -- that we should all be entitled. Yet, to me, suicide is the coward's way out. However, if you are so inclined, do the honorable thing and do it alone.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada publicly stated, "The war is lost." This magnitude of defeatism and negativism would have been private between the President and the Majority Leader, 70 years ago. Such is not the case today; political expediency vastly exceeds the interests of this Grand Republic. At least we know where Harry stands. Unfortunately, what a truly sad and abysmal commentary on the state of American society when the Senate Majority Leader publicly declares a war lost with troops actively engaged in combat.

Since I doubt there will be any direct action or fallout from the Middle East diplomatic mission of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi [278], I thought I might offer a few closing observations. Numerous references, predominately in the conservative segments of the Press, have been made to a violation of law. The law in question is the Logan Act of 1799 (1 Stat. 613), enacted 30.January.1799 [18 U.S.C. § 953]. The law was named for Dr. George Logan -- a Philadelphia Quaker, a doctor, a republican, and a Pennsylvania legislator (later U.S. Senator) -- who decided to attempt his own negotiations with France, to settle the frictional controversies of the time. The law is specific and yet contains ambiguity, and has not been constitutionally tested directly, as yet; and, since it has existed for 200 years with virtually no enforcement or judicial test, I think the Logan Act is thus, de facto, unenforceable. So, I guess we should add another title for the Honorable Nancy Pelosi – Secretary of State no.2.

Well, this is a fine mess you got us into, Ollie. The long-awaited and latest ruling on “abortion rights” from the Supreme Court came on Wednesday in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart [548 U.S. ___ (2007)] [no. 05-380]. The genesis of this ruling goes back to Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)], however, the instigating issue comes from the constitutional question raised by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 [PL 108-105, S.3, HR.760; 18 U.S.C. §1531(a)] – a Federal law stemming from Stenberg v. Carhart [530 U.S. 914 (2000)]. An essential element of argument in this week’s ruling rests in the explicit minute details of the various late-term, medical procedures, and do not serve this debate. This is one of those rulings that I would not recommend for reading. Without getting into the gory details, let it suffice to say that the Court upheld the prohibition of one particular procedure while allowing a different late-stage procedure. The bizarre element of this ruling is the lack of any allowance for the mother’s health, or any reference to the overarching fundamental right to privacy for every citizen. This particular case reflects the intransigence of both sides in that Justice Blackmun virtually guided the process in Roe, separating the State’s interest in each trimester. And yet, this seems to be a classic example of people seeing what they wish to see and ignoring everything that does conform to the expectations. The Court has extended the power of the State into a woman's uterus. As such, that extension must include the concomitant responsibility for that intrusion, i.e., the resultant child should become a ward of the State or available for adoption at the earliest possible time for the benefit of the child. Regrettably, we are not as concerned about the child as we are about the embryo or the fetus. So, it seems a majority, or at least a very vocal minority, would rather force a woman to bring a child into this world that she knows she cannot or will not care for, and as is so often the case, these neglected and abused children become criminals of various grades and some, perhaps just a few in statistical terms, become serial killers -- angry at the world around them. I shall continue my admonition . . . when will we protect the children with even a sliver of the energy we seek to protect an unwanted embryo or fetus? One last thought: since some folks cannot seem to abstain or use proper protection, perhaps we should have a qualification test and a licensing process for parents who seek to have children.

In the imbroglio boiling up in the wake of the Carhart ruling, I found James Taranto’s comment in his 19.April, “Best of the Web Today” journal the most intriguing.
“If Justice Ginsburg thinks she's a doctor, Justice Kennedy seems to think he's a poet. Medicine and poetry are both noble callings, but America would be better off if those who sat on the Supreme Court were content to be judges, to follow the law rather than use it to impose their moral judgments on the rest of us.” (emphasis added)
Now, ain’t that sumpin’! Apparently, Taranto has no problem using the law to impose his moral will on the rest of us, but ‘lo be it that the Supreme Court or anyone else should do so. The government does not belong in the morality business, except where injury may occur or public conduct drops below a threshold of tolerance.

Comments and contributions from Update no.279:
“In a different way, the marketplace DID determine Imus' fate. Corporate sponsors were dropping the program and threatening CBS Radio and MSNBC. Notwithstanding comments about employee pressure against Imus, this likely was the key in his being canned. Thus, in a macro-view, the marketplace actually made the determination. Also, consider the victims of his comments--instead of a public figure, he picked on a group of college girls--mostly teenagers, who had merely done well in sports and school. This added to the disaster. I listened to him often--especially when he had political and media people on the show. But he and his staff were going beyond the edge--I am surprised that the Catholic church didn't strongly object to the "Cardinal" sketch that his producer often did-which was profanity-laced and racist.”
My reply:
I, as well, listened to “Imus in the Morning” during my drive to work. I have often found his brand of shock-jock dialogue offensive, but his access to politicians, authors, and thinkers kept me engaged. I heard the offending phrase live on the radio, and I must say, I expelled a string of profanity to myself in the cab of my truck. You are quite right, of course, that he picked on the wrong group. My principal point hinges upon method. If the companies pulled their advertisements because they did not want to be associated with Don Imus’ bigotry, that’s fine by me; their choice. But, if they pulled their ads because of Sharpton el al, then I object. The latter is fear mongering to me, and political correctness gone mad. Also, I am extraordinarily tired of hearing from Sharpton and Jackson; they bore me, and they offend me with their selective outrage. I know the sketch you refer to, and I suspect the Catholic Church is taking a more circumspect position. I have long practiced civility in the public domain; I try not to offend anyone with my conduct or speech. I also believe the use of profanity in public intercourse simply confirms the ignorance of the speaker; conversely, I choose to defend the freedom of speech of every citizen – ignorant or educated, civil or uncivil. The essential is actions – not words. We choose our reaction to words. Actions are finite.
. . . to which came this additional comment:
“Couple more points--Imus has done a lot of good charity work—especially for the center in Texas for wounded troops--that Congress and DoD wouldn't support or finance.
“He may have cooked his goose by going on Sharpton's TV show and getting into a pointless argument (which carried over to other news shows). That bit of petulance and showing of no remorse got him in further hot water. I didn't see the show live, but saw the argument later on the news. He couldn't have done a worse thing.”
. . . to which I added:
I only saw clips of his Sharpton show performance. I am well aware of his philanthropic activities, but none of that gives him license to offend people. As I said, I defend his right to say whatever he wants (as long as no injury is caused [which in this case, there was no injury]); likewise, I defend the right of companies to withdraw their advertising support. I think he was genuinely remorseful, but his patience for penance was low. He fell victim to his own ego.

Another contribution:
Re: JFK shot by Oswald.
"I’ve seen the latest micro sec(cond) by micro sec(cond) shots and Oswald did it – very difficult shot but HE did it."
Re: Jimmy Carter
"He thought that he was smarter than everyone else and still does. He is so impressed with the way he is treated by the Democratic party that he can’t see how stupid he looks to other people."
Re: Bill Clinton .
"He will do and say whatever he has to in order to create a legacy of his own beliefs."
Re: George W. Bush (43) .
"The mistakes have been to think that the Democrats behave in a civil manner, that they really care about the country and not regaining power, and that he should have gone full bore after he declared war – including heavy strategic bombing which probably would have involved collateral damage, and that he will not come out and say the Islamofascists will kill us and our children if we don’t kill them first by whatever means at hand."

And, another contribution:
"Having worked in radio since 1992, I certainly have my own thoughts on the Don Imus kerfuffle. Just so you know, I don't and have never listened to the Imus Show, one main reason is because, just like him, I work the morning shift. Now, was his comment stupid? Yeah. My understanding was he said it while doing a 'joke' on which team was better looking, Rutgers or Tennessee. Do I think Imus is a racist? I don't know and I can't base an opinion on three words, especially when used in a 'joke,' even though what I heard of it didn't sound particularly funny. Again, I have never listened to his show or any of his past 'insults' to really come up with a track record for the man in my head. And I seriously don't know about making these stupid comments into a platform for a national debate on racism, especially when you have race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton leading the charge against Imus. To me, the issue is between Imus and the Rutgers Women's Basketball Team, and anything they want to say about Imus I have no problem with. I have the attitude of, 'If you want to lay some smack talk on me, I'll smack talk back.' I'll agree with you on this, Cap. Imus did pick on the wrong group. While women's sports have probably gained more acceptance over the last decade or two, there are plenty out there who don't take their accomplishments seriously. I covered several women's teams , and many of these girls work just as hard, in some cases even harder, than male athletes, and their desire to win is just as big. It is unfortunate that these comments have created a stain on an incredible season for Rutgers. But this is something that could have been handled with a meeting and an apology. Imus' initial suspension I had no problem with. Obviously he created some negative press for CBS & MSNBC and that was their way of disciplining him. His firing was extreme. If Imus had come back and his ratings were down and they couldn't give away advertising time for his show, then you'd have no choice but to can him. Like you said, the marketplace should have been the ultimate judge in whether Imus stays on the air or goes. Also, who died and made Jackson and Sharpton the supreme chieftains for the black community? Hell, they've said things in the past even more divisive than what Imus said. And, as many have made the point, they go after Imus for his 'hos' comment but do little if anything about rappers who say 100x worse in their crappy songs. One real shame in all this is Jackson and Sharpton hogging the air waves probably took a good chunk of the spotlight away from a man who did more to bring together different people in this country than either of those race hustlers . . . I'm talking about Jackie Robinson. This past weekend marked the 60th Anniversary of his first game for the Dodgers, thus breaking baseball's color barrier. The crap that man had to endure makes the 'nappy headed hos' comment look like nothing. Robinson got death threats, for crying out loud. But he did not rant about social injustices, real or imagined (in his case, very real). He had every right to be angry and bitter, yet he went out on the field, played hard and conducted himself as a gentlemen. He did not change peoples' minds by throwing tantrums and whining. He changed peoples' minds with his actions on the field. By winning the 1947 Rookie of the Year Award and the MVP two years later, by helping the Brooklyn Dodgers win several National League pennants, Robinson showed blacks belong in Major League Baseball just as much as whites. Too few in the "modern" civil rights movement seem to possess even an ounce of the attitude Jackie Robinson did at a time when racism was far more prevalent than today.
"Also, I do have to disagree with your classification of Rush Limbaugh as a 'public figure bigot.' I am a frequent listener of his show and I have never picked up any racist tone in him. Heck, one of his guest hosts is Walter E. Williams, a black man and professor of Economics at George Mason University, as a very intelligent guy. He has also spoken highly of people like Ward Connerly, Dr. Thomas Sewell and Martin Luther King. Hardly sounds like a bigot to me.
"Well, that's it for me here. I assume next week Update will have a lot to say about the horrible massacre at Virginia Tech. BTW, do you realize other significant events in this one week time frame include the Oklahoma City Bombing, Waco and Columbine? If it were up to me, every year around this time I'd up security everywhere possible and put a ton of cops on the street. Ounce of prevention and all that, you know."
My response:
Bigotry is an odd and insidious mental and emotional process, most often contained by societal forces and laws, and usually seen in glimpses induced by intoxication, or unguarded moments. Bigotry is also taught and learned, certainly not a genetic or biological process. Is Don Imus a racist and/or sexist? Realistically, only Imus can answer that question. However, as I have said too many times to count, "where there is smoke, there is fire." More properly, the adage should say, the potential for fire. We also have another key qualifier -- context -- case in point, George Carlin's decades of public comedy based on words. Whether any of us appreciates his comedy, I find it hard to ignore the artistry of his humor craftsmanship based on the association of words. I heard Imus's words -- the context could not have been worse, and thus struck me immediately as I still believe it was -- a nasty, mean-spirited, racist and sexist besmirchment of a valiant, young, basketball team. If the Imus kerfuffle accomplishes anything positive, I hope it is self-examination of each of us. If we use derogatory terms in private, even if we control it in public, then I respectfully submit we have some degree of bigotry in our hearts. Further, I have repeated incessantly, each of us is entitled to our bigotry, but society has a responsibility to define proper public conduct. Lastly, as we have been taught bigotry, we can learn to shed our bigotry and embrace tolerance of diversity. I have voiced my opinion on Sharpton and Jackson, but they are just flawed men, as we all are. My objection goes beyond their personalities to their being allowed a public pulpit to spew their selective outrage and hypocrisy. Their silence on matters of race or the other social factors that do not involve Americans with dark skin pigmentation is a reflective form of racism, in my humble opinion. They don't condemn racism; they only condemn racism when it involves Americans like them -- that speaks volumes to me. As I said, I am tiring of their message. I think most, if not all, of us look to Jackie Robinson with this veneration. Jackie's honor, courage and dignity are standards for us all. I included Rush Limbaugh on my list of 'public figure bigots' because of the Donovan McNabb imbroglio. I think if we look closer, we shall find that was not the only indicator . . . as noted above.

Here is yet another contribution:
“I find it hard to believe someone like Imus can even find an audience to speak to. And without an audience his words are in the wind.“They ask that if a tree falls in the forest and there is no creature there to hear it, does it make a sound? That's my point. He has listeners and financial supporters or he could not function. That is the same for ALL public figures, and those who would be.“Not sure I would include all YOU do as public figure bigots. Rush Limbaugh for instance. He is way to the right, full of himself and all the notoriety he has gained over the years, and in my opinion does not ever give an opposing view which has real substance any time. He cuts them off or just starts talking and ignores them. But, I would not include him in your list. The others? Could I add to your list Sean Penn, Meryl Streep, Our ‘Beloved’ Jane Fonda, and others, some who have left our earthly association not so long ago, many of Them WILL be missed – but not missed for their political and ideological views.
“Depends on where you speak from as far as whether you will be protected under the rights to free speech clause. High Government figure? -- maybe. Military? -- almost always NO. Media person? -- mostly always. Celebrity (REAL celebrity)? -- virtually always. Joe Shit, the Ragman, from Podunk, wherever? Be very careful, Joe!!! Your job, your home, your ability to support your family, and more, could be on the line, depending on how BIG an entity you piss off, and how much what you say interferes with Their game in life.
“I agree with your explanation of how the English Language is supposed to operate, as to meanings of words, meanings having to do with context of some statement, etc. The example "my wife" is brilliant. It does not mean I own this woman. It means she is MY wife, not yours. Sometimes that explanations are necessary in ordinary conversation. But it can easily be taken out of context, and so made to ‘Apparently’ say this or that, or convey this meaning or that.
“Media people who are both Experienced and Good at what they do can spot potentials for exploiting the spoken words of Anyone -- be they amateur bystander or celebrity, or politician, and no matter how high up on the food chain that person might be. If that possibly means big $$$ for THEIR employer, it means some pretty big $$$ for them. And all, or virtually all is PROTECTED by our Constitution. Free Speech. A win/win situation for some reporter or news analyst.“Racism? It goes both ways. And it does so when it appears to be in the best interests or attention garnering aspects of any particular race. ALL have used racism as a concept to further their own aims and goals. Some have had valid complaints. Some not. But what became important was how much Media attention they could generate. A lot---then they may get heard. Not much---forget it.“OR -- how they could turn their complaint, (rightly or wrongly didn't matter at that point), into a Constitutional issue, THAT would get both judicial and media attention?”
My response:
Yes, Imus does have fans and supporters. As long as he stayed on the positive side of the ledger, his brand of insulting dialogue was tolerated by the rest of us. When he crossed the line one too many times, this is the result. The same comparison can be made for Janet Jackson's Super Bowl faux pas, or Michael Richards' racist rant; an appropriate venue or not aggressively personal . . . the reaction would not have been as severe. In this process, society has drawn a line of tolerance. My point with Imus, or Howard Stern, or Michael Richards . . . individual decisions are relevant; group action, as in the Imus kerfuffle, imposes the will of that group, often a vocal minority, upon everyone; and in that, I strongly disagree. If you don't like it, don't watch or listen; please do not tell me what I can watch or listen to; there is a huge difference. You are not alone in objecting to my inclusion of Rush Limbaugh. I will only point to his Donovan McNabb statement -- smoke. He'll stay on my list. I'm not so sure about your additions. Political difference does not constitute bigotry or intolerance. So, where does disagreement become intolerance? Perhaps Hanoi Jane should be on the list of "public figure bigots" for her injurious and treasonous actions in 1972. An added factor in the consequence of free speech is association or affiliation. Case in point, speaking out as a military officer means you are speaking for the chain of command; the message must be for the chain of command, or silence is appropriate. There is a huge difference between speaking out as a private citizen and as an employee of a company or the government. Thus, when I wear a uniform, I no longer enjoy my constitutional freedom of speech, as I represent my service. Celebrities have considerably greater latitude as they are virtually self-employed. Sean Penn is an exceptional actor; I disagree with his politics and his personal actions; but, I stand to protect his right to say what he wishes. There is a universe of difference between what Sean Penn has done politically and what Hanoi Jane has done. I'll watch Sean's movies; I'll never watch Hanoi Jane's movies, again. As a side-note: Kevin and I talked numerous times during the development of our book -- TWA 800 - Accident or Incident? -- regarding the potential for offensive action by agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a consequence of our book. Salman Rushdie lived for many years under an IRI death fatwa, just for the words he wrote. In the end, Kevin and I considered the risk low . . . and the rest is history.

And, one last contribution:
“I have to share a short quip relative to your discussion of Don Imus' ignorance. Yeah, he stepped on the big one, but he said nothing different than what anyone else has said or heard in our oral or visual entertainment venues. The only difference here is that, as you eluded to, certain individuals with their own political motivations and access to the media, continue to deepen the chasm of bigotry rather than move on with the fact that history is history and there are positive elements continuing to be nurtured. There was another quote the day after the incident that really got my adrenaline pumping, but I am sure that no one else even noticed. From USA Today: Pat Summitt, whose Tennessee team beat Rutgers in the final, said Tuesday, "Never should there be a time when student-athletes are in a position to receive this kind of verbal abuse." This got me jump started in that she was so short sited at the event she focused all of the attention on a very small, almost insignificant group rather than help recognize this as a national, social epidemic. The issue is significantly larger than her little world of basketball. Citizens across this country, male and female alike should all be looking beyond Don Imus' comment about a group of basketball players. This is a cultural stigma that has gone virtually unchecked for a rather long time. Maybe this will stir some reflection and hopefully people can get on with their lives. History is History. Life continues to move forward. Hopefully, I can do my part knowing that time provides us opportunities to do great things and live for the future, not in the past.
“Lastly, as of this writing, the tragedy at Virginia Tech is inescapable. Bad things happen to good people. Hopefully our freedoms, beliefs, and values for life provide healing for those who are suffering, but also for those who do not feel that this has affected them! God bless all of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms, military and innocents alike!
“I should have included a short comment about your reference to ‘Wife.’ My wife has never really been my ‘Wife’ or ‘Spouse.’ I most typically refer to her as my ‘Bride.’ She has always been that special someone that was more than a one hour ceremony. She is my ‘Wife’ or ‘Spouse’ on April 15 or any other documents that the legal system insists we fill out to meet our societal obligations.”

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

16 April 2007

Update no.279

Update from the Heartland
No.279
9.4.07 – 15.4.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
I imagine most folks have heard of the latest faux pas of radio and television talk show host Don Imus. For those who may not have heard . . . long-in-the-tooth, shock jock, Don referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team in the national championship game as “nappy headed ho’s.” Don Imus has a long history of insulting people; he picked on the wrong group this time. He could have gone after gangsta’rappers or criminal sports figures being given special treatment, but no, he chose a multi-racial, college women’s basketball team that played their hearts out in a national championship game after an incredible struggle just to make it to the top. He is not paying for a single incident of indiscretion, but rather a professional career of uncivil insults. I will not endorse or repeat all the pronouncements of the talking heads. I will offer a slightly different take. Set aside the gauche, juvenile, playground, name-calling, this kerfuffle is political correctness gone stark raving mad. These are words, not baseball bats or lynching ropes. Like Ann Coulter, Michael Richards, Rush Limbaugh, Mel Gibson, and all other public figure bigots, Imus once again exposed his bigotry and paucity of basic civility to public scrutiny. We have a responsibility to publicly condemn such bigotry from individuals who enjoy a public bully pulpit. If I had said the exact same thing in the workplace as a leader within the company, I would most likely and fully expected to be fired. Name-calling is hardly new. Forty years ago, I was called a bottom-dwelling, blood-sucking, baby killer by some anti-war protesters; should I have been outraged over such verbal abuse? Where I diverge from Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson lays in their demands for offensive action, in essence demanding other folks do what they dictate, and most significantly, their blatant selective outrage is disgustingly hypocritical. And, where is the injury? Being offended by words is a matter of personal choice, and does not constitute injury in and of itself. My recommendation . . . if we disapprove, then we should shun Don Imus -- turn our backs to him and switch off his programs. Let the marketplace define his fate. Each of us is entitled to our opinions, beliefs and views regarding any one or a combination of the social factors -- age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, language, political affiliation, sexual orientation or disability. Why do we condone preferential treatment for race, and most often specifically dark skinned citizens, in contrast to all the other social factors? We are all entitled to publicly profess our beliefs as long as our words cause no harm, and as noted, I have seen no injury. We give Don Imus his pulpit by listening; we should take his pulpit away by not listening. When a few other citizens dictate conduct constraining freedom of speech, we have entered dangerous territory. Frankly, I would rather have the bigotry out in the open where I can see and confront it. Forcing bigotry underground only allows it to fester, mutate and become cancerous. They are just words, folks; let us be stronger citizens than the nearly intolerant level this kerfuffle represents.

Since we are talking about political correctness, I shall insert a paragraph I wrote for a different forum.
The English language has long been seen as a powerful medium for communications, because of its adaptability, its general absorptive nature, and the vast flexibility of the words. As a result, care in the use of such a powerful tool remains essential. That said, I shall respectfully submitted to a critical audience, the key in such questions as propriety rests heavily on context, as Don Imus is learning today. I find it hard to abandon gender or possessive pronouns simply because they are . . . it is the context that defines the meaning. In speech, the intonation of the words adds weight to the context. When I use the term "my wife," I mean my wife as opposed to your wife; I do NOT mean I own this woman -- body, mind and spirit; the emphasis is neutral. In days gone by, I used the gender neutral term spouse rather than the feminine wife in deference to my feminist friends. Likewise, for many years, I tried to use s/he or both to imply gender neutrality. I no longer do so, as I am comfortable allowing my usage in context and my intonation in speech to convey my neutrality on the social factors -- age, gender, race, ethnicity, language, religion, political affiliation, sexual orientation and disability. I try hard to treat all human beings equally and with respect regardless of the social factors, and I do not feel I need to abandon the beauty, magnificence and expansiveness of the English language to "prove" my neutrality.

One last comment, for now, on political correctness . . . I am growing truly weary of these self-anointed, talking head, accusers of my generation who consistently, persistently, and with vengeance, weald their sanctimonious, hypocritical, selective outrage of racism only when it involves folks with dark skin pigmentation. I am tired of these incessant reminders of what some other citizen's ancestors did to citizens of color, two centuries ago. I have done my penance. I have stood and I continue to stand against discrimination involving any one or combination of the social factors including race. I am tiring of the message. I can only pray to the Good Lord Almighty that before I pass to dust, we shall know a society of individual citizens that "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character," devoid of the shrill indignation so common to these events. Henceforth, I refuse to acknowledge any modifier to American; either you are an American, period, or you are not. I will continue to treat people with respect regardless of the social factors, and I refuse to treat someone better just because he has dark skin or certain anatomical characteristics. I see no reason to use offensive language or insulting labels in constructive and production social intercourse. Perhaps, we should all examine the content, character and intent of our language.

Several contributors forwarded a memorandum for the record written by General Barry R. McCaffrey USA (Ret) -- Adjunct Professor of International Affairs, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York -- titled "After Action Report - Visit Iraq and Kuwait 9-16 March 2007," and dated 26.March.2007. Barry offers a rather grim, but seemingly fair and reasonable assessment of conditions on the ground. He speaks with considerably more access and credibility than me. One particular sentence best summarizes Barry's independent opinion,
"In my judgment, we can still achieve our objective of: a stable Iraq, at peace with its neighbors, not producing weapons of mass destruction, and fully committed to a law-based government."
We could discount Barry's view at just another self-servicing government appraisal, and such opinion would be rather narrow and parochial. I urge everyone, regardless of your views on the Battle for Iraq, to read Barry's trip report. The URL link is:
http://www.west-point.org/publications/AARMcCaffreyIraq032607.pdf
If you have any difficult retrieving the document, please let me know, and I would be happy to forward a copy.

A recent article raised an interesting point for our critical consideration.
"First They Came for the Jews"
by Dorothy Rabinowitz
Wall Street Journal
April 2, 2007; page A17
Rabinowitz reminded us of an important espionage case -- United States v. Rosen / Weissman [case no. 1:05cr225]. [229, 245] This particular case involves the allegation that a government employee passed classified information through two intermediaries -- Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman -- to the government of Israel. While I continue to watch this case play out in court, the episode illuminates a far more serious overarching issue. The State's witness -- Lawrence Franklin, who pled guilty -- along with the two defendants are minor players and the material (as best I can tell) is hardly earth shattering -- contemporary regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. I condemn anyone who discloses classified material to any unauthorized person for any reason. However, I note the Rabinowitz article and the Rosen case to highlight one sad, cruel reality -- the American justice system is hardly fair or equal. We press the prosecution of these relatively minor players to the fullest extent of the law, in the face of a mere slap on the wrist for former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and a Clinton pardon for former Director of Central Intelligence John Deutch, both men committed far more egregious mishandling of classified material. I acknowledge this example is hardly the first and certainly will not be the last inequity in the application of the law. As citizens, we must continue to remind ourselves of reality, and when we can, voice our indignation and demand for proper punishment for these transgressions . . . and here, I mean Berger and Deutch (although John already has the ultimate get-out-fail-free card), not Franklin, Rosen and Weissman. The title of the Rabinowitz article makes sense.

The House of Representatives recently joined the Senate when they introduced their version of the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 [HR 1416]; the Senate's version is identified as S.185; both versions have been referred to the associated and respective committees for consideration. The language in both bills seeks to repeal portions of or amend the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and legislatively return writ of habeas corpus to the Guantánamo detainees. I repeat and maintain that giving battlefield combatants access to the civil justice system is wrong in the worst possible way and sets a terrible precedent for future conflicts . . . as surely as there will be.

'Tis the season after all . . . as the U.S. Supreme Court issues interesting rulings. Last week, the Court released its decision in the case of Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency [548 U.S. ___ (2007)] [No. 05-1120]. This ruling can supplant our top example of judicial activism, or at least it is in the top five of contemporary such cases. Further, Massachusetts v. EPA will not be on any list of excellent judicial scholarship or craftsmanship. And yet, I did manage to find a couple of notable pearls. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the dissent and noted, "The constitutional role of the courts, however, is to decide concrete cases -- not to serve as a convenient forum for policy debates," in his disagreement with the majority; and, that one sentence may well summarize Roberts' view on judicial activism. However, I must humbly confess my public recognition of Antonin the Impaler's wisdom in his dissent conclusion. “The Court's alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.” Bad boy Antonin made his case, and yet, the Court reversed the appeals court and remanded the case for reconsideration in accordance with the ruling. That said, global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles with internal-combustion engines is perhaps moot, in comparison to our need to find alternative energy sources for personal vehicular travel and so many other uses. Fossil fuels are not limitless, and emissions from burning fossil fuel cannot be viewed as helpful, no matter how we may slice and dice it. We must evolve the technology before we have no choice. If hyping global warming helps motivate the United States to develop and deploy non-greenhouse-gas-emitting automobiles and trucks, then let’s get ‘er done.

On Tuesday, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley signed into state law HB148 [SB634] – an Act concerning Presidential Elections – Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote. I recognize and acknowledge that members in good standing of the Democratic Party are still pissed about the 2000 Presidential election, but this bill is constitutional foolishness and absurdity at its most corrosive level. Regardless of whether you are a resident of the State of Maryland, every U.S. citizen should read this law; the URL link is:
http://mlis.state.md.us/2007RS/bills/hb/hb0148t.pdf
The salient and critical segment of this law states, “the presidential electors shall cast their votes for the candidates for President and Vice President who received a plurality of votes cast in the National Popular Vote Total.” (emphasis added)
1. I am gobsmacked the citizens of Maryland would stand for such a law, and
2. I cannot imagine this law surviving judicial scrutiny.
The words in the law essentially say it does not matter what the vote count is in the State of Maryland . . . only the national popular vote matters. A candidate could literally get ZERO votes in the state, but the Maryland electoral votes in toto (10 in this case) would go to the national popular vote winner. Thus, the residents of Maryland have ceased to be relevant. Maryland has ceased to be relevant. If other states join this agreement as is suggested, only the population centers will matter. We are tinkering with the very essence of our representative democracy. I do not want to sound like Chicken Little here, but . . . elimination of just one of the checks and balances that have stood us in good stead for two centuries may well provide the kindling and perhaps the spark of a revolutionary conflagration comparable to the Civil War, or even worse, a disintegration of this Grand Republic, as the disenfranchisement of minorities coalesces into actionable resentment. The Founders carefully and wisely crafted a system of governance that stood against simple majority rule and for the protection of minority voices. This Maryland bill is the first bona fide abandonment of our Founding principles. I suspect future generations of Democratic Party members will be lamenting the 2000 election, much like some Southerners still yearn for the good ol’ days of the Confederacy. Lastly, I am seriously disappointed that a constitutional action of this magnitude was not placed before the people, rather than decided by a mere, simple majority of legislative representatives and a sympathetic executive.

Here’s a neat idea. Let’s convict the parents for the crimes of their juvenile delinquent children. While such a draconian law might seem harsh or inappropriate, it might also convince parents that they will be held accountable for the conduct of their children, and thus help them see the need to be more deeply involved in the training, education and rearing of their children. A beneficial collateral effect might well be convincing parents-to-be to re-think procreation and contraception, and avoid a societal state of being they are ill-prepared or committed to uphold.

Comments and contributions from Update no.278:
“You have looked into the discussion and evidence for the controlled demolition of building 7, haven't you? If not let me know so we can discuss.
[Quoted from my previous reply . . . ]
And, even if Building 7 was intentionally destroyed by city, state or federal agents, I am not able to see how that would alter the ultimate outcome.
"Whoa! I didn't see this the first time I scanned your comment- Are you serious? Care to elaborate? Have you looked into the 9/11 situation at all? This is an incredible comment!"
My response:
To be candid, I am not likely to devote precious time to independently research the WTC Building 7 collapse/demolition. We’ve discussed United 93 & the Pentagon attack before. If you wish to feed me data, I’ll do my best to assess it and render an opinion. As I said in an earlier post, I just don’t see the yield.
Now to yr questions . . .
Yes, I am stone-cold serious. There is not a scintilla of doubt in my little pea-brain that those four airliners were hijacked by 19 Islamofascist terrorists, and consequently, that three of the four aircraft hit their intended targets. As a result, the President of the United States sought congressional authorization, received said authorization, and executed two of many operational plans to deploy the military in what I refer to as the War on Islamic Fascism. I am a believer; as Commodore Stephen Decatur so eloquent stated, “Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!” Or, as his toast to those in the naval services is so often modified . . . “My country, may she always be right, but right or wrong, my country!” My point being, once the trigger is pulled, I no longer have any concern for the reasons for the fight; I seek to do what must be done to prevail; we’ll sort out the righteousness of the action in the history books, and those who pulled the trigger shall stand in judgment. Five successive administrations, and especially the last two or three, have had ample justification to declare war on Islamic Fascism, but they repeatedly failed to do so, including the current administration, as we have discussed. To think that any American administration, and especially one that must operate in today’s hyperactive media environment, would, with malice of forethought, construct an elaborate false flag operation to take the country to war is beyond my comprehension. We have far too many people inside and outside any administration, including this one, who would not standby idly, in silence, at such an event; case in point, all those damnable intelligence means and methods leaks exposed to and reported by the New York Times; they are truly damaging to our warfighting capability, and yet they continue.
President Roosevelt has long been accused of knowing what was coming and “allowing” Pearl Harbor to occur with the specific intention of enflaming American passions and taking us into the world war raging around us. I have studied the latest developed information, both pro and con, and I do not and cannot subscribe to such hypotheses. While I continue to rail against federalism and specifically this administration’s arrogance of power, I truly believe they are well-meaning and doing what they believe is best for the country during a time of war. I do not agree with many of the choices they have made, but the President is still the Commander-in-Chief, period.
. . . round two:
"Good reply. Here's where I come at it: If the evidence leads me to suspect there was some complicity, then I do not feel it is my duty as an American to ignore it or let my desire to not believe people in power could be involved in such a thing keep me from asking the questions. As in the Kennedy assassination we are regularly and blithely told there is nothing to any so-called conspiracy that disagrees with sanctioned conclusions. Now I have spent quite a bit of time on the Kennedy thing and I am convinced, from the available evidence, that Kennedy was hit in the throat from the front, and that no bullet went through his back and out his throat. I will not bore you with all that detail- but after looking into it I realized that no matter what the reasons, who the conspirators or players were, the facts are not what we are told. In the 911 tragedy there are actually more discrepancies than in the Kennedy assassination, since there were so many different events and people involved. To realize that WTC7 was brought down late in the afternoon by controlled demolition one could stop there and say, well that's interesting. How it was done, who did it, why and so forth, are tantalizing questions but it is intellectually dishonest, to me, to say that there is no reason to suspect the other two were brought down on purpose as well, if one thinks the smaller one came down by controlled demotion of some kind. But I won't go there yet- let's just stay with wtc7 because we can't begin to question the big things until we answer some of the smaller ones. People a lot smarter than me have looked into this and I will give you a link to pursue this, if you have time. I am not in need of convincing you to change your mind, because I don't think you will, and I can't put you in my journey anymore than you can put me in yours. But you are often very factual and clear-headed in your logic so maybe you can factually and clear-headedly refute some ideas that the research suggests. I can change my mind because I have no reason to believe anything but the truth. But evidence and facts will have to win out as opposed to whatever is different from them.
http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html
"This site has too much information to summarize it adequately here. So, when you have time look into it. There are many out there and most are full of crap so, apply the chaff from the wheat rule. This is one of the best I have seen."
. . . my response to round two:
I try hard to avoid labels, for myself and others, with marginal success; far too limiting and rarely all encompassing. Likewise, I try to analyze events like I assess engineering failures and aircraft accidents. As noted in the previous message, I am a firm believer in the wisdom of Occam's Razor. And yet, one of the ever present traps in ambiguous events is objectivity, to avoid seeing what we wish to see and making the picture appear as we wish it to appear.
I think Roosevelt knew something was happening, but did not know enough to forecast the attack. A war warning had been issued, but the available intelligence was imprecise and the localization of the Japanese fleet did not make it through the intelligence process in time to sound the alarm.
I think Harry Truman decided to drop both atomic weapons on Japan for the very reason he gave -- to end the war and avoid the obscene loss of life in an invasion of the Home Islands.
I think Dwight Eisenhower fell victim to the Red Menace scare, Fidel Castro's surprising success, and encouraged the construction of various plans like the Bay of Pigs and Operation NORTHWOODS.
I think JFK was shot by Oswald, period. I've walked the ground, been through the most recent forensic analysis, and the Warren Report was a sample of abysmal investigative work.
I think LBJ was trying to do what he thought was right, but he was afraid of his own shadow when it came to the PRC & USSR, and their support of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. His failure cost the lives of 58,000 Americans and untold damaged lives.
I think Richard Nixon was a foolish, paranoid man, who was convinced he was doing the best thing for the country, given the societal trauma of the day.
I think Jimmy Carter truly thought he could rescue the hostages, but had no concept of special operations, combat leadership, and the role of the civilian leadership in military operations. His failure was a significant encouragement to the Islamofascists.
I think Ronald Reagan was so preoccupied by the USSR that he failed to recognize or respect the threat of Islamofascism. He deployed Marines without being prepared for the fight, withdrew the Marines when we got a bloody nose, and gave the Islamofascists another big shot of encouragement.
I think George H.W. Bush (41) did what had to be done regarding the liberation of Kuwait and the Somalia operation, but he failed to appreciate the importance of domestic politics. In stopping Schwarzkopf from going to Baghdad, Bush 41 choice the short term goal rather than face the true reality of burgeoning state-sponsored terrorism and Islamofascism.
I think Bill Clinton had and still has such contempt for the military and belief in his own infallibility that he refused to believe Islamofascism was anything more than a few bad criminals running around hurting people.
This forum has been active through the majority of George W. Bush's (43) presidency, and my criticism of his actions is established and remains valid.
None of these men were bad men. None of them conspired to do bad things. All of them made bad decisions. They are human. I am not condoning or rationalizing the conduct and missteps of our presidents . . . just my opinion as I read the facts.

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

09 April 2007

Update no.278

Update from the Heartland
No.278
2.4.07 – 8.4.07
To all,
We have spent and continue to spend considerable energy fretting over the Battle of Iraq as part of a much larger War on Islamic Fascism. This image summarizes my opinion far better than I can put into words.
I cannot say I had this feeling during the Vietnam War, but there were similar but different perspectives involved in our war. During World War II, I doubt there was any debate that America in toto was truly at war – our entire society sacrificed and contributed to the war effort. For this current war, I suppose I am now, or always have been, in the minority. And yet, the sad reality is, America is at war . . . even if Americans refuse to acknowledge the fact. ‘Nuf said.

What a week of generosity! Islamic Republic of Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "pardoned" the Royal Marines and Navy sailors he took hostage two weeks ago, and as if that was not sufficient, he gave them a nice little gift bag for their inconvenience. Nice trick for someone who created the incident. Now that the Royal Marines and sailors are back home and safe, I have some questions. Where was their back-up? Why didn't they see the Iranians coming, and why didn't they call for help? Why didn’t they engage the Iranians? What on earth were their rules of engagement? Those questions asked and set aside, the probability exists for the Iranians, the Islamofascists, and other jihadistanis to misinterpret this episode as a sign of weakness by the British, the United States and our allies. Couple this episode with the shenanigans in Congress over the last couple of months and the Speaker of the House enjoying a chit-chat with Syrian President Bashar Assad, it is not hard to understand why the Iranians would see us as weak. I am quite pleased our British brethren are free and safe; so, I shall optimistically chalk this up to successful, behind-the-scenes diplomacy.

In noting the diplomatic initiative of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, I must say . . . nice try. However, I condemn Pelosi’s actions as reprehensible and contrary to the interests of the United States of America. I can accept private citizens like former-POTUS Jimmy Carter or Reverend Jesse Jackson gallivanting across the globe with noble intentions. Ms. Pelosi does NOT enjoy such luxury. She has violated the separation of powers, defied the chosen leader of this Grand Republic, and otherwise unilaterally decided to take up the role of Secretary of State. If San Fran Nan wishes to throw out our form of government, she is invited to make an appropriate proposal for amending the Constitution. Her actions this week undermined the President of the United States of America – not George W. Bush, or even the Republican Party – the United States of America! If this is what we have to look forward to from the Democratic Party, they shall never gain my vote. And, I shall do everything in my power to expose them for what they are – polarized, partisan politicians who only care about the next election. And, since I’m on a roll here, I shall not be voting for any Republican who maintains a moral projectionist, big government mentality comparable to George W. Bush . . . and there are some Republican candidates who are even farther to the right than no.43. Barry Goldwater . . . where are you when we need you?

"The Democrats' Surge: Will Democrats thwart a military success?"
by Daniel Henninger
Wall Street Journal
April 5, 2007; page A12
The subtitle question of Henninger's article illuminates a curious point -- are Democrats more interested in political gain than winning the War on Islamic Fascism? Henninger's question itself suggests the opinion contained within. Sadly, I must say I doubt any Democrat or other naysayers would have the courage to compliment President Bush as they have criticized him, if General Petraeus is successful with the offensive in Iraq. I would be thrilled to be wrong, but I doubt I am. I think the Democrats have chosen failure and will do whatever they can to ensure failure. They want a diminished and weakened President of the United States. As for me, I do not much care who is in the Oval Office; I care deeply that we accomplish the mission when our troops are committed in harm's way. We shall see how the Democrats and naysayers play this out. I can only hope Henninger is wrong.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal in the case of Boumediene v. Bush [No. 05-5062] -- the Guantánamo detainee whose habeas corpus petition rejection was affirmed by the DC Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. [273] The Court's disinclination to hear the arguments in the case, even by a narrow majority, validates the Military Commissions Act [254] . . . at least for the time being. Thus, a smidgen of clarification to the legal status of the detainees came via reverse logic. Unfortunately, the Court also signaled their interest in the lower court's opinion regarding the classification of the detainees' identification as battlefield combatants. When coupled with the contrary ruling in Rasul v. Bush [542 U.S. 466 (2004)] [134], the status of the detainees is hardly clear or settled. Thus, this topic of debate is far from resolved, and we most likely will have plenty more opportunities to debate this issue.

Additional comments on the topic of detainee treatment and torture are offered below. Here, I will add that I have yet to hear of one mistreatment of detainees that is worse than what most combat aviators experienced at the hands of American (friendly) trainers during the Survival, Escape, Resistance, and Evasion (SERE) training most of us endured. Obviously, I am not particularly sympathetic to claims of abuse.

A subscriber/contributor offered this YouTube video link:
http://www.youtube.com/v/m9Yc3wYJOtI
The commentator is Bob Parks -- a blogger with an opinion. Bob's perspective is worth listening to, in its entirety. The URL for his blog:
http://blackandright.mensnewsdaily.com/

CBS's 60 Minutes tried their best to marginalize, diminish and discredit Senator John McCain in their Sunday broadcast. In my humble opinion, John never stood taller -- a man who places the United States above his ambitions. God bless John McCain.

A contributor offered his perspective on the illegal immigrant situation:
"This whole country was founded by 'illegals.' At least as far as Native Americans were concerned. And for Many years it was fed by the influx of 'illegals' -- folks who just were escaping from whatever oppression or lack of opportunity -- in search of something better.
"The Illegals came, and after they got established they invited others. Until the flood became too much. (Aha!! People find out or hear about a good thing and gravitate to it). Then laws were put in place to limit the inflow of new people seeking to live here --'Illegals.'
"Of course meanwhile these 'newly arrived illegal' folks pushed back the LEGAL folks who had been in this country for almost Eons. Maybe more than Eons. If that is possible. A long time anyway. Forced them by whatever means necessary to give up their lands, or face deportation to some not so nice place in the land these 'illegals' now controlled. Like the Florida Everglades in the case of the Cherokee and maybe Comanche Indians. Or into the worst regions of the southwest desert regions. Forcefully pushed them if necessary. By having much more Power, plus the ability and willingness to use it.
"Perhaps the idea of Eminent Domain got it's very early roots during this period. I hadn't thought of that till just now.
"So, in retrospect I find it hard in one way to say No to those who seek a hopefully better life in America. Who sometimes brave all sorts of hardships and dangers in an attempt to get to our shores. To 'AMERICA.'
"America was founded on the idea of a better life, on freedom for all -- religious and otherwise, on equality for all, (sort of anyway at first, though not always for blacks and indentured servants).
"But having said that -- I have no problem saying NO to those who want to come here and just live off the graciousness of our far too liberal Governmental laws. Not contributing to our country in any way but merely Taking from it. That is wrong!! And we here -- all us former 'illegals' -- should not tolerate it. WE did not come here with those thoughts in mind. We came here to escape oppression, to gain freedom, to live, to build, to make better this land we'd come to. TAKING and not GIVING was not a thought even in our vocabularies.
"So. What to do? Some ideas -- not all that should be done, and Not in this particular order:
"Stop trying to make all countries in the world conform to OUR ideas of democracy, or at least our ideas of how a country should operate. We say we are a Democracy -- but I think we are not when you read the real definitions.
"Stop fighting those who tell us to go fly a kite. Or those who have energy stuff like oil which we think we need and want to blackmail us to get big concessions in exchange for their oil. Or not sell us any at all. That last is big time bad news for THOSE countries -- at least for as long as WE are the BIG DOG on the Block. Refer to recent and on-going stuff.
"Get going seriously on alternative sources of energy, be it derived from the Sun, from Wind, from Nuclear, from Coal, from Corn, or even from the bowel movements of our now 300 Million citizens. That last sounds crude, but the idea is that we HAVE to find other sources of energy and fuel. Period. Or be dependant on others. And THAT is the path to our demise!
"Use to the fullest extent our 'Black Ops' and CIA folks and their abilities, to snuff out the worst of our True enemies. Yes, KILL them. And with no apologies to anyone.Be more like Israel was for a number of years from around 1967 to sometime in the recent past when they decided they could no longer count on total USA or Free world support against aggression. They had to start negotiating. As WE do now, unfortunately and stupidly -- since we don't HAVE to. Bullshit.
"I say be like Teddy Roosevelt. He said 'Speak softly, but carry a Big stick.' To that I'd add, 'And be totally ready, absolutely willing, and extremely able to use it.'
"Make sure all the world knows that too. Then invite everyone to dinner and talk about whatever problems are of concern to everyone there. Listen carefully. Control the situation so people don't start trying to dominate the conversation. Make folks talk one at a time. Or physically throw out their representatives from the dinner and ask those left if they Now understand how this thing will be conducted.
"Suggest ways for them to solve their problems themselves by being nicer people, etc. If their problem is serious, just remind them of who You are and what can/will happen if they do not internally correct their now noted deficiency.
"Is this called a benevolent dictatorship? Kinda sounds like one."
. . . along with a few additional comments from me:
We can trace the origins of eminent domain back to English Common Law, prior to the existence of the American colonies and the United States of America.
Most Native American tribes had no laws, and the notion of land ownership was such an alien concept that it was beyond their comprehension, like possessing the stars or the void of space.
Unfortunately, so much of the expansion of this Grand Republic came by force of arms and a sense of superiority derived from the law, treaties, contracts, and such. We felt the law gave us the right.

The control of our borders is exactly the same as our control of our personal private property . . . we invite in who we wish, others must seek permission, and some or most may not be given welcome to enter. I do not understand why it has been so hard for the politicians and the uber-Left to understand that basic concept. So, the debate continues.
For the last century of American history, I do not recall one instance of the United States attacking a sovereign country just because they disagreed with us. Perhaps the one exception would be the Bahía de Cochinos (Bay of Pigs) operation in Cuba -- a foolish endeavor born in the fear of the Red Menace.

This image prompted the observations below. Pardon the language; just a reality.
"Gotta love our grunts; Army and Marine. And now our Special Ops guys from all Services.
"Especially our junior ones. They are the ones always on the pointiest end of the pointy sword, and who often/sometimes lose friends or get hurt themselves. When we are at war. They are on the ground, in the foxholes, moving forward, overcoming, and many of them dying trying. They are also maybe the best trained soldiers there ever were in any time, anywhere. But they do need leadership -- ONLY from Officers who have been through what THEY have been through -- and qualified, as THEY have qualified.

"Mostly they are very young too. 17 to maybe 20. (note: I joined the Marines at 17). And since we no longer have a draft -- they are often Not among our best and brightest and most wealthy, and best educated. (such as was the case in WW2 when even the President's sons served in harms way). No. Those higher class youngsters now know better than to 'volunteer.' Daddy told them so, or they figured it out for themselves, and they know how to avoid such hazardous and un-productive things.

"But some folks amongst us need a way to Maybe get ahead in life and out of wherever they are. The Military offers inducements, education, $$$ for more education later, careers, health care, and a steady good income. And more. Sounds super!! If you do not read the fine print.

"In NO -- I said NO -- TV type ad have I EVER seen that, If you join Us you may have to fight and you may get killed doing that, but you can see the world, wear a really neat uniform, earn $$$ for college after your tour (providing you survive), have a lot of $$$ in life insurance at a truly affordable price (nice for your family if......)

"So they volunteer, and then find themselves on the pointy end.

"Shit! This is not what I signed up for! Or thought I was!

"However, By and large They do us proud!!! Even so. They may not and likely do not do it for 'US' per-se. They do it for the man or woman beside them, who, like them, is in harms way and at that moment needing support/help. Sometimes they go far beyond what might normally be expected of them in and during the most awesome of battle horrors.

"Actual battle, in a combat type situation, changes everything from doing what I'm told to do, or if in Command, to what I think is best to do up to now, to now doing what I have to do to first survive and next to kill all those out there who are now trying to kill me and my Buddy. If in Command it is to doing whatever is best for the unit which will accomplish the mission. Regardless of casualties, though NOT without consideration of those possibilities. The mission, even if that mission has just now shown itself as a new Mission in light of what is going on around us in the chaos of major battle, is/has to be the focus of the Commander. Has to be! He knows that, and regardless of personal danger will do whatever is necessary to do what has to be done. I guarantee you that the troops will follow his call. They want and need leadership. They are well trained and disciplined. Tell them what you want. They will do it or die trying. Period!
"One of the things in which the Marine Corps is some different from the other Services is the fact that critical decisions must be made by the Commander who is right there on scene -- regardless of his rank. That commander will take action as best he can and if possible notify higher headquarters of what he is doing and why. Higher headquarters and so higher Commanders will then assess what that Commander has done/is doing and either support 100% or not support totally, though will enough to hold on, and pass the situation on up the chain of command. Depending on the 'Big Picture,' that young Officer in the field, in actual combat with his own troops will or will not get the support he needs. Usually, In the Marine Corps, he will. Higher Commanders will put on hold actions they want to do in order to support this young Officer who has made a combat decision.
"Later? Never, or 99.9% of the time later, will that young Commander, be he a Captain, Lieutenant, Staff Sergeant, Sergeant, or Corporal, EVER be called on the carpet to answer for what he did. To explain why he did it, Yes. But no persecution or prosecution. He was on scene. It was his call."NO other Service does it like that.
"The Marine Corps trains its Marines to think for themselves and act according to the situation and all their training. Yes -- the Commander on scene -- regardless of rank -- is responsible and accountable, but the situation is always considered.
"I've been there in a small way. Ground combat. Had my radio operator wounded right beside me in a ground firefight once. 1969. Whole new story for those who do not know I fought both in the air and on the ground. And a couple other minor skirmishes -- one a sapper attack on our airfield, that did result in a few A-4's being destroyed as sappers ran by and threw satchel charges up the tailpipes. That was at Chu Lai, RVN, 1965. Couple other situations.
"Maybe they save others while most certainly risking their own life in terrible circumstances, or, by their actions, turn the tide in the way a battle is going. Maybe they die, and maybe they somehow survive. Those are the ones who win the Medal of Honor, Navy Cross, Distinguished Service Cross (Army), etc. Many never know they won it. Because they died trying to do only what they saw as most needing to be done at a moment in time. For another soldier, their friend or acquaintance, or the situation. Not ever to win some medal.
"THAT is not totally true, but is in about 99% of cases. I can tell you of some individuals in which this was NOT the case. Medal chasers. All did really great things in combat, but did them to win medals. Another story however.
"War does all that stuff to most all who see it. And I have seen a bit -- in the air AND on the ground. The fact that one has somehow come to be in this awful place, seeing all this awful stuff, is taken over by the fact that one IS there, among others just like them, just as scared, just as wondering how we ever got to where we are now. So -- most all bind together, fight the enemy in front of them, whether or not they really hate that enemy, because they are there and that enemy is trying to kill them.
"Maybe the enemy soldier ALSO does not know quite how he got to where he is or why, but he is there and so fights. Maybe for his cause, but more likely for his friend beside him -- just like us.
"But still they manage to find some ways to make a bad overall situation a bit more human and even humorous. Humorous to some and ugly to others. THAT is likely something only the American and possibly the British soldiers can do. We Americans and Brits go back a long ways, as both friends and as adversaries. Those experiences have served in the end to bring us closer.
"Anyway, that they can, speaks highly of them. Fight the Enemy hard and Kill him with no remorse, yet when the shooting stops and an opportunity presents itself -- be just another American or British boy. Who doesn't love war or want to be where he is. A Young man, really. Like that one now living next door to you. Or in your own house!! Who may well before long be a soldier and out there on that same pointy point. But here taking advantage of the fact that we don't all speak or understand the same languages.
"Having said that, I would add that we do not all understand, appreciate, care about, etc, each other's backgrounds over MUCH time, care about customs, traditions, national interests, ideas about governments, and on and on. We are WAY apart. Yet we are all human beings. So why can we not find some common ground?"
. . . and once again, an additional comment from me:
The Marine Corps has always been a service of riflemen and small unit leaders. We are all trained to figure out a way to get the mission done no matter what the obstacles and resistance. We're not always successful . . . but certainly more often than not. As Chesty Puller said, "Retreat, hell, we're just fighting in a different direction."
Semper Fidelis.

Comments and contributions from Update no.277:
"Just a thought -- when Hicks gets back to Australia -- look for him to go to court. Thanks to Al Ghraib and other similar disasters, the Australian courts might just listen to him and give him an early release. Then stand by to hear Hicks talk about how he was tortured and abused. Again, the comments of our senior leadership who have sought to legalize torture are going to come back and bite us.
"The Marine lawyer defending him did a great job -- the Air Force colonel who heads the prosecution has mucked things up and may have committed professional ethics violations himself."
My reply:
About the only thing I can add to the Hicks affair and this question of torture hangs on the definition. A number of the detainees are hollering about their torture at the hands of the CIA et al. Some folks think withholding their afternoon milk & cookies is torture. My definition is quite simple . . . no permanent injury. We shall see. I have not been following the details of the legal actions against Hicks or any of the others, except as those actions may affect precedent. I have no insight into the conduct of his legal proceedings. Also, as long as John Howard remains PM or his party remains in power, I suspect Hicks will not be well-received in his native Australia; even if the courts let him go free, I suspect his neighbors may not be particularly sympathetic to his extracurricular activities, given the suffering the nation has endured at the hands of Islamofascists. We shall see on that aspect as well.
. . . installment two:
"Actually, Hicks is somewhat of a cause célèbre in Australia and has become a huge political headache for PM Howard. He apparently requested help in getting Hicks back to Australia. The reason for the "gag order" for 9 months is to try to ensure that Hicks won't speak out during the election run-up. It will be very interesting to see whether he goes to court when he is returned to Australia. It will also be interesting to see to post-mortem on the process -- which seems to be flawed.
"Below is an excerpt from a piece on the proceedings:
"In February, Vice President Cheney traveled to Australia to visit with his close ally Prime Minister John Howard. At the top of Howard's agenda was a plea to release Australian Gitmo detainee David Hicks. Last Friday, Hicks became the first person to be sentenced by a military commission convened under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, accepting nine months of imprisonment and a gag order that will not allow him to discuss the case for 12 months. Howard lobbied Cheney during the February visit for the trial to 'be brought on as soon as humanly possible and with no further delay.' The plea bargain itself was brokered by Susan Crawford, the top military commission official and a former Department of Defense inspector general under then-Secretary of Defense Cheney, without the knowledge or input of the lawyers prosecuting Hicks. The lead prosecutor expressed shock over the light sentence.
"Given the nature of the deal, suspicions are being raised that the plea agreement may have been an orchestrated gesture by Cheney to benefit Howard in his re-election fight. Howard, who is lagging behind Labor Party rival Kevin Rudd in the polls, faces a tough election contest in less than nine months. Now, legal experts on both continents are sounding alarms."
. . . and my reply to installment two:
Oh, I’m all too aware of the cause célèbre status of battlefield captives like Hicks, Padilla, and so many others. I do not know about political maneuverings completed or underway that might be associated with these detainees. Thus, whether shenanigans linked to these guys exist or not, I have no idea . . . although I certainly would not be surprised. The administration has placed itself in the position of death by a thousand cuts – now they suffer the consequences of their missteps; and, we cannot lump all these events into a neat package labeled partisan politics. Nonetheless, I doubt Hicks or Padilla or Gadahn or Lindh or any of the others, are the innocents we are left with in the Press. Most folks early in life learn to avoid the street fight. These yayhoos freely chose to seek the fight on the wrong side. Thus, I have a very hard time finding sympathy for them. Hicks is not some mistreated bystander caught up in a frenzied moment; he chose to be where he was, and he deserves an appropriate punishment for his choices. By standards but a few decades ago, their conduct would be judged treasonous and punishable by death. But, today, with the likes of Hanoi Jane still walking among us and enjoying the freedom she freely chose to offend, how on God’s little green earth could we ever mete out the proper punishment to these sad, misbegotten souls. Frankly, I hope Hicks sings like a bird; I want to see what this guy claims is torture. I suspect I shall not be impressed. Sorry to get all fired up, but that’s the way I see it.
. . . installment three:
"As you inferred, we are reaping the harvest that the present administration has sowed. The Aussies generally don't think Hicks is one of the 'worst of the worst' and have a jaundiced eye about whatever our government alleges he did. Hence the public outcry for his getting a fair trial and returned to Australia. Unfortunately, we have put ourselves into a position where the world will have grounds to believe the worst. And we are going to spend a long time living this down.
"Actually, Hicks might appeal -- in Australia- and be entirely freed. He pled guilty to a non-military or law of war offense that was not on the books when he allegedly committed it. Since we have no ex post facto laws, this is subject to being struck. This is one of the dodgy things about the trial -- if it were a real U.S. court of any level or type, he would never have been convicted of that charge. The commission prosecutors may have been too clever by half.
"I just ran across this -- Larry Wilkerson is a retired Marine colonel -- and well thought of in national security circles. He is referring to Hicks' claims of being beaten and torture of other prisoners. Not sure whether Hicks claims that he was tortured, but does say that he was physically abused.
"Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, said his claims were credible.
"'I know this kind of abuse happened,' he told ABC. 'I've talked to people who participated in it -- CIA, military and contractor.'
"Wilkerson said military officers had told him the interrogations at Guantánamo Bay had revealed 'virtually nothing' of useful intelligence.
"'And that is just damning,' he said."
. . . my reply to installment three:
If Larry Wilkerson has or had access to information regarding Hicks’ treatment at the hands of Americans, then let’s hear it. If Hicks suffered some permanent injury, then perhaps he has a case. If not, it's just 'woe-is-me' whining. Interrogation with milk & cookies will not be particularly successful. Intelligence obtained by interrogation of prisoners is rarely, if ever, actionable; however, fragments can and often are combined with other bits & pieces to produce actionable intelligence. To say, interrogation of captives yields "virtually nothing of useful intelligence" is just flat wrong, in my humble opinion. Interrogation of prisoners is an essential and vital activity. That said, I do not support treatment or interrogation methods that might cause permanent injury, and if harsh techniques are used, then competent medical support must be immediately available.
Perhaps Hicks and some or all of the others are just innocent tourists, out on an afternoon adventure that got caught up in a bad situation to which they were not a party. If so, I find it hard to fathom why the U.S. would spend such extraordinary effort on him and the others. Could it be that Hicks and the others are what the government claims? In a parallel sense, were there ever innocent people imprisoned during World War II? As you well know, war is hell . . . always has been, always will be. There is always collateral damage no matter how hard we try to avoid it. Further, when the interrogation process is complete, prisoners should be treated with dignity and respect, but not given resort treatment either; it is not and should not be a pleasant experience. If the interrogators and guards exceed their authority, then they should be removed from the environment, and if appropriate, punished for any serious transgressions.
Amid all this yammering for the poor, little, downtrodden, Islamofascist, battlefield combatants from John Walker Lindh to Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, we seem to forget that none of these yayhoos would be behind bars and a matter of interest to the United States of America, if they had not attacked Americans or our allies, or been involved in activities meant to harm Americans or American interests. We did not attack them. They (the general ‘they’) sought the fight; now they have one. Some win, some lose; I, for one, seek to win this damnable fight. These guys drew the short straw . . . too bad, so sad. I feel no compassion for them – only the urge to kill them before they can harm another living soul. I feel no need whatsoever to give them some criminal trial. And, I certainly do not feel even a twinge to make nice with folks that are trying to kill me, my family, or any of my fellow citizens. Prisoners of war were held for the duration of World War II; that sounds reasonable to me. The sooner Islamofascists and jihadistanis abandon their vision of world domination, the sooner we might find peace.

Another contribution:
"Good morning from a damp and cold eastern side of the pond. I like the sound of Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, it has a nice ring to it. I'm sorry to read of your friend with cancer. We too are losing friends and acquaintances to cancer. Why haven't we beaten this curse? Can it ever be beaten? Surely mankind can do anything it has the will do, the moon and back, antibiotics, Mount Everest, the list of human accomplishments is endless but the cure for cancer eludes us. What are we doing wrong? Have we been diverted, put off course by other priorities such as AIDS. Don't you think that human kind can beat cancer if we showed the same level of endeavour and financing that we have demonstrated with other human achievements. Cogitate on that if you will."
My response:
As I learned from my expert friends, cancer is a failure of the immune system . . . reasons can be many -- genetic, environmental, induced, age. I am absolutely convinced cancer can be beaten; however, the key lays in the molecular construction of our cells, not with some isolatable virus or bacterium. HIV/AIDS, like other cellular contaminants, can be localized, and thus can be dealt with, e.g., rhinovirus, influenza, small pox, et cetera. HIV presents an intriguing challenge in that the virus adapts so quickly and compromises the immune system rapidly without intervention. Cancer is sometimes fast, sometimes very slow, largely depending on many factors like cellular replication rate, extent of compromise, location within cellular construct, and such. A great deal is being spent quietly on cancer at the biological research level. Some progress can be seen. And yet, what we are doing is not enough for those afflicted. With cancer, we are talking about the most basic and fundamental biological processes, which is one reason among many why I am so outspoken, determined and unwavering in my advocacy for broad-based, embryonic, stem cell research. We are not likely to break the grip of cancer until we intimately understand that most basic and fundamental cellular replication, in essence, why does one cell retain its identity and structure, and an adjacent cell mutate in a manner that irreparably alters normal division? As I said, I remain convinced we shall beat cancer. It is only a matter of time and effort. As long as we remain politically opposed to comprehensive embryonic stem cell research, the answers will remain frustratingly illusive . . . like the desired path in a dense fog. I also believe that finding the root mechanisms of cancer will also give us the keys to aging, genetic diseases, and other cellular deterioration.

Another contribution:
"I cannot speak to the Edwards decision to continue his campaign. Maybe it really is what they think is best for them personally. Maybe it is politics in a very inappropriate way. In any case I do feel for the family, and applaud Her seeming courage in the face of demise. Cancers of various types are a plague on us humans, and though research has made some progress, No total cures or preventions are yet available. That all Cancers could be pretty much wiped out as a Major threat, as Polio and Tuberculosis, Plague, and others have been, is my hope and that of likely all humans.
"I have not seen, nor do I intend to scope out the latest War appropriations Bill. I do know it contains Pork. That in itself it enough to get MY hackles up. I HATE the fact that members of Congress, both the House and the Senate, cannot pass a law which prohibits amendments having nothing to do with the original Bill itself. I.E., I believe all legislation should stay on subject. Period. So that a bill could be passed or rejected on IT'S merits alone.
"Why cannot our Congress pass such a Bill? I know the answer, and so do most intelligent Americans. Yet we let it happen.
"I agree with your assessment of the Brit/Iranian situation. The Brits cannot take on Iran by themselves, and WE are in no position to come to their aid in any attack -- since we have our own problems in Congress about our future in Iraq, plus our involvement in Afghanistan, etc. So Iran knows it can play this piece for at least awhile yet.
"I well remember the Stella Liebeck vs McDonalds case. To me at the time, the judgment was just flat unbelievable! But it was a product of an increasingly litigious society.
"Fueled by some other previously litigated cases, Lawyers who specialize in taking potentially 'big bucks' situations to court to 'HELP' some poor victim get their day in court and their due, found that this whole thing, this idea if you will, was a mega-money maker for themselves. Almost anything which did not come out as planned by the person or persons who undertook it could then be litigated as not having been their fault that it did not. But having been the fault of someone else. And therefore the 'Victim' should be compensated for their pain and suffering and loss of ability to work, and etc, etc, etc. On and on -- as far as the litigating attorneys thought they could push it.
"Plus anything else their eager attorneys could dream up. And why did they do it? For the poor victim? HELL NO!!! They did it to line their own pockets. The somewhat 33% of any won decision was $330,000 for every Million adjudged. Not bad, and worth their time in a society which was now seeming to blame all bad things on someone or something other than the often stupid or at best ill- thought-out actions of the poor 'VICTIM' themselves.
"We call these attorneys and their companies 'Ambulance Chasers,' and we have done that for many years. But it is true. They are, and it is a very profitable way for them to go, IF they are wise enough and smart enough, and bright enough. And unconscionable enough."
My reply:
Good point on Congress. This whole earmark pork nonsense is the scourge of American federal legislative conduct. I am with you! This disgusting penchant to barter little (actually very big to us common Americans) pork goodies buried in the primary legislation represents one of the worst elements of American federal government. As much as I condemn congressmen for these damnable earmarks, I must point an accusatory finger at We, the People, as well. We allow, or condone by our silence, all this crap, and We are the ones expecting and demanding "free" goodies from the government -- it's call feeding at the public trough.
Very well said on our litigious society.
We see this "woe-is-me" litigation quite a lot in the aviation business. Some doctor or lawyer who thinks he's god, buys a machine way beyond his actual skill, and then gets in trouble and sticks it in the ground. Of course, the widow believes she deserves compensation for hubby's lost income. The sympathetic members of the jury feel sorry for the poor, hapless widow, and rationalize that the deep pockets companies can afford to compensate her for her husband's idiotic mistakes. The scenario has been repeated far too many times. Makes me want to pass a law prohibiting the sale of airplanes to doctors and lawyers . . . to protect them from themselves; but, that would be moral projection and we certainly don't need more of that. We can always hope that one day we shall mature as a society and culture to take responsibility and accountability for our actions, and abandon this foolish "something for nothing" and "somebody must pay" attitude that leads too many of us to the siren song of lawyers.

Comments and contributions from Update no.276:
"I admire your writings and know you are a great warrior and I would get in a fox hole with you anytime, but I am a little disappointed that you draw conclusions so quickly without evidence. I have as much trouble as you do in thinking that 911 was an inside job. For you to make the above comments without apparently looking at the evidence is not up to your own standards. Building 7 was one of the towers that fell at around 5:20 pm. It was announced on BBC that the building had fallen at around 4:45- with their anchor, on air, pointing to the background that the Salomon building (building 7) had fallen at the WTC site while not realizing she was also pointing out that Building 7 was still obviously standing. This is one discrepancy and how it happened has yet to be satisfactorily explained. Controlled demolition of building 7 is so obvious to me that the other two then become candidates for the same type of destruction, at least theoretically. Look into the evidence about building 7 and then you may be curious enough to check out the credible information about the possibility of termite and/or other types of explosive or destructive devices that may have been involved in bringing the other two down. It is not scientific for you to start with a conclusion and then back into the evidence selectively to support your conclusion, i.e. that this was simply an attack by Muslim extremists. It may well have been, but counterintel history, false flag activity, and so forth along with the possibility of policy decisions which could not be justified in the light of public scrutiny, make it a very real possibility that the New Pearl Harbor many wanted was in fact brought about on purpose. I know you are aware (or should be) of Operation Northwoods which was sent back to the joint chiefs in 1962. The reality that they could have proposed this and that it might have been implemented simply proves that with the right people making the decisions, say a Bush instead of a Kennedy, then anything is possible. I will gladly argue these important points with you anytime as long as you are thoroughly familiar with the evidence."
My response:
You are quite correct in that it is not scientific to start with a conclusion. And yet, the conclusion is an irrefutable fact -- Buildings 1, 2, and 7 collapsed. A version of Occam's Razor suggests the simplest explanation is usually the best explanation, and concomitantly, if you can eliminate all but one potential hypotheses, the remaining hypothesis is most likely the cause.
To go directly to the point, no, I have not researched the potential for explosives in Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex. My comments focused upon Buildings 1 and 2. I have a limited capacity that is often stretched to the limit as it is, without chasing ghosts or low yield projects. I say this, not to be harsh or critical, but only as a statement of fact . . . for me. And, even if Building 7 was intentionally destroyed by city, state or federal agents, I am not able to see how that would alter the ultimate outcome. The same analogy can be seen in the TWA 800 incident we have discussed many times. Some folks still contend the incident was a U.S. military accidental, intentional or friendly fire shoot down, and yet, I have not seen one scintilla of physical evidence to even suggest such an event. Assuming the worst case in the absence of credible evidence -- that Building 7 was brought down by explosives -- I cannot make that jump by implication to Buildings 1 and 2. That said, my opinion is that Building 7 sustained catastrophic damage during the collapse of Tower 2 and Tower 1, and took longer to finally collapse.
You are quite correct in using false flag operations as a supposition of conspiracy. They have happened, and they will continue to happen. Operation NORTHWOODS was hardly the first false flag operation and will not likely be the last such effort, whether as contingency planning or execution. However, I think they are far more popular with Hollywood and novelists than they are with the professional military or their political overseers. Of course anything is possible. I cannot disprove a negative. Perhaps I am blindly naive in discounting Federal conspiratorial action, but I cannot comprehend the motive for such action. No matter how much we may despise George W., he was hardly the epitome of action before 9/11, and I cannot imagine all three branches of government playing along in some grand conspiracy to create a war. The war already existed, even though no one wanted to admit it until 9/11. Occam's Razor tells me that the Islamofascists took the next step of escalation in 22 years of attacks, and they bargained that the United States would do what it had always done -- shout and scream, pound on its chest with bellicose bluster, and lob a few cruise missile around the countryside. In short, they bet the United States did not have the spine to fight an intractable, unconventional war against a stateless adversary. Well, surprise, surprise!!

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