Update no.278

Update from the Heartland

No.278

2.4.07 – 8.4.07

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

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 :-)