Update from the Heartland
No.294
23.7.07 – 29.7.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.294
23.7.07 – 29.7.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Rocky was doing pretty well until Wednesday of this week; he took a sudden turn for the worse. I shall spare y’all the unpleasant details, but there was nothing more our vet could do for him. Taylor and I comforted him and stayed with him during his final moments. He passed peacefully at 18:15 CDT, Thursday, 26.July.2007. Rocky was a really good dog – a massive (160 pounds at his prime) lovable lug.
Rocky was doing pretty well until Wednesday of this week; he took a sudden turn for the worse. I shall spare y’all the unpleasant details, but there was nothing more our vet could do for him. Taylor and I comforted him and stayed with him during his final moments. He passed peacefully at 18:15 CDT, Thursday, 26.July.2007. Rocky was a really good dog – a massive (160 pounds at his prime) lovable lug.
Rocky in his better days
Then, as is so often the case, life must go on. I left the next day to Salt Lake City, working through the weekend to help a company falling behind on their commitments and obligations to resolve a serious problem; not exactly how I wish to spend my weekends, but c’est la guerre. Thus, this Update comes to you via the amazing World Wide Web from Salt Lake City, Utah.
The follow-up news items:
-- Unfortunately, American election politics are going to be with us for another year plus. The silly season has become a perpetual nuisance. Yet, I must confess that I thought the CNN-YouTube debate Monday night had an interesting and refreshing quality to it – citizens asking the questions. While it was hardly a substantive debate, the subtleties of the responses stratified the Democratic candidates better than any other format I have seen, yet. The editors who constructed the program are to be commended, and Anderson Cooper did a magnificent job moderating the session.
-- The twin Mars robotic rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, were launched in the early summer of 2003, and landed successfully six months later, with an expected service life of only three months. They have returned extraordinary images and data from the surface of Mars for more than three years. [132, 213] However, for the past month, a severe dust storm has obscured 99% of the Sun’s light – the power source for the rovers. Controllers instructed the robotic explorers to hibernate to conserve battery power. When battery power is depleted, the rovers may not be able to power up when the storm passes, and the solar cells may be covered with too much dust, even if they are successful in conserving battery power through the storm. The current storm is the most serious threat faced by the rovers, and their survival is in doubt. Let us hope the twin rovers do indeed survive and can recover.
-- The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) issued a warning, regarding probable probes of U.S. airport security using seemingly innocuous objects that press the limits of bombing detecting ability, e.g., a block of cheese with a cell phone taped to it. The announcement acknowledged four (4) abnormal or unusual objects like the one above being detected in 11 months. The TSA announcement stated, "There is no intelligence that indicates a specific or credible threat to the homeland." While the government must remain appropriately circumspect, I think such objects could easily be probes; there are few plausible alternative explanations.
-- You may recall controversial Professor Ward Churchill, who used his position at the University of Colorado to spew his vitriol [165-6]. Well, the wheels of academic justice turn oh so slowly, but they do turn. The ridiculous man in the guise of an intellectuel scolaire was fired from his job for plagiarism and irregularities in academic discipline. Good riddance! May he disappear into the oblivion he deserves.
-- In contrast to last week's "Exit Strategies" [293], we have the New York Times' editorial "No Exit Strategy." They opened, "The American people have only one question left about Iraq: What is President Bush’s plan for a timely and responsible exit?" The Times' editorial staff apparently believes they speak for all the American people. They do not! My question is: when are we going to decide to win this battle and defeat our enemy in the War on Islamic Fascism?
The Patriot Post (Vol.07 No.30; 27.July.2007) published the second of a two-part essay on Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, titled: “Justice served: The Joe Arpaio Model.” Well done, I must say. I do not always agree with Joe’s coarse manner or his affinity for the camera, but I certainly laud his results. Treating criminals as criminals rather than some social science project seems to be a far more rational and realistic proposition.
“[I]t cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals — that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government — that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.”
— Ayn Rand
[source: Patriot Post (Vol.07, No.30; dated: 23.July.2007); numerous attributions to Rand can be found, however, no document source has been discovered, yet.]
Ayn Rand (1905 –1982), born: Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum – Russian born, American novelist, philosopher – clearly expressed the relationship between the Constitution, the government, and We, the People. We have yet to learn this critical lesson. We have been out of balance for at least 37 years. The struggle for the protection of individual rights continues, and we must find a proper balance between the rights of a citizen and the interests of the State. Let us not lose sight of Ayn Rand’s observation as we continue the struggle.
A subscriber, contributor and friend sent a couple of noteworthy articles by Ralph Peters.
“John McCain's Integrity Problem”
by Ralph Peters
Yahoo News
23.July.2007
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070723/cm_rcp/john_mccains_integrity_problem
Ralph drew attention to John’s Senate floor speech during the latest Defense funding debate [293] in which John said, “The public's judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand, and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril.” Ralph’s goes on the recognize McCain’s resolute stand for the good of the Nation. Notably, Ralph adds his words of wisdom. “In this day of destructive polarization and bitter war, we, the people, must find the strength to break the power of the money men and our woefully corrupt political parties--parties that seek to exploit and deepen our national wounds. We need a president, who can work civilly with elected officials whose beliefs differ from his own; who will tell us the truth, rather than what his handlers insist we want to hear; who will stand against special interest groups to defend the rights of the rest of us; and who will always do what's right, not what's easy.” Peters concludes, “That man is John McCain.” All I can add is, spot on, brother! Unfortunately, John is too moderate and too willing to find the compromise solution for either extreme, and it is the extremes that control the party primaries.
The second Peters article was:
“General Failure”
by Ralph Peters
USA Today
24.July.2007
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/07/general-failure.html?csp=34
Please recall the article by Paul Yingling [281] that was incisively critical of American general officer performance in the lead up to and conduct of the Battle for Iraq. Ralph adds his opinion to the bonfire indictment of the U.S. general officer corps. I thought he had one particular insightful observation that serves to convey my opinion more concisely than I am able. Ralph noted, “There is only one test for a generation of generals: Did the men with stars on their shoulders win or lose their war? No matter the mitigating circumstances and political restrictions military leaders face, there is no ‘gentleman's C’ in warfare. The course is pass-fail.” So, it is; so it shall ever be. The good generals are being overshadowed by the mediocre variety as was the case in the Vietnam War. Again, I must say, spot on, brother!
The imperial presidency has been a hot topic for many years now. The latest warning shots come to us in the form of:
“Just What the Founders Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War”
by Adam Cohen
EDITORIAL OBSERVER
New York Times
Published: July 23, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/opinion/23mon4.html?th&emc=th
and,
“ACLU: U.S. Constitution in Grave Danger”
United Press International
Wednesday, 25.July.2007
I have read a lot, argued even more, and tried to understand the breadth and dimensions of the on-going debate relative to George W. Bush and his performance as President of the United States of America. While I can be critical of Adam’s portrayal of the current president and the associated constitutional questions, in the main, he presents a cogent case against presidential power. Yet, he fails to offer the other side of the equation. Further, it seems to me, the essential of either side to the debate in this particular instance depends heavily on whether the speaker believes we are truly at war. As I read both “con” opinions above, I surmise neither author thinks we are at war. The Constitution states “The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War . . . To raise and support Armies . . . To provide and maintain a Navy.” [Article I, Section 8] Congress has done the equivalent with passage of Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [PL 107-243] The Constitution also states, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." [Article II, Section 2] The Legislative and Executive have played this tête-à-tête for the last 100 years, which leaves the balance determination to the Judiciary. There are a myriad of “pro” examples to be cited; I shall select just two. In Schenck v. U.S. [249 U.S. 47 (1919)], Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.” And, in Hirabayashi v. U.S. [320 U.S. 81 (1943)], Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone wrote, “The war power of the national government is ‘the power to wage war successfully.’ It extends to every matter and activity so related to war as substantially to affect its conduct and progress. The power is not restricted to the winning of victories in the field and the repulse of enemy forces. It embraces every phase of the national defense, including the protection of war materials and the members of the armed forces from injury and from the dangers which attend the rise, prosecution and progress of war.” All this said, I must add, for all that President Bush has done courageously in the best interests of this Grand Republic, he has hurt the Presidency and our ability to “wage war successfully,” by his arrogance, unilateral and sometimes capricious actions, and his poor choices of wartime lieutenants, favoring loyalty over competence. While I do not agree with Adam Cohen, I must concede the impending emasculation of the President and the Executive. I can feel the harmful, negative consequences of the Church Committee blooming again in the aftermath of this fiasco. We shall be less strong and less free when this is all said and done. “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
In a timely contribution to the President's war powers debate, we have this opinion:
"Wiretap Debacle -- How politics has gutted the terrorist surveillance program"
Editorial
Wall Street Journal
Friday, July 27, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110010389
The title fairly well says it all. The New York Times chose to expose the once-secret, federal, national security program that has fueled a healthy chunk of the war powers debate. I presented my opinion of the Times' decision and NSA program [210-213, 267, et al]. In short, I think the President acted properly given the exigencies of wartime intelligence on the modern battlefield, and the New York Times inflicted a grave injury to our national security. However, mine is just a humble opinion of a concerned citizen; and, we are not likely to truly know the consequences for years and perhaps decades. While I vilify the New York Times in this instance, I would be remiss if I failed to level some of my ire at the President for his apparent unilateral disregard for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 [PL 95-511], no matter how outdated it is in the current world environment, it is the law. Thus, the President shares some culpability in this travesty.
Now, so we keep things in perspective, I shall take the unusual step of pointing your attention to a particularly impressive YouTube clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUX6wV1lBQ
I offer my most sincere gratitude to Mike Kaminski for this inspiring creativity.
May God bless this Grand Republic, our allies, and all freedom-loving people during this time of trial and strife. With God's blessing, we shall overcome.
The House passed by voice vote (presumably to avoid having a by-name vote record) the Campaign Expenditure Transparency Act [H.R.2630] to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, to prohibit candidates from funneling campaign funding through spouses. This appears to be one of those congressional “feel good” bills . . . you know, the ones they pass so they can tell constituents they did something good but never make it into civil code. The language of the bills ostensibly plugs a loophole that allows candidates to divert campaign funds via executive wages to their spouses since paying themselves would be ethically wrong. Odd thing is, even with this façade, they can still channel monies through other family members, just not spouses. Seems like a good start, but frankly, I would rather have them carry out their nepotism in public view, so we can see who the real crooks are.
From another forum, a different subscriber, contributor and friend called me to task on the legalization of drugs.
"Legalize drugs, Cap? Then what?
"Just legalize drugs and do nothing else? No ongoing education, no warnings, no penalties for getting a friend or family member into drugs?
"Just legalize drugs and let all the many chips (and there will BE many chips) fall where they may, with government then picking up NONE of the pieces.
"So Drugs are legal. We do not recommend you use them, and we have told you what can happen. We will not help you if you get addicted. But -- It's Your choice. That's it. Period.
"I expect it would bring the cost for the drugs down, but other consequences are pretty horrific to contemplate."
. . . to which, I answered:
My opinion regarding legalized drugs is based upon one fundamental principle – a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, to conduct their lives in private as they see fit. Such an assumption leads to the obvious issue; people will be seduced into addiction and self-destruction. Simple response: so be it; that is their choice. I find it very difficult to endorse such general, stretch categorizations, as there are too many examples to the contrary, e.g., alcohol, cocaine use a century ago, etc. My principle points are:
1. By making drugs illegal, we have created a vast criminal sub-culture. Then, we have spent trillions over the last 37 years fighting the very crime we created, as well as violated the rights of citizens and the sovereignty of nation-states. The toll in lives lost and ruined is incalculable. And, we must ask, for what . . . to deny an individual their freedom of choice? Clearly, demand for such substances vastly exceeds the capacity of any government to prohibit it . . . a measure of the power of individual freedom in a strange way. We have ignored and failed to learn the lessons of alcohol prohibition, the 18th Amendment, ad infinitum.
2. I would propose that all substances intended for human ingestion, whether psychotropic or others, be regulated like alcohol or tobacco -- licensed production; monitored quality; appropriate warnings placed on packaging and points of sale; informed consent, et cetera. Recreational drugs should be sold like alcohol and tobacco. Only a small percentage abuse alcohol. A small percentage will abuse drugs. A related side story . . . A friend of mine, when I was circa 10-11 years old (Ray Pedigrew was his name), started sniffing glue (called huffing, today) and died of liver failure nine months later; he wanted the rest of us to try it; none of us did; no one stopped us, or stood in our way . . . we chose not to do it.
3. There are consequences to the abuse of alcohol, tobacco, or any substance for that matter, so there should be to drugs as well. The intention would be private use in the private domain. Public intoxication by any substance remains public intoxication. Habitual abusers would be tried, convicted and confined to a state/national abusers camp, where they would have access to as much of their drug(s) of choice at no cost to them . . . only they remain confined to the camp with all the other abusers.
4. Alcohol did not destroy this Grand Republic as the prohibitionists predicted. Drugs will not destroy this Nation either. Freedom is freedom . . . not some constrained variant determined by an activist minority or even an oppressive majority. As I have tried to say many times, we must focus on the relationship and boundary between a citizen's fundamental right to privacy and the proper interests of the State. As noted in para.1 above, we created the public injury, and then we passed more intrusive, oppressive laws to combat the public injury. We must eliminate the root cause rather than treat the symptoms.
. . . to be continued . . . I am certain.
Comments and contributions from Update no.293:
"I don't trust North Korea period. I hope our government doesn't either.
"On the homefront: It might be humorous if not actually so sad, and so troubling, since SOMETHING will eventually pass as 'THE' National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. Whatever it turns out to be, it won't be a good bill, in my opinion.
"Once in awhile I watch 'Dog--Bounty Hunter' on TV. And I have seen him and his wife on a talk show. They are actually quite nice Christian folks. Just in a tough business.
"That made me think that rather than offering this or that millions, billions, whatever $$$ for Osama, why not just turn it all over to some internationally recognized Bounty Hunter. I'm sure there is such a person -- maybe even persons.
"Pakistan may be our friend at the moment, at least WE think so, but Pakistan is fundamentally Islamic. That says enough for me -- given their overall track record over the last few years.
"Haven't seen that book by Tom Ricks and Karen DeYoung. But -- in MY opinion, no matter HOW or WHEN we leave, (and we Will leave just like we did in Vietnam), the country will collapse into virtual anarchy and other major country players such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and OTHERS will be all diving in like a pack of hyenas. The whole Mideast -- and thus shortly the World, will be in major turmoil. Don't forget either, that OIL will figure into whatever equation evolves.
"SO -- If we leave? Chaos & likely Civil War, and then War spreading throughout the Middle East. If we stay, pretty much the same thing. Catch-22 revisited. No-win!! Either way.
"Why? Because GW did not listen to his best advisors about his plan to go get Saddam after 911 and then start a global fight against a ghost of an enemy who is perhaps the most formidable opponent we've faced in years -- if ever. Flailing around like a little kid, flinging punches here and there with no idea whether they will hit or hurt the enemy. The war against terrorism is a war we and the other rational countries on this planet CAN win. I'm not sure just how, but I do believe it can be won.
"GW will have a legacy, my friend. But what will it be? Not pretty I think."
My reply:
I’m afraid you’re correct on the DPRK and the defense funding bill.
Remember . . . Duane "Dog" Chapman – the Bounty Hunter – got into a whole heap-a-trouble when he went into Mexico to get that big-time, scum bag, Andrew Luster and haul that convicted fugitive felon back to United States from Puerto Vallarta. Mexico did not take kindly to “Dog” removing the money-bags criminal from their midst. I suspect other countries like Pakistan might get a bit huffy if we removed pond-slime like Usama from their gravy train . . . but, neat idea.
Pakistan has long been an enigma. The British know far better than we. One of the most basic elements is the stark distinction between the moderate professionals and the fundamentalist mountain tribes and madras disciples. It seems to me, the government in almost any form seeks the status quo, wants stability rather than confrontation. Perhaps the tide has turned.
The DeYoung/Ricks story was a newspaper article, not a book. Tom Ricks, who has a day job as the Washington Post journalist, has also written several books including "Making the Corps" and "Fiasco." The URL for the article was in the Update.
Wow, so many thoughts on the war . . .
1. The President failed in his principal task . . . mobilizing the Nation for war.
2. The President, SecDef, JCS, and CinC CentCom failed to see the counterinsurgency potential, to appreciate the consequences (given the players, e.g., al-Qaeda, IRI, Syria, Iraqi religious factions, etc.), and to take the proper, prompt steps necessary to deal with the terrorists of all flavors.
3. So many generals failed to do their duty to the Nation.
4. The administration wasted four years and thousands of precious lives by their ineptitude; at least they are attempting a correction.
5. Congress (both parties) has failed; they are consumed by political self-aggrandizement and obscene largesse.
6. And, not to be left out, the Supreme Court teeters on the edge of interfering with the President’s war powers and our war-fighting ability.
I could go on and on, but that is enough. The bottom line is, I think we may well be passed the point of no return, but as I said, I am not yet ready to throw in the towel. I believe the Battle of Iraq is still win-able, but it will take far longer than it should have or than we may be willing to endure.
Another contribution:
"I see you're experiencing weather similar to ours at the moment ...just seen the satellite pictures of Coffeyville and the oil refinery spill into the R. Verdigris. Over here we're having a night mare of a summer with flooding on unprecedented scales in the west. Shall we blame El Nino or global warming? The debate rages on, but it's costing. Three months rainfall in one day is a lot of water. Still we might get an Indian summer but please not an Indian rain dance!"
My response:
The plight of Oxfordshire and River Thames residents has occupied a fair portion of our broadcast news. We know what they are going through, and we certainly send our prayers and blessings for a speedy recovery.
I don’t know who to blame, or perhaps it is just the cycles of nature. We got an inordinate amount of rain this spring, and yet a few states west or east of us are in serious drought. I think a goodly portion, if not all, of the weather fluctuations are just the luck of the draw at any given moment in any year.
However, as I have written, any excuse that gets us to wean ourselves off fossil fuel is a good excuse from my point of view. As noted by others as well as me, we must guard against overreaction that could well do more damage than good.
. . . with this follow-up:
"Glad to hear your media is covering our weather ills. This morning the Thames water surge is down to Reading with some rain forecast for today. You're right, the vagrancies of British weather has left us in the east relatively dry, not much sun but dry(ish). We have a three day festival starting today with flying displays . . . Lancaster/Spitfires. Today will be IMC for sure with VMC tomorrow. Things are looking up.
"Not so for our three airman and families killed in Basra this week. They came from a unit in our county, a unit I served on."
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The follow-up news items:
-- Unfortunately, American election politics are going to be with us for another year plus. The silly season has become a perpetual nuisance. Yet, I must confess that I thought the CNN-YouTube debate Monday night had an interesting and refreshing quality to it – citizens asking the questions. While it was hardly a substantive debate, the subtleties of the responses stratified the Democratic candidates better than any other format I have seen, yet. The editors who constructed the program are to be commended, and Anderson Cooper did a magnificent job moderating the session.
-- The twin Mars robotic rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, were launched in the early summer of 2003, and landed successfully six months later, with an expected service life of only three months. They have returned extraordinary images and data from the surface of Mars for more than three years. [132, 213] However, for the past month, a severe dust storm has obscured 99% of the Sun’s light – the power source for the rovers. Controllers instructed the robotic explorers to hibernate to conserve battery power. When battery power is depleted, the rovers may not be able to power up when the storm passes, and the solar cells may be covered with too much dust, even if they are successful in conserving battery power through the storm. The current storm is the most serious threat faced by the rovers, and their survival is in doubt. Let us hope the twin rovers do indeed survive and can recover.
-- The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) issued a warning, regarding probable probes of U.S. airport security using seemingly innocuous objects that press the limits of bombing detecting ability, e.g., a block of cheese with a cell phone taped to it. The announcement acknowledged four (4) abnormal or unusual objects like the one above being detected in 11 months. The TSA announcement stated, "There is no intelligence that indicates a specific or credible threat to the homeland." While the government must remain appropriately circumspect, I think such objects could easily be probes; there are few plausible alternative explanations.
-- You may recall controversial Professor Ward Churchill, who used his position at the University of Colorado to spew his vitriol [165-6]. Well, the wheels of academic justice turn oh so slowly, but they do turn. The ridiculous man in the guise of an intellectuel scolaire was fired from his job for plagiarism and irregularities in academic discipline. Good riddance! May he disappear into the oblivion he deserves.
-- In contrast to last week's "Exit Strategies" [293], we have the New York Times' editorial "No Exit Strategy." They opened, "The American people have only one question left about Iraq: What is President Bush’s plan for a timely and responsible exit?" The Times' editorial staff apparently believes they speak for all the American people. They do not! My question is: when are we going to decide to win this battle and defeat our enemy in the War on Islamic Fascism?
The Patriot Post (Vol.07 No.30; 27.July.2007) published the second of a two-part essay on Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, titled: “Justice served: The Joe Arpaio Model.” Well done, I must say. I do not always agree with Joe’s coarse manner or his affinity for the camera, but I certainly laud his results. Treating criminals as criminals rather than some social science project seems to be a far more rational and realistic proposition.
“[I]t cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals — that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government — that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.”
— Ayn Rand
[source: Patriot Post (Vol.07, No.30; dated: 23.July.2007); numerous attributions to Rand can be found, however, no document source has been discovered, yet.]
Ayn Rand (1905 –1982), born: Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum – Russian born, American novelist, philosopher – clearly expressed the relationship between the Constitution, the government, and We, the People. We have yet to learn this critical lesson. We have been out of balance for at least 37 years. The struggle for the protection of individual rights continues, and we must find a proper balance between the rights of a citizen and the interests of the State. Let us not lose sight of Ayn Rand’s observation as we continue the struggle.
A subscriber, contributor and friend sent a couple of noteworthy articles by Ralph Peters.
“John McCain's Integrity Problem”
by Ralph Peters
Yahoo News
23.July.2007
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070723/cm_rcp/john_mccains_integrity_problem
Ralph drew attention to John’s Senate floor speech during the latest Defense funding debate [293] in which John said, “The public's judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand, and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril.” Ralph’s goes on the recognize McCain’s resolute stand for the good of the Nation. Notably, Ralph adds his words of wisdom. “In this day of destructive polarization and bitter war, we, the people, must find the strength to break the power of the money men and our woefully corrupt political parties--parties that seek to exploit and deepen our national wounds. We need a president, who can work civilly with elected officials whose beliefs differ from his own; who will tell us the truth, rather than what his handlers insist we want to hear; who will stand against special interest groups to defend the rights of the rest of us; and who will always do what's right, not what's easy.” Peters concludes, “That man is John McCain.” All I can add is, spot on, brother! Unfortunately, John is too moderate and too willing to find the compromise solution for either extreme, and it is the extremes that control the party primaries.
The second Peters article was:
“General Failure”
by Ralph Peters
USA Today
24.July.2007
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/07/general-failure.html?csp=34
Please recall the article by Paul Yingling [281] that was incisively critical of American general officer performance in the lead up to and conduct of the Battle for Iraq. Ralph adds his opinion to the bonfire indictment of the U.S. general officer corps. I thought he had one particular insightful observation that serves to convey my opinion more concisely than I am able. Ralph noted, “There is only one test for a generation of generals: Did the men with stars on their shoulders win or lose their war? No matter the mitigating circumstances and political restrictions military leaders face, there is no ‘gentleman's C’ in warfare. The course is pass-fail.” So, it is; so it shall ever be. The good generals are being overshadowed by the mediocre variety as was the case in the Vietnam War. Again, I must say, spot on, brother!
The imperial presidency has been a hot topic for many years now. The latest warning shots come to us in the form of:
“Just What the Founders Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War”
by Adam Cohen
EDITORIAL OBSERVER
New York Times
Published: July 23, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/opinion/23mon4.html?th&emc=th
and,
“ACLU: U.S. Constitution in Grave Danger”
United Press International
Wednesday, 25.July.2007
I have read a lot, argued even more, and tried to understand the breadth and dimensions of the on-going debate relative to George W. Bush and his performance as President of the United States of America. While I can be critical of Adam’s portrayal of the current president and the associated constitutional questions, in the main, he presents a cogent case against presidential power. Yet, he fails to offer the other side of the equation. Further, it seems to me, the essential of either side to the debate in this particular instance depends heavily on whether the speaker believes we are truly at war. As I read both “con” opinions above, I surmise neither author thinks we are at war. The Constitution states “The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War . . . To raise and support Armies . . . To provide and maintain a Navy.” [Article I, Section 8] Congress has done the equivalent with passage of Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [PL 107-243] The Constitution also states, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." [Article II, Section 2] The Legislative and Executive have played this tête-à-tête for the last 100 years, which leaves the balance determination to the Judiciary. There are a myriad of “pro” examples to be cited; I shall select just two. In Schenck v. U.S. [249 U.S. 47 (1919)], Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.” And, in Hirabayashi v. U.S. [320 U.S. 81 (1943)], Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone wrote, “The war power of the national government is ‘the power to wage war successfully.’ It extends to every matter and activity so related to war as substantially to affect its conduct and progress. The power is not restricted to the winning of victories in the field and the repulse of enemy forces. It embraces every phase of the national defense, including the protection of war materials and the members of the armed forces from injury and from the dangers which attend the rise, prosecution and progress of war.” All this said, I must add, for all that President Bush has done courageously in the best interests of this Grand Republic, he has hurt the Presidency and our ability to “wage war successfully,” by his arrogance, unilateral and sometimes capricious actions, and his poor choices of wartime lieutenants, favoring loyalty over competence. While I do not agree with Adam Cohen, I must concede the impending emasculation of the President and the Executive. I can feel the harmful, negative consequences of the Church Committee blooming again in the aftermath of this fiasco. We shall be less strong and less free when this is all said and done. “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
In a timely contribution to the President's war powers debate, we have this opinion:
"Wiretap Debacle -- How politics has gutted the terrorist surveillance program"
Editorial
Wall Street Journal
Friday, July 27, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110010389
The title fairly well says it all. The New York Times chose to expose the once-secret, federal, national security program that has fueled a healthy chunk of the war powers debate. I presented my opinion of the Times' decision and NSA program [210-213, 267, et al]. In short, I think the President acted properly given the exigencies of wartime intelligence on the modern battlefield, and the New York Times inflicted a grave injury to our national security. However, mine is just a humble opinion of a concerned citizen; and, we are not likely to truly know the consequences for years and perhaps decades. While I vilify the New York Times in this instance, I would be remiss if I failed to level some of my ire at the President for his apparent unilateral disregard for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 [PL 95-511], no matter how outdated it is in the current world environment, it is the law. Thus, the President shares some culpability in this travesty.
Now, so we keep things in perspective, I shall take the unusual step of pointing your attention to a particularly impressive YouTube clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUX6wV1lBQ
I offer my most sincere gratitude to Mike Kaminski for this inspiring creativity.
May God bless this Grand Republic, our allies, and all freedom-loving people during this time of trial and strife. With God's blessing, we shall overcome.
The House passed by voice vote (presumably to avoid having a by-name vote record) the Campaign Expenditure Transparency Act [H.R.2630] to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, to prohibit candidates from funneling campaign funding through spouses. This appears to be one of those congressional “feel good” bills . . . you know, the ones they pass so they can tell constituents they did something good but never make it into civil code. The language of the bills ostensibly plugs a loophole that allows candidates to divert campaign funds via executive wages to their spouses since paying themselves would be ethically wrong. Odd thing is, even with this façade, they can still channel monies through other family members, just not spouses. Seems like a good start, but frankly, I would rather have them carry out their nepotism in public view, so we can see who the real crooks are.
From another forum, a different subscriber, contributor and friend called me to task on the legalization of drugs.
"Legalize drugs, Cap? Then what?
"Just legalize drugs and do nothing else? No ongoing education, no warnings, no penalties for getting a friend or family member into drugs?
"Just legalize drugs and let all the many chips (and there will BE many chips) fall where they may, with government then picking up NONE of the pieces.
"So Drugs are legal. We do not recommend you use them, and we have told you what can happen. We will not help you if you get addicted. But -- It's Your choice. That's it. Period.
"I expect it would bring the cost for the drugs down, but other consequences are pretty horrific to contemplate."
. . . to which, I answered:
My opinion regarding legalized drugs is based upon one fundamental principle – a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, to conduct their lives in private as they see fit. Such an assumption leads to the obvious issue; people will be seduced into addiction and self-destruction. Simple response: so be it; that is their choice. I find it very difficult to endorse such general, stretch categorizations, as there are too many examples to the contrary, e.g., alcohol, cocaine use a century ago, etc. My principle points are:
1. By making drugs illegal, we have created a vast criminal sub-culture. Then, we have spent trillions over the last 37 years fighting the very crime we created, as well as violated the rights of citizens and the sovereignty of nation-states. The toll in lives lost and ruined is incalculable. And, we must ask, for what . . . to deny an individual their freedom of choice? Clearly, demand for such substances vastly exceeds the capacity of any government to prohibit it . . . a measure of the power of individual freedom in a strange way. We have ignored and failed to learn the lessons of alcohol prohibition, the 18th Amendment, ad infinitum.
2. I would propose that all substances intended for human ingestion, whether psychotropic or others, be regulated like alcohol or tobacco -- licensed production; monitored quality; appropriate warnings placed on packaging and points of sale; informed consent, et cetera. Recreational drugs should be sold like alcohol and tobacco. Only a small percentage abuse alcohol. A small percentage will abuse drugs. A related side story . . . A friend of mine, when I was circa 10-11 years old (Ray Pedigrew was his name), started sniffing glue (called huffing, today) and died of liver failure nine months later; he wanted the rest of us to try it; none of us did; no one stopped us, or stood in our way . . . we chose not to do it.
3. There are consequences to the abuse of alcohol, tobacco, or any substance for that matter, so there should be to drugs as well. The intention would be private use in the private domain. Public intoxication by any substance remains public intoxication. Habitual abusers would be tried, convicted and confined to a state/national abusers camp, where they would have access to as much of their drug(s) of choice at no cost to them . . . only they remain confined to the camp with all the other abusers.
4. Alcohol did not destroy this Grand Republic as the prohibitionists predicted. Drugs will not destroy this Nation either. Freedom is freedom . . . not some constrained variant determined by an activist minority or even an oppressive majority. As I have tried to say many times, we must focus on the relationship and boundary between a citizen's fundamental right to privacy and the proper interests of the State. As noted in para.1 above, we created the public injury, and then we passed more intrusive, oppressive laws to combat the public injury. We must eliminate the root cause rather than treat the symptoms.
. . . to be continued . . . I am certain.
Comments and contributions from Update no.293:
"I don't trust North Korea period. I hope our government doesn't either.
"On the homefront: It might be humorous if not actually so sad, and so troubling, since SOMETHING will eventually pass as 'THE' National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. Whatever it turns out to be, it won't be a good bill, in my opinion.
"Once in awhile I watch 'Dog--Bounty Hunter' on TV. And I have seen him and his wife on a talk show. They are actually quite nice Christian folks. Just in a tough business.
"That made me think that rather than offering this or that millions, billions, whatever $$$ for Osama, why not just turn it all over to some internationally recognized Bounty Hunter. I'm sure there is such a person -- maybe even persons.
"Pakistan may be our friend at the moment, at least WE think so, but Pakistan is fundamentally Islamic. That says enough for me -- given their overall track record over the last few years.
"Haven't seen that book by Tom Ricks and Karen DeYoung. But -- in MY opinion, no matter HOW or WHEN we leave, (and we Will leave just like we did in Vietnam), the country will collapse into virtual anarchy and other major country players such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and OTHERS will be all diving in like a pack of hyenas. The whole Mideast -- and thus shortly the World, will be in major turmoil. Don't forget either, that OIL will figure into whatever equation evolves.
"SO -- If we leave? Chaos & likely Civil War, and then War spreading throughout the Middle East. If we stay, pretty much the same thing. Catch-22 revisited. No-win!! Either way.
"Why? Because GW did not listen to his best advisors about his plan to go get Saddam after 911 and then start a global fight against a ghost of an enemy who is perhaps the most formidable opponent we've faced in years -- if ever. Flailing around like a little kid, flinging punches here and there with no idea whether they will hit or hurt the enemy. The war against terrorism is a war we and the other rational countries on this planet CAN win. I'm not sure just how, but I do believe it can be won.
"GW will have a legacy, my friend. But what will it be? Not pretty I think."
My reply:
I’m afraid you’re correct on the DPRK and the defense funding bill.
Remember . . . Duane "Dog" Chapman – the Bounty Hunter – got into a whole heap-a-trouble when he went into Mexico to get that big-time, scum bag, Andrew Luster and haul that convicted fugitive felon back to United States from Puerto Vallarta. Mexico did not take kindly to “Dog” removing the money-bags criminal from their midst. I suspect other countries like Pakistan might get a bit huffy if we removed pond-slime like Usama from their gravy train . . . but, neat idea.
Pakistan has long been an enigma. The British know far better than we. One of the most basic elements is the stark distinction between the moderate professionals and the fundamentalist mountain tribes and madras disciples. It seems to me, the government in almost any form seeks the status quo, wants stability rather than confrontation. Perhaps the tide has turned.
The DeYoung/Ricks story was a newspaper article, not a book. Tom Ricks, who has a day job as the Washington Post journalist, has also written several books including "Making the Corps" and "Fiasco." The URL for the article was in the Update.
Wow, so many thoughts on the war . . .
1. The President failed in his principal task . . . mobilizing the Nation for war.
2. The President, SecDef, JCS, and CinC CentCom failed to see the counterinsurgency potential, to appreciate the consequences (given the players, e.g., al-Qaeda, IRI, Syria, Iraqi religious factions, etc.), and to take the proper, prompt steps necessary to deal with the terrorists of all flavors.
3. So many generals failed to do their duty to the Nation.
4. The administration wasted four years and thousands of precious lives by their ineptitude; at least they are attempting a correction.
5. Congress (both parties) has failed; they are consumed by political self-aggrandizement and obscene largesse.
6. And, not to be left out, the Supreme Court teeters on the edge of interfering with the President’s war powers and our war-fighting ability.
I could go on and on, but that is enough. The bottom line is, I think we may well be passed the point of no return, but as I said, I am not yet ready to throw in the towel. I believe the Battle of Iraq is still win-able, but it will take far longer than it should have or than we may be willing to endure.
Another contribution:
"I see you're experiencing weather similar to ours at the moment ...just seen the satellite pictures of Coffeyville and the oil refinery spill into the R. Verdigris. Over here we're having a night mare of a summer with flooding on unprecedented scales in the west. Shall we blame El Nino or global warming? The debate rages on, but it's costing. Three months rainfall in one day is a lot of water. Still we might get an Indian summer but please not an Indian rain dance!"
My response:
The plight of Oxfordshire and River Thames residents has occupied a fair portion of our broadcast news. We know what they are going through, and we certainly send our prayers and blessings for a speedy recovery.
I don’t know who to blame, or perhaps it is just the cycles of nature. We got an inordinate amount of rain this spring, and yet a few states west or east of us are in serious drought. I think a goodly portion, if not all, of the weather fluctuations are just the luck of the draw at any given moment in any year.
However, as I have written, any excuse that gets us to wean ourselves off fossil fuel is a good excuse from my point of view. As noted by others as well as me, we must guard against overreaction that could well do more damage than good.
. . . with this follow-up:
"Glad to hear your media is covering our weather ills. This morning the Thames water surge is down to Reading with some rain forecast for today. You're right, the vagrancies of British weather has left us in the east relatively dry, not much sun but dry(ish). We have a three day festival starting today with flying displays . . . Lancaster/Spitfires. Today will be IMC for sure with VMC tomorrow. Things are looking up.
"Not so for our three airman and families killed in Basra this week. They came from a unit in our county, a unit I served on."
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment