31 December 2007

Update no.316

Update from the Heartland
No.316
24.12.07 – 30.12.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Happy New Year to all. We can still pray for peace and goodwill toward all.

During this season of generosity, forgiveness, renewal and celebration, I am compelled by a sense of propriety, balance, and the spirit of the season to acknowledge and recognize the good parents doing a great job. The vast majority of our children grow up in loving, caring homes with engaged parents and become productive, contributory citizens, prepared to raise successive generations. Many of my words in this humble forum are focused on the tiny fraction of parents who fail their children and fail society, as they and their damaged progeny become the criminals we seek to neutralize. As with most if not all labels, we paint with very broad strokes and injure innocents caught in the swath, and yet, we must never forget our failures, as in the case of the pedophile killer or the addict female who birthed seven (7) children ranging in age from 8 months to 12 years with seven (7) different males [161]. Thus, despite my persistent theme and with a joyous, grateful and happy heart, I offer my praise and gratitude to all those good parents among us. Thank you very much; well done!

"Contest win unites Marine family for holiday"
by Ron Sylvester
Wichita Eagle
Published: Tuesday, 25 December, 2007; page 1B
The Wichita Eagle gave us a Christmas story of the Gallagher family -- Rhonda and John Gallagher, to be specific. For the first time in six years, the Gallagher's four grown sons returned home for Christmas, from across this Grand Republic and during wartime -- all four are U.S. Marines. God bless them all for their contributions to the defense of this Grand Republic.

Thursday evening, in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, in what appears to be a combined and coordinated, suicide attack, an assassin or assassins fired at least three rounds from an automatic pistol, and then detonated a powerful, explosive vest, mortally wounding former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, killing at least 22 innocent citizens, and wounding numerous others. Some reports suggest the attack was a sophisticated, rehearsed, combined operation indicative of an al-Qaeda event. In an earlier statement, Bhutto said some of the blame, if she was assassinated, would have to be levied at President Musharraf and the government for their failure to provide protection during her election campaign. Given today’s instant communications, pervasive Press coverage, and in the global War of Islamic Fascism of which Pakistan is an integral part, the government’s failure in this instance may well prove to be a mortal error. Successive governments in Pakistan have tried to walk a very fine and often blurry line between the diametrically opposed forces of moderate democracy and radical fundamentalist Islam. Pakistan has long been the site of covert operations against the radical elements; I’m afraid that Bhutto’s assassination may well boil the pot over and add Pakistan to the list of active, aggressive, international, combat operations in the complex and durable War on Islamic Fascism.

Benazir Bhutto’s testament designated her husband, Asif Ali Zadari, as her successor in deference to her son, Bilawal Bhutto, whom she wanted to finish his Oxford undergraduate education before entertaining political aspirations. Zadari indicated he did not want the job, suggested Bilawal should be the chosen successor, and then agreed to serve as co-chairman with Bilawal until the younger man completed his studies – an interesting twist in an already turbulent Pakistani political arena.

I try not to mention sports events as they get enough Press / Media play as it is. Yet, this week is another exception and a bit of an oddity. Saturday night, we watched a scrappy, feisty, determined New York Giants football team take it to the undefeated New England Patriots. The 16-0 regular season record sets the Patriots and several of their players in the record books of history; however, it is the passionate play of the Giants, when neither team had anything to gain and much to lose for the playoffs and the championship, that truly deserve praise and recognition. Superb! Praise be to the vanquished. Brilliant job, lads!

As is so often the case these days, my attention was drawn to House Resolution 847 (H.Res 847) -- a paucity of heraldry suggests a dubious purpose. Beyond the "whereas" tripe, H.Res 847 states:
"Resolved, That the House of Representatives --
"(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;
"(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;
"(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;
"(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;
"(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and
"(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world."
On 11.December.2007, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.Res 847 [vote: 372-9-10-40]. Our local Representative Todd Tiahrt, co-sponsored and voted for the resolution -- duly noted. This resolution is a classic example of why simple majority rule is a potentially destructive force within a representative republic and contrary to the Founding Principles. The 372 elected representatives who voted for this resolution clearly do not understand the history of this Grand Republic, and are apparently far more comfortable playing to a parochial fraction of our citizenry. H.Res 847 accomplishes nothing other than state the obvious -- Christianity is the majority religion in the United States -- kinda like a resolution to proclaim that the Sun rises in the east. A perhaps intended upshot, although I am willing to be generous and say unintended consequence, is the implied statement that this is a Christian country, not a Christian theocracy (yet), and all other religions are of lesser significance, importance, relevance, or influence. I especially grimaced at Clause 5 of the resolution. And, I ask, where is the resolution rejecting bigotry "BY" Christians? Or . . . the rejection of bigotry against ANY religion? It is silly congressional actions like H.Res 847 that make me so bloody angry, that boil my outrage, and that propel me to speak out and act against those who seek to inject religion into government or vice versa. While H.Res 847 has no force of law, we must not ignore even these little penetrations of the necessary “wall of separation.”

In our continuing struggle to define public and private, proper and inappropriate, tolerable and unacceptable, a relevant challenge faced by airlines moving to provide in-flight, Internet access may help us shine a little light on the difficult question. To put a fine point on this issue, does a passenger on a scheduled airline flight have the right to view pornography or carry-on a telephone conversation using profanity? With selectable on-demand, movies available on some airlines, do we have a right to watch a movie that would be acceptable in your home but not in mine? Such conduct is certainly protected in privacy, even though some of us may disapprove of that behavior anywhere. Normally, some degree of privacy is expected even in the close quarters of an airline coach seat. If some commonly protected private behavior is not acceptable in a quasi-public venue like an airline cabin, how do we enforce such standards? To me, the answers are quite simple and ultimately boil down to respect for others. We do not need more indiscriminate laws against obscenity, profanity, pornography, and such. Those who press the limits of propriety in public conduct jeopardize freedom for all of us. Yet, it is the pressing of limits that nudges society toward more reasonable tolerance. Democracy simply cannot be a community of lowest common denominators, e.g., some among us believe any visible skin of a adult female is offensive. Do they have the right to demand all females be covered with loose, opaque, non-revealing clothing? Conversely, does a young, attractive, shapely woman have the right to wear a closer-to-her-crotch-than-her-knee mini-skirt and form-fitting, low-cut blouse in a confined public space? The difficulty with freedom is its very nature, thus the threshold tolerance becomes so difficult to monitor and defend. Laissez-faire or anarchistic tolerance can be far more destructive than fundamentalist strictures. The challenge to us remains and will persist in how we define acceptable public conduct without imposition upon any citizen’s private Pursuit of Happiness. The debate shall continue as inevitably it must.

On 2.November.2007, a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C Eagle fighter crashed; the pilot managed to eject safely. Subsequent public actions and available information indicate a primary structural failure. Some in the popular Press and most of the aviation professional Press opined on the significance of the event.
“On the Wings of Eagles, or Not -- After the F15's failures, does the U.S. need the best plane in the skies?”
Editorial
Wall Street Journal
Published: December 27, 2007; page A10
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110011043
The editorial concluded:
“We cannot predict what kind of adversaries the U.S. will face in the coming decades, but we do know that part of the responsibility of being the world's 'sole remaining superpower' is to be prepared for as many contingencies as possible. One prudent way of reducing the threat is to discourage potential adversaries from trying to match America's advantages in numbers and technology. Replacing our faltering Eagles with additional Raptors may be expensive, but allowing our neglect to be exploited by those who wish us harm would be ruinous.”
In the main, the opinion is spot on. And yet, I am reminded of similar circumstance in the 1960's. The B-52 strategic bomber had a service-threatening, wing life problem (cracking) that was eventually solved by a technical team of military and industry engineers, led by my uncle, MajGen (then Col) Warner E. Newby, USAF (Ret.). The B-52 is still operational today as a result. I have not yet found any precise details regarding the F-15 structural problem, but chances are it can be resolved. The real question will be whether the Air Force leadership wants to extend the F-15 service life. Regardless, the United States must maintain technical and physical air superiority as well as preserve our ability to project military power overseas, to protect our interests and our allies. That said, I must offer an additional ‘shame on you’ to the Air Force for their continued neglect of the most common and likely aerial mission – close air support (CAS) of engaged ground combat forces. They have several old and one new aircraft that possess the capability, but they certainly do not live CAS like Marine Air and some Naval Air assets do. Perhaps the F-15 technical question will encourage the Air Force to re-examine its mission and finally adjust to contemporary threat potentials.

Comments and contributions from Update no.315:
“Getting coverage of your winter storms here have you lost your power...which rhetorically is a most crass question to put to someone with no electrics!”
My reply:
Winter storms have indeed devastated parts of the Great Plains. Fortunately, in our community, the local power lines are underground and not susceptible to ice and other natural calamities. Some communities with conventional electricity distribution infrastructure have been with power for several weeks -- a genuine emergency especially in winter time. All is well for us.

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

24 December 2007

Update no.315

Update from the Heartland
No.315
17.12.07 – 23.12.07
Blog version:
http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
or, as the Italians say,
Buon'Natale e Buon'Anno.
May God bless all freedom-loving and peace-seeking people everywhere regardless of their gender, race, nationality, language, sexual orientation, or chosen religion.

The follow-up news items:
-- British Army Major General Graham Binns and Basra Governor Mohammed al-Waili signed a memorandum of understanding on Sunday, 16.December.2007, transferring security control of the Basra region to the Iraqi government; thus, effectively ending British combat participation in the Battle for Iraq, as part of the War on Islamic Fascism.
-- Now, we learn that there is a third el-Aouar sister involved in the sham marriage scheme [309, 314] -- Dr. Rula Nadim el-Aouar, 36, of Dearborn Heights, Michigan. How many more of these el-Aouar sisters and their cohorts must be go through? This whole Prouty affair may be just a marriage scam, but I find it quite odd that one of the four women involved so far held line jobs in the FBI & CIA (Prouty) and another became a Marine captain interpreter (Spinelli). I remain quite suspicious of this bunch, and I am sorely disappointed in our vetting process for sensitive Federal jobs.
-- The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) failed in the first attempt to convict the homegrown jihadi terrorist cell known as the Liberty City Seven [237]. These are the guys who conspired to attack the Sears Tower in Chicago. I hope the prosecutors regroup, tighten up, and go back to nail these yayhoos.
-- For those who still seek to learn more about embryonic stem cell research and the relationship to the recent skin cell conversion advancement [311], I offer this link:
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=c0babf33f9863f4b403fa495fb9b6bc18696ea11&8ty&emc=ty

The security of this Grand Republic is vastly more important than the political shenanigans so often played by the parochial party hacks in Congress. I lauded the destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes [313]. I am afraid I must amend my original statement. Destruction of materials collected by the government should not be destroyed. Rather, sensitive material like those interrogation tapes should be so highly classified and compartmentalized that only a very discreet, chosen few should even know of their existence or have access to their content. Proper congressional oversight can be and should be conducted in highly classified, closed-door, secret sessions . . . as was apparently done in this case. The reaction in this latest variant of the torture kerfuffle comes from at least one traitor within the CIA, who has chosen himself to be the conscience of the Nation and a bevy of political hacks bent upon personal political gains rather than the general welfare of the People. Interrogation techniques are as much and as vital a means & methods process as signal interception, satellite imagery, atmospheric and subsurface acoustic recognition, and indigenous, imbedded agents. Some things should remain beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act [PL 89-487] until the substantive value period has expired – 5, 10, 20, perhaps even 50 years in the future. The Press along with the speed and near universality of communications vastly enhance our ability to know more about the World in which we live. Yet, the rapidity and reach of information sources are indiscriminate – access for free people can be ammunition for those who seek to deny our freedom. Because we can know does not mean we should know . . . at least not in near real-time. Vital secrets from World War II were not opened for decades after those facts no longer held any relevancy. Why must we insist upon knowing today’s secrets, especially when they are of greatest value to our enemies? The destruction of those tapes was wrong, but in that context alone, I am glad the CIA destroyed them, because to me the traitor that disclosed them is monumentally more destructive to this Grand Republic than anything contained on those tapes.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
P.S.: a few more thoughts on this topic can be found in the Comment section below.

“Abstinence Programs Face Rejection – More States Opt to Turn Down the Federal Money Attached to That Kind of Sex Ed”
by Rob Stein
Washington Post
Published: Sunday, December 16, 2007; Page A03
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/WBRH016E4F24C059C0E3937BFEBB90
The article highlights a growing trend by states turning their backs on Federal abstinence-only sex education program money. I have consistently voiced my objection to the ideologically-based, abstinence-only effort [190, 308] for a host of Libertarian reasons. Nonetheless, the trend reflects efforts by states to reassert their independence and reject Federal funds that have strings attached, and especially strings that are not productive, efficient, or may be counter to the state’s welfare objectives. The State of California has taken steps to extend that independence; the latest issue is automobile emission standards. The Federal government has failed to perform some of its most fundamental responsibilities like border security and immigration control, fiscal prudence, and energy leadership, among so many others. Why do we tolerate government meddling in the private affairs of citizens in areas like sex education of our children? If society is unhappy with the conduct of some of our children, let us focus on the education and accountability of the parents rather than passing well-intentioned, nonsensical laws bent upon regulating or criminalizing private behavior. We must rescind our abdication of familial responsibility to the government. In the distant past, communities ensured proper public conduct via peer pressure in numerous forms from ostracism or corporal punishment. Some of those ancient practices would not be acceptable today, but modern versions would surely work better any governmental leviathan busting down our front doors to impose its will.

Comments and contributions from Update no.314:
[First, thank you all for the generous wishes for Taylor’s service and blessings for his safety; they are greatly appreciated.]
“Before I read the remaining update you blog (and I appreciate), let me congratulate you on your son Taylor. That must be an honor. I almost went into police work when younger, and was invited to do so after chasing a purse snatcher and recovering the purse for a visiting 70 year old woman from Scotland, here to visit her daughter. There is a higher calling for most L.E. officers who do their work to help others and take some nasty people out of position to keep them from hurting others.
“The other good thing is most cops, like pilots, love their jobs, and there is no greater pleasure than saying you love your work...besides love for God, family, county.
“May you, your son (and entire family) have blessings and protection.”
My reply:
I think [Taylor’s] ultimate objective is to join the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). I hope he continues to enjoy this job and stay here; we kinda like havin’ him around.

Another contribution:
“In our discussion of the relative merits and drawbacks of certain interrogation techniques, this article (see below), which ran in the Post yesterday, should be instructive. According to a subsequent report, one of the FBI agents came close to arresting the CIA agent interrogating Abu Zubaida.”
“FBI, CIA Debate Significance of Terror Suspect – Agencies Also Disagree On Interrogation Methods”
by Dan Eggen and Walter Pincus
Washington Post
Published: Tuesday, December 18, 2007; page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/17/AR2007121702151.html?nav=hcmodule
My response:
I acknowledge this issue is quite sensitive. I try to treat the questions regarding the rule of law and our society structure with the respect they deserve. That said . . .
The Eggen/Pincus article and the controversy surrounding the Abu Zubaida interrogation (among others) highlight the essence of the question before us. The confrontation between the FBI (law enforcement) and the CIA (intelligence) brings the highlight to LASER coherence. When we add in the treatment of this issue by the Press, the talking heads, and a spectrum of politicos, we have an odiferous froth that in my humble opinion threatens the security of this Grand Republic and our future ability to defend our citizens.
There are two fundamental principles at play. First, intelligence, especially national security intelligence, and law enforcement are and should be nearly mutually exclusive – the Vinh diagram has a minimal intersection. Rules of evidence, necessary and required for law enforcement and prosecution while protecting our freedoms and rights, demand such things are a chain of custody, 4th and 5th Amendment protections, and such. Intelligence focuses on information collection along with the concomitant accuracy and reliability determination. Second, the two areas of Federal responsibility involve dramatically and vastly different public interaction. One depends upon public observation, scrutiny, debate and response; the other, by its very nature, must be secret and as far from public awareness as humanly possible. The public versus secret factors extends to the means and methods elements. Justice requires public scrutiny of police means & methods, while the effectiveness of intelligence means & methods must be protected and far beyond public scrutiny or their effectiveness diminishes rapidly.
The nature of cyber-warfare and especially our current Islamo-fascist enemy has forced us to increase the intersection between the two domains. Our laws and certainly public thinking have not adjusted to that greater intersection, thus Director Mueller’s withdrawal of the FBI participation in the intelligence interrogation process. I have offered my suggestions regarding reconciliation of the ambiguity [139, 245]; however, if such adjustments were ever considered, I will strongly recommend that the requisite deliberations must be closed-door and secret. Thus, as we seek to expand the intersection, we must find a way to increase intelligence interaction without sacrificing our essentials freedoms and rights; we have NOT yet attained that point of stability and balance.
The current public debate regarding torture, interrogation, prosecution, detainees, ad infinitum, is wrong; we are pushing too far into the intelligence arena.

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

17 December 2007

Update no.314

Update from the Heartland
No.314
10.12.07 – 16.12.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Simply . . . may I introduce Butler County, Kansas, Deputy Sheriff Taylor Warden Parlier.
[Taylor deputy 071210.jpg]
We are proud of you, Son. May God protect you in your service to the community.

Last week, I illuminated William Wilberforce [313]. I did not know until we watched the movie "Amazing Grace" this weekend that the story was of Wilberforce's extraordinary effort to gain the ultimate passage of the Slave Trade Act (25.March.1807) to end British participation in the grim process. The emancipation of slaves in the British Empire did not come until 1.August.1834, after the passage of the Bill for the Abolition of Slavery on the 26th of July. The movie accentuated the relationships with and contributions of Prime Minister William Pitt and Evangelical John Newton, who wrote the lyrics to the classic Christian hymn "Amazing Grace." For those who know the hymn, the final scene of the movie is guaranteed to bring tears to your eyes -- magnificent! Despite valiant efforts and a devastating Civil War, the emancipation of slaves in United States did not come until 1.January.1863, and some would argue true emancipation was not really achieved until 2.July.1964. I highly recommend the movie "Amazing Grace" -- please watch this movie.

The follow-up news items:
-- Voldya Putin, fresh from his Duma electoral success, announced publicly his recommendation for a successor – Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev. Then, no sooner had Putin’s words vanished on the wind, Dmitry proposed that his good buddy Voldya continue his service to Russia as prime minister – ah, the intrigues of Russian politics.
-- You don’t to get to see this from Congress very often . . . on Wednesday, the Senate passed the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act [PL 110-135; H.R. 4343] by Unanimous Consent (meaning, they did not actually vote, just all agreed to pass it as written), after the House passed the bill the previous day by a vote of 390-0-0-41. The President signed the bill into law the next day; talk about fast service! The new law increases the mandatory retirement age of air carrier (Part 121) pilots from 60 to 65 years. Professional pilots sought this change for many years. Retroactive application is excluded. I am glad Congress finally got around to doing something, but they did not go far enough. To be blunt, this is discrimination based on age and should be eliminated entirely. A pilot’s ability to perform in the cockpit of a multi-crew aircraft should be based on performance criteria including Class I medical and simulator checks.

I identified Nada Nadim Prouty [310] as a name to watch. I did not know but I certainly suspected that Prouty was involved in something bigger. The web I suspected Prouty of being involved in has begun to be partially illuminated. It seems Prouty, whose family name is el-Aouar, has a sister and a former roommate now caught up in the dragnet. Prouty’s former roommate, U.S. Marine Captain Samar Spinelli, AKA Samar Khalil Nabbouh, plead guilty in Detroit to charges of citizenship and passport fraud. These two plus Prouty’s sister, Elfat el Aouar, are believed to have links to a Hezbollah intelligence network operating in the United States. Oh what a tangled web we weave . . . . If you would like to learn about all this, I urge you to read:
“Hezbollah: Signs of a Sophisticated Intelligence Apparatus”
by Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: December 12, 2007; 19:38 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/tir.php?utm_source=071212-TIR&utm_medium=email-strat-html&utm_content=071212-TIR-header-read&utm_campaign=TIR
Burton and Stewart said, “In the past, it was thought that only nation states such as Russia or Israel had the potential to send agents into another country to infiltrate their most sensitive government agencies. In this case, it could turn out that a militant group (perhaps with a little help from its Iranian mentors) was able to accomplish this feat. In this case, the agents might not only have penetrated those agencies, but maneuvered themselves into positions and locations of critical importance to Hezbollah and the Iranians. It would be quite a coup for Hezbollah to pull off such a feat while the United States and Iran were in the midst of a covert intelligence war.” While the authors hint at an espionage exposure comparable to Robert Hanssen, I have a very hard time making that connection. You will recall that FBI Special Agent Robert Hanssen was a senior Bureau counter-intelligence specialist who betrayed countless American, Russian and other agents. Regardless, the Prouty network will continue to unravel, and the signs of the global nature of the War on Islamic Fascism will mount.

The following article is the best description of bipartisan congressional duplicity in this whole waterboarding / torture kerfuffle to date.
“Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002”
by Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen
Washington Post
Published: Sunday, December 9, 2007; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html
My continuing revulsion [313] regarding the parochial politicization of our national intelligence processes as well as our warfighting capability remains one of the heaviest detractors from any support for the not-so-loyal opposition. Senator John McCain remains one of the very few, national leadership voices for a strong, aggressive, national defense apparatus and some degree of balance between wartime sacrifice and the brouhaha associated with our poor, mistreated, enemy combatants. More than any of the candidates in any political party, John understands and appreciates that war is about killing and destruction until peace is won. The debate about torture did not creep into this humble journal until May 2004 [126]. I refused to even mention waterboarding until much later [309], when the politicization of the technique just would not go away.

Here is a link to an interesting Der Spiegel interview with U.S. Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff and German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble.
"Guantánamo is a Symbol of a Problem"
Der Spiegel
Published: December 11, 2007
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,522438,00.html
A clear and definite portrayal of the differences between the United States and Europe regarding an essential element of the War on Islamic Fascism.

The various on-going societal debates on such topics as marriage, pornography, torture, church & state, abortion, legalized psychotropic substances, prostitution, ad infinitum, boil down to a segment of our population (varies in size depending on the issue) who seek to dictate how everyone else should live their lives, how they should seek their Happiness, and to one degree or another, how they should think and act, even in private. Marriage, as an example, has very little public dimension beyond the proper interests of the State, e.g., a free, voluntary, association devoid of coercion between adult citizens (at the age of consent or older, or with the written sanction of the parents). Rights and privileges have been defined by society for those who enter into such relationships. The State can hardly claim its interest in marriage stems from concern for the proper rearing of children and the family unit, other than in the façade of name-only. We condone the dissolution of marriage relationships for whatever reason one of the participants wishes. We intervene begrudgingly, and often too late, in marriages with physical abuse {see Castle Rock v. Gonzales [545 U.S. 748 (2005)]}, and virtually never in cases of mental or emotional abuse. Also, we very rarely intrude on dysfunctional or destructive parents who produce serial killers, school yard bullies, animal abusers, and other societal miscreants and criminals. And yet, we feel compelled to dictate who can enter into a life relationship based solely on our perception of what those involved individuals do in private, behind the front door. How can we as a culture continue to use the law to impose our private conduct dicta on highly selective, discriminatory aspects of what we call marriage, and yet virtually ignore far more threatening factors? The societal hypocrisy is sickening. Some among us are hyper-sensitive about and more interested in protecting a single-cell zygote in the womb of a rape or incest victim than they are in protecting a young infant enduring the neglect of complacent parents. Some day . . . perhaps only in the idle dreams of idealistic philosophers or optimistic science fiction writers . . . we will decide to allow people to live their lives the way they choose, to help those who truly need and want to be helped, and to hold accountable those who do not properly perform as parents. Short of that day, I can only say we must find the courage to stay out of the private lives and affairs of other free citizens even when our perception of those private affairs offends us in some manner. Two, homosexual parents who provide a loving, caring environment for children to grow up as responsible citizens are far more valuable to society than two heterosexual parents who teach their children hatred, intolerance and violence. We can do better with our choices, if we can only step back and take a long view at the big picture.

Here is a thought. The presidential primary process has exploded out of control. Until this cycle, I had little complaint about Iowa and New Hampshire occupying the opening positions in a primary period that lasted a few months. Now that we’ve made presidential election politics a continuous torture and states are jockeying for influence in party politics, the presidential candidates focus almost exclusively on those early primary states. Frankly, I am tired of listening to Iowa and New Hampshire. The latest Republican debate in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, was the coup d’grâce administered with ruthless savagery. So, that said, why don’t we just have a national primary four months prior to the general election? The parochial party hacks can pick their candidate; we can minimize the pain and agony of this damnable, incessant campaign process; and, we can make our choice from whatever dregs are left. My eyeballs and ears are bleeding, and my brain is fried. Enough already! And, we have 11 months to go. Have mercy!

Comments and contributions from Update no.313:
"Some folks around the world do remember and honor significant times.
"Congratulations to Taylor. Well done.
"Iran is not a done deal yet. Neither is Chavez.
"I'm not sure I really understand Putin. Good man or bad man?
"For some reason I've never heard of Fred Phelps. But I do like the statement about him needing love the most and deserving it the least.
"I agree our Humint capability, and overall intelligence capability keeps deteriorating due to more and more asinine restrictions placed on our intel community/s. It's wrong. It's dangerous, and if we don't turn it around we will be very sorry some day.
"I did not read Romney's speech quite the same as you. I heard him say he was proud of his religion, would not forsake it, but that he would never consider it in making any Presidential decisions."
My reply:
I think the jury is still out on Putin. I don’t like some of the signs I see, but I think he is trying to do what he thinks is best for Russia. The next year or two will probably answer the question.
Fred Phelps is the firebrand pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, and the iron-fisted patriarch of a large family. I’m sure you have heard of the demonstrators protesting at military funerals . . . those aberrant souls are Fred Phelps and his progeny. They are insanely homophobic, beyond the threshold of hatred. The only tolerance they display is for their dogma. The really sad part of that documentary program was the indoctrination of small children, 5-10 year olds, who now mindlessly spew their rabid hatred. The Phelps clan is one of many reasons I go crazy about holding parents accountable for the actions of their children.
The really sad part of this whole torture kerfuffle along with the habeas corpus cases is the ludicrous notion that war is like law enforcement and that battlefield combatants are simple criminals. When we try to civilize the intelligence collection process and expect field agents to collect information with the same or similar restrictions and rules of evidence regulating law enforcement, we will ring the death knell. Warfighting is not criminal prosecution; it is killing and destruction, which is why it should always be the choice of last resort. The Church Committee nearly eliminated the U.S. human intelligence capability, by trying to put lipstick on the pig. I am mortally fearful we are on the verge of the second generation Church Committee, intent upon adding a dress and perfume to the pig. And, I must be candid, some of the feelings of despair and hopelessness I felt in the aftermath of Vietnam, Watergate and the Church Committee are returning to my consciousness.
My apologies; I did not mean to cause confusion. I heard Mitt quite clearly, and your observations are spot on; that is what he said. I chose to add my opinions of his words. There is a very real, palpable, potential in the Founders’ construction of the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause and Jefferson’s illumination of the necessary “wall of separation between church and state.” The nation does not ask for anyone to diminish their faith in whatever religion is meaningful to them. I freely admit my fear of the admixture of religion and secular politics, just as I would have feared the Inquisition if I had been Galileo Galilei in 1632 – being judged by shallow, myopic, flawed men in fancy robes claiming to speak for God. As I said, there is a very REAL reason the Establishment Clause exists. John Kennedy separated himself from his church clergy and acted the part; I did not hear Mitt Romney make such a clear statement. Then again, I have not heard any of the other candidates being coerced as Romney was to making a similar statement – so the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the Baptists, and all the other Christians get a pass? I guess as long as we like someone’s religion or can find some affinity with their religion, then we are OK. My God, what does that say about us?

Another contribution:
"The most serious concern I have about the CIA flap is that it was leaked by anyone. Covert operations must stay covert. To judge them in the court of public opinion is a losing position for any of us to take, particularly when the offense is to waterboard a crazy bastard who wants to kill us all." My response:
I received a similar comment from another Marine . . . I’ll cheat & add my comment back to him.
[not included; see above.]

A different contribution:
"Thanks Cap. Can you explain when you have the time, the houses voting scoring system i.e. 409-2-2-20? it sounds a little more complex than the 'ayes and nays' ('The ayes have it', to quote the speaker)."
My reply:
The reporting of votes from the House of Representatives is rather peculiar and unique to the House. There are 435 seats in the House, each with one vote. In the example you noted, a vote of 409-2-2-20 means 409 votes aye, 2 voted nay, 2 were identified as “Present” but did not vote, and 20 were not present to vote; that’ leaves 2 missing in action, most likely the seats are open due to death or resignation, or in an otherwise suspended status. Some votes are a simple majority, and some votes have a 2/3 approval requirement, thus needing 292 aye votes . . . usually to override a presidential veto. Another piece of trivia for your kit bag.
. . . a follow-up:
"Thanks Cap. It doesn't run along party lines then with 1/2/3 line whips as in our parliament."
. . . my follow-up reply:
Some votes are along party lines, but rarely . . . precisely by party affiliation; there always seems to be a few outlyers even on contentious issues. Also, votes like those I illuminated in last week’s Update make me nervous especially when the proposed law imposes restrictions on all citizens in an effort to catch the few aberrant characters who do not recognize right from wrong. But, in the main, politicians are politicians.

Another contribution:
"As I sat down tonight to do some catch-up reading, I had your weekly forum and the following show up yesterday. As I alluded in one of my past responses, potentially the greatest enemy we face daily in our free world lies within our own borders...democracy itself. I've not had much opportunity to research the following message, but I tend to lean towards its authenticity.
"I continue to be amazed at how short our memory is. At what point did we, as free thinking citizens, relinquish our right to become educated by historical, fact-based information in lieu of the hyped hysteria 'got to say it first' processes of information gathering and distribution.
"I must also add one more note to exemplify the preceding. I was on company travel last week when the Omaha massacre occurred. I did my best in trying to get complete and accurate information on the incident. The next morning I picked up the 'USA Today' paper at breakfast only to read that the information they had been given and printed came from an anonymous source that had no authority to comment. Why aren't people as exasperated as I? Three people should be in jail; the editor who allowed the info to be printed, the writer that took the story, and the anonymous source. There are right ways and wrong ways to do things, including the dissemination of critical information. Makes me wonder if anyone is keeping track of the various media outlets whose headlines or lead stories are based on anonymous sources! Anonymous vs. Validated...what is the count? From your letters, let's include the Middle East."

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

10 December 2007

Update no.313

Update from the Heartland
No.313
3.12.07 – 9.12.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
I received a message from a British citizen, a brother-in-arms, a colleague, a friend, and a contributor on the 7th of December that needed to be my lead-off item.
Dear Cap.
The day of infamy.
I join with the people of your Republic in the memory of those you lost. Those young men who never knew the joy of fatherhood and those denied the right to grow old. They died that we might have that right. May God bless their sacrifice.
I share your remembrance.
'Lest We Forget'
My reply:
Thank you for your kind words. Indeed, we shall never forget that first Day of Infamy. Just as some of us Americans remember Battle of Britain Day – when the Nazi tide was turned that late summer day by a valiant and undaunted “Few” of British youth.
Indeed, their sacrifice is the guarantor of our freedom. As you say, may God bless them all.
Semper Fidelis,
Cap

We are proud to announce the beginning of our youngest son Taylor's service as a deputy sheriff for Butler County, Kansas. Since he left active duty as a Marine and completed his degree in political science, Taylor has sought a return to public service. Congratulations, Taylor. Godspeed and following winds.

The follow-up news items:
-- The sensational news this week boils up from the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that indicates the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) suspended their nuclear weapons program several years ago. Just as the Press and populace were distracted by the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue in the prelude and aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, this latest revelation will undoubtedly divert attention from the long-running, persistent and consistent, Iranian involvement in international terrorism. The leaders of the IRI have a long history of causing death and destruction; the nuclear dimension simply added amplification to the threat, and on-hold is a long way from eliminated. President Bush is correct regarding the continuing threat to world peace posed by the IRI.
-- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez suffered a stunning, even if only marginal, electoral defeat, when his countrymen rejected his bid for unlimited occupancy of the office he holds. Hugo’s megalomaniacal character will not go quietly into the night. Stand by for more to follow; this guy is not done, yet. The most incredible, worrisome and threatening element of the Venezuelan referendum vote rests in the reality that it came as close as it did to passing.
-- Putin’s United Russia Party won 64% of the parliamentary election vote for the Duma. Their closest competitor, the Communist Party of Russia, won approximately 12% of the vote. We need to watch the political moves of President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin over the next few months and years; this period of history could be a pivotal moment for democracy in some form in Russia.
-- The joint congressional conference committee tasked to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 [H.R. 1585; S.1547] decided to delete the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act [297, 309, 310], an unfortunate casualty of political compromise.

We watched the Showtime program "Fall From Grace," written, directed and edited by K. Ryan Jones -- an informative documentary on Fred Phelps, his clan and the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church -- one of many faces of hate. Pastor Jeff Gannon said, "Fred Phelps is one person who needs love the most, and deserves it the least" -- the best observation of hate-monger Fred I have seen.

Once again, Strategic Forecasting, Inc. provided a sound, balanced assessment of a highly sensitive issue.
“The NIE Report: Solving a Geopolitical Problem with Iran”
by George Friedman
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
December 03, 2007; 23:19 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/gir.php?utm_source=071203-GIR&utm_medium=email-strat-html&utm_content=071203-GIR-header-read&utm_campaign=GIR

Director of Central Intelligence General Mike Hayden’s public statement to preempt the New York Times exposé regarding the destruction of two interrogation video tapes has certainly enraged those inclined to be offended.
First, I am far more concerned about a trusted CIA employee who thought disclosure was more important than the national defense, than I am about the means used by intelligence agents during wartime – time is precious.
Second, all this drivel about torture is far more about domestic politics than actual operational issues.
Third, the definition of what is torture is vastly different from Right to Left.
Fourth, interrogation techniques, tools and policies are as much a means & methods concern as any other intelligence collection process.
Fifth, this protracted kerfuffle about torture and interrogation techniques is precisely why the United States has a vastly inadequate Human Intelligence capability, and then we are somehow surprised when our national level intelligence fails to perform.
Lastly, disclosure of those interrogation tapes would have done grave harm to our intelligence processes. I am glad the CIA destroyed them, and the person who disclosed them acted in a near treasonous manner. Unfortunately, good people in service to this Grand Republic will now be pilloried in the public square, and Congress is going to feel some greater compulsion to pass more restrictive laws that will further harm our already anemic HumInt capability.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, augmented by retired Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, rendered an interesting church and state ruling -- Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries, Inc. [8CCA no. 06-2741 (2007); 432 F. Supp. 2d 862 (S.D. Iowa 2006)] -- rejecting a prison rehabilitation program run by the Christian, Prison Fellowship Ministries and sponsored by the State of Iowa. This case, perhaps more so than other similar cases, represents the challenges we face with one of our essential Founding principles -- the separation of church and state. I have little doubt; in fact, I think most of us would have little doubt, that this Iowa prison rehabilitation program was beneficial to society by redeeming transgressors. However, the state’s funding and involvement in the program would lead a reasonable observer to assume that the State of Iowa endorsed the Christian faith above all others, and thus violated the Establishment Clause. Since President Bush issued Executive Order no. 13199, titled: “Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,” dated 29.January.2001, the Executive has walked a very fine line, and we have progressed toward the Judiciary challenge. The Court’s first pass – Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation [551 U.S. ___ (2007); 7CCA no. 06-157] [271, 290] – dealt only with a procedural question of standing. Whether the Americans United case makes it to the Supreme Court is yet to be determined, however, given the limited finding in Hein, I suspect the Court will either decline the case, thus affirming the 8th Circuit’s ruling, or seek to make a clear statement regarding the Executive’s faith-based initiatives. Further, with the protracted silly season of American electoral politics, it seems we are headed toward additional public debate regarding the relationship between church and state. Republican candidate Governor Mitt Romney delivered what was billed as a pivotal statement regarding his religious faith. During that speech, Mitt proclaimed that religion belongs in politics. I must be candid, Mitt ran up the scale of scary candidates. Religion, like the other social factors, does NOT belong in public secular politics, period. I wanted a John F. Kennedy speech, and I got a George W. Bush statement. I am glad that Mitt is proud of his religious faith; that is good. I do not need to know the basis of his public conduct to know that he appears to be an honorable, well-meaning, committed man; that should be enough. Regrettably, I am a minority; we are destined to sink deeper into under-mining the “wall of separation between church and state.” The 8th Circuit’s Americans United ruling attempts to hold the line; we shall see if the Supremes pick up the lance. After all, I do not need to know why someone is a good and honorable person; I just need to know that they are . . . by their actions; and, religion is not a qualifier. I do not choose my friends by their religion, and I will certainly not cast my vote for any elective office based on religion. In fact, I am far more suspicious of someone who wears their religion on their sleeve. Some fraction of religious men are quite flawed and hardly worthy of any following; religion does not make people good. Another way of looking at this is, does a man do what is right because his pastor told him to, or because scripture suggests he should, or because he truly believe it is the right thing to do. I, for one, am far more interested in a reasoned, good man, than I am blindly faithful, parochial man.

I have argued in favor of passive means by law enforcement for many years [211, 264]. In several discussions regarding the citizen and State, and specifically the 4th Amendment Search and Seizure Clause, my attention was repeatedly drawn to a particular Supreme Court ruling – Kyllo v. United States [533 U.S. 27 (2001); 9CCA no. 99-8508]. Danny Lee Kyllo was arrested in 1991, convicted and sentenced for violation of the Controlled Substances Act based on a warranted search of his home, built upon the use of an infrared thermal imaging device and the alleged detection of heat lamps used to grow marijuana inside private dwellings. The Supremes reversed the lower court rulings, establishing that passive means used in this case exceeded reasonable search standards. [As a side note unrelated to the topic, I found it quite odd that Scalia argued for restrictions upon the State’s reach, while Stevens argued against restrictions – quite odd, indeed.] While I believe the Court reached the correct decision, I think they used flawed logic for a host of reasons. Most notably, they missed the essential question . . . was the non-specific heat data sufficient to justify a warrant? Based on the available evidence, I would say, no. The Court dwells laboriously on the derived information, which was simply a delta temperature, with apparently no other corroborating evidence, only a suspicion. The primary mistake arose in the judicial warrant issuance based on such allegedly misty information. In the main, I agree with the dissent, passive means beyond the property line should be public information as it is acquired in the public domain, and thus subject to interception. However, I suspect we have passed the threshold of tolerance in this arena. Surveillance technology has grown exponentially with digital processing; smaller, more sensitive pixel resolution; sophisticated analysis programs; et cetera. I was awestruck by the performance of our technical means the last time I was on the dark-side 25 years ago; I am fairly certain the capabilities of those technical means have progressed substantially. To put this into lay terms, just think about the capabilities of your personal computer, 10 and 20 years ago, to what you have today; now, apply that increase in capability to the ability of law enforcement to watch and listen. An interesting question of logic can be tested in the 4th Amendment’s “unreasonable search and seizure” clause, when coupled with the inexorable advance of technology as well as comparative wealth. Passive means, like the thermal imager in Kyllo, depend upon electromagnetic energy, e.g., infrared band energy, which decreases in its intensity with the square of the distance from the source, i.e., what is detectable at 50 feet, will be much less detectable at 1 mile, and is not detectable at 5 miles distance. If passive devices were acceptable, then exposure might well be a function of wealth, i.e., a rich man with miles of private property does not bear the same exposure to surveillance as a poor man with a studio apartment. Using the Kyllo dissent’s reasoning, exposure to police surveillance favors the wealthy, which hardly seems compatible with the Founding principles of this Grand Republic. Thus, I wish to amend my opinion regarding the use of passive means by law enforcement agencies or any future agency of the State. As technology evolves, we must place safeguards between our fundamental right to privacy and the State’s ability to “sense” anything within my home, or within my property for that matter. If the State seeks to deploy passive means against me, it should be required to convince a judge that there is probable cause, even to deploy such technical means. One principal exception must be emissions from my property that pose a public risk, e.g., ionizing radiation, damaging chemicals, et cetera. The public good must prevail. Short of potential public injury, the State should be prohibited from intruding upon my home with any current or future surveillance capability. By my rule, the State violated the rights of Danny Lee Kyllo and his conviction should be vacated. If so, then we come to the question of law. While Kyllo did not go far enough to protecting our rights, the essence of our protection exists in the Constitution and case law if we can only see it, and it all boils down to one’s bias in that interpretation.

The Supremes heard arguments in the appeal of Boumediene v. Bush [CCA DC no. 05-5062] [273] regarding the habeas corpus rights of enemy combatants held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Their opinion will probably come early next year. We can only hope they take the larger context of a practical, if undeclared, global war. My opinion remains unchanged. Enemy combatants are NOT criminals; they are roughly equivalent to prisoners of war (although the contemporary variant does injustice to honorable warriors); and thus, they should have no habeas corpus rights under the Constitution and should remain incarcerated until they are no longer a threat or the cessation of hostilities.

We have a series of great-sounding bills before Congress, and I do not find much to celebrate in any of them. These are all silly laws that do nothing, or at least very little, for the public good beyond spending the public treasury, enhancing the government’s intrusion into our lives, and giving us a temporary, feel-good, sensation.
-- The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 [H.R.1955; S.1959] – creates a congressional commission to do what the Executive is charged by the Constitution to perform -- another way to spend public funds on needless bureaucracy. The House version of the bill was passed by a vote of 404-6-0-22. The companion Senate bill is still in committee.
-- The Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act [S.1780; H.R.3559] – makes the utterance of a “single word” or the display of a “single image” deemed obscene (by some magical process) in any of the broadcast media a Federal crime. These continued attempts at encroachment upon the freedom of speech of all citizens in the name of children are actually mind-numbing. Both versions remain in committees of their respective chambers.
-- The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007 [H.R.3887] -- amends the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 [PL no.106-386] and adds the Child Soldier Prevention Act of 2007, which is more of a congressional statement rather than an executable law. The House passed the bill [vote: 405-2-0-24], and is currently under consideration in the Senate Judiciary Committee. In case anyone may be curious as to who William Wilberforce is, he was a British abolitionist Member of Parliament who was instrumental in ending British participation in the slave trade in the early 19th Century -- interesting choice for an American bill.
-- The Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act (SAFE Act) [H.R.3791; S.519] -- among other elements of this bill, it will criminalize Wi-Fi providers who do not report users who access illegal, explicit images involving children, another twist on the United States v. Williams issue before the Supreme Court [308]. This bills attempts to force service providers to become an instrument of Big Brother. The consequences of extending the government’s reach like this are truly staggering. The House passed the bill [vote: 409-2-0-20] and is currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Comments and contributions from Update no.312:
"Not only did former Aussie PM Howard's party lose the election, he lost his seat in Parliament. That is a very rare happenstance and is indicative of how badly he lost."
My reply:
Indeed! Very rare! Indicative of how unhappy his constituents were. Heck, the Conservatives lost in 1945, and Winston lost his premiership (for a few years), but he still won his seat handily. Such are the winds of political change.
. . . round two:
"When I was in Adelaide this spring, my Aussie MFA counterparts said they thought Howard would pull it out--he had a history of doing that. I don't think they remotely imagined what happened the other week. New PM Rudd will be a very interesting study-- he speaks fluent Chinese (I think Mandarin)- and was a senior diplomat, if not the ambassador in Beijing. The U.S. will have to work harder in many diplomatic fronts."
. . . my reply in round two:
I'm learning more about Rudd. He is quite a bit farther to the left of Howard, so the "harder work" may be an understatement. We shall see.
. . . round three:
"More on Howard's loss- only the second time an Australian PM has lost his seat. His party is named the Liberal Party, but it is the more conservative. It was a real train wreck. We are concerned because of Rudd's views on nuclear power. While Australia doesn't have any nuclear power plants, they are a leader in nuclear safety and work with us and the IAEA. Oh, and they are one of the top three countries in uranium mining."
. . . my reply to round three:
This will be interesting to watch as it plays out.

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

03 December 2007

Update no.312

Update from the Heartland
No.312
26.11.07 – 2.12.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Once again, I must offer my condolences to my cousins, Greg and Sandy -- Navy, 38 - Army, 3; and, for the first time in history, one of the two teams has won six (6) straight games. I could say, better luck next year; but instead, I shall say, Go Navy, Beat Army!

The follow-up news items:
-- Wow, the hits just keep coming for the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi announced his intention to resign his seat by the end of this year, which means a special election must be held to fill his seat for the remainder of his term (2012). I wonder how many more veteran Republican senators and representatives are going to bail?
-- Australia Prime Minister John Winston Howard, MP, lost the election, and the United States may have lost a consistent contributor to fighting the War on Islamic Fascism
-- The United States hosted a 50-nation, Middle East Peace conference at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. The conference did not accomplish much in a public sense, and history tells us optimism for Middle East peace is not appropriate, however we can always be surprised.

Just to keep some balance here, please read this essay about Hezbollah:
"Dissecting the 'Party of God'"
by Fred Burton and Reva Bhalla
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: November 28, 2007; 20:03 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/tir.php?utm_source=071128-TIR&utm_medium=email-strat-html&utm_content=071128-TIR-header-read&utm_campaign=TIR
Also, please do not forget that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been, is and will be the predominant financial and leadership sponsor of Hezbollah -- the connection is deep, expansive and durable. So, when you see or hear of Hezbollah, think Iran. The same can be said about Hamas, but not to the same extent as Hezbollah.

A few words of illumination and amplification regarding my opinion on individual rights, majority rule, and the relationship between the individual and government might be helpful. If every citizen could do whatever they wished, whenever and wherever they wanted, we would have anarchy. Society, and on its behalf government, should and must define acceptable public conduct . . . for an orderly, disciplined community. The line is crossed when a willful minority, or even a majority, uses the State to project their beliefs beyond the front door and into the private affairs of other citizens; that simply cannot be seen as freedom. Further, I am all in favor of majority rule, but where that principle must fail occurs when the majority attempts to penetrate the front door. Each and every citizen possesses unalienable rights, endowed by our Creator, that include Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Yet, freedom does not entitle any citizen to cause harm or a denial of rights to any other citizen regardless of the venue. Our society has been out of balance with those Founding principles for many decades now; it is long past time to trim the ship of State.

Twenty-eight retired generals and admirals intend to urge Congress to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, signed into law by President Clinton in 1993.
"A New Push to Roll Back ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’"
by Thom Shanker and Patrick Healy
New York Times
Published: November 30, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/30military.html?th&emc=th
I wrote an essay titled: "Limits on Gender Integration" (25.August.1998) [http://www.parlier.com/web1p03w.htm#gender], in which I argued for restrictions on those who served in the combat arms of the military, based on gender and sexual orientation. I think it is time to listen to General John Malchase David Shalikashvili, USA (Ret.) [265] and the other flag officers. With an estimated 15% of humanity being classified as other than heterosexual, we should rethink our homophobia. For those of us who served on active duty in the 1970's, the military initiated an extraordinary, extended program to eradicate racism within its ranks. While none of us would claim perfection, the program was broadly successful. Using that effort as an example, a similar initiative might well achieve comparable results in eliminating sexism and homophobia. We can grow and mature.

Another recent editorial attracted my attention.
"A Loss for Privacy Rights"
Editorial
New York Times
Published: November 28, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/opinion/28wed2.html?th&emc=th
The catalyst for the Times' editorial staff came from a Supreme Court rejection notice, letting stand a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 4th Amendment ruling. A group of welfare recipients in San Diego County filed suit in objection to the county's Project 100% on the basis that the unannounced, warrantless, home searches were unreasonable, and thus a violation of their constitutional rights. The Appeals' court panel affirmed the district court judgment that the county's welfare fraud prevention program did not violate the Plaintiffs-Appellants’ constitutional right to unreasonable search of their private domain by the government. Of note in the sequence of court rulings is Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson's dissenting opinion in the court's rejection of a rehearing petition in the case. He wrote, "San Diego’s program requires destitute, often disabled, persons and their families to forfeit all rights to privacy to qualify for welfare. The government’s general interest in preventing fraud cannot justify such highly intrusive searches of homes where no grounds for suspicion exist. Welfare applicants are ordinary people who, due to lack of adequate funds, find themselves applying for life-sustaining government benefits." Kind of tugs at your heart strings, doesn't it? Nonetheless, as much as I resent and rail against governmental intrusion in our private lives, there are times when it is appropriate, and here is such an example. The 9th Circuit got it right, despite Harry's objections, and the Supreme Court saw nothing that deserved their action. I have mixed feelings, and yet at the bottom line, welfare funds are cash payments that can be used for anything, and thus are easily abused. Whether we like to admit it, there are people who truly believe the State should take care of them, provide for their wishes and needs, and not ask any questions. Well, there should be conditions on funds from the public treasury, especially those that have essentially no checks and balances.

Comments and contributions from Update no.311:
"Regarding the Europeans--and others in the world's view of the U.S. as being dangerous, it is important to try to understand their point of view, even if one doesn't agree with it. Many feel that the Bush Administration has buggered up things badly in Iraq and as such, has made things much worse in the struggle against terrorism. It isn't as though Europeans and other countries are blind to the Islamist terrorist threat. They feel that they are even more immediately threatened and have their own ways of combating. Indeed, as the former CIA Chief in Europe stated, they are on the front line and we (the U.S.) depend very much on their work (and intel). Many feel that we have made things worse - that is why they say the U.S. is dangerous. One doesn't have to agree - or agree completely with them to see their point of view, which isn't based on coddling terrorists, but in the most effective way to combat them--and in doing so, not inflame more terrorism. BTW, a recent report noted over 6,000 terrorism-related incidents last year, three-fold over 2001 - so there is something to that point. While there has always been as residual of anti-U.S. feeling abroad, serious people have concerns about our unilateral actions adversely affecting their (and our) security.
"Having served overseas, and being a reader of foreign press--as well as having had discussions with foreign officials and laymen, I have heard their concerns about the U.S. going hastily into Iraq and letting Afghanistan go back into the Taliban's hands--mucking things up worse. There is real concern in the UK and other parts about Afghanistan going south. It is becoming a classic case of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. As of now, the Taliban, once on the run, has a permanent presence in 54% of Afghanistan and a lesser presence in over 20% more. That is stunning. If Afghanistan falls back into the hands of the Taliban, it would be a disaster in the struggle against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. This message has been repeated lately in the UK and European media-- but we don't hear much here, and we should - it is that serious. That said, the Europeans need to ante up for NATO--not just the U.S. and the UK.
"Another note, my son, a cow at West Point, noted a spate of recent announcements in the hall about USMA grads killed in Afghanistan. So, there has apparently been a notable up-turn in fighting there."
. . . to which a knowledgeable contributor added:
"In my humble opinion, the center of gravity is the drug gangs. The only reason the Taliban appear to be doing better is that they promise the war lords that any Taliban rule will allow them the autonomy to continue their drug business, whereas, the current Afghan government presents a threat to business. The reputation of the U.S. cutting and running does not help matters."
My reply:
Your counsel is wise. While I may come on a little strong from time to time, I do understand and appreciate how the Europeans feel toward GWB. I would have to admit that my attitudes toward GWB are more closely aligned with the Europeans. And yet, as I hinted in last week's Update, I am disappointed that such learned and experienced leaders as former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt can take such a myopic view of American history, current foreign policy, and the prognosis for the future. In some respects, Schmidt is correct, but in the main, I truly believe he is wrong. I think the Bush-Rumsfeld-Franks-Sanchez gross mismanagement of the post-invasion, ground battle and evolving counter-insurgency in the Battle for Iraq has cost this Grand Republic dearly in probably more ways than I can imagine. However, an analogy that may describe my opinion is . . . what radical fundamentalist Islamists have done to our citizens for nearly 30 years is like a gang of thugs entering my home, killing one of my children, and then claiming my arrogance provoked the attack. Let it suffice to say my probable actions would not be classified as humanitarian or gentlemanly.
With no intent to rationalize W's failures as President, I think that if the Annapolis Conference yields any positive results for peace, we may well credit the breakthrough in Middle East intransigence to the brash, bold commitment of American blood to exposing and eradicating radical Islam. That said, I still believe W made and continues to make huge mistakes in the War on Islamic Fascism.
1. Failure to seek and obtain a full declaration of war,
2. Failure to mobilize the United States for prolonged, global war,
3. Failure to create a unity government,
4. Failure to substantially expand the military to properly take and control the ground,
5. Failure to select the correct military leaders to fight a protracted counter-insurgency, and
6. Failure to constrain non-contributory, domestic spending (earmarks).
I could go on for quite some time, but those are good starters from my perspective. Yet, to this point, I still think the President took the correct action to confront Islamic fascism, but he had very poor follow-through to execute a plan to achieve the objective.
Lastly and most importantly, may God watch over and protect your son as he enters his service to this Grand Republic. Too bad, though, that the Woops are going to lose . . . again! Take care and enjoy, Dad.

Another contribution:
“Re the 2nd amendment questions....I agree with you that the founders wanted the right to bear arms to be an individual right. At the time of the revolution, most of the militia consisted of all males between about 16 and 60 if I remember my history. They used their personal rifles, many of them the Pennsylvania Long Rifles, which were the most potent weapon of the day, far superior to the muskets of the British Army. Basically they took their personal weapons from the closet and shot the legal government of the day. I feel that the founders thought that this was a pretty good defense against an overpowerful government and therefore wanted this protection in the Constitution. The people should be as well armed as the government. I agree with this idea,,,,,however, saying that, the term "arms" included the most deadly weapon of the day and could reasonably include any weapon. Since the government has nerve gas and nuclear weapons, should individuals be allowed these same arms? I like the idea of well armed citizens and keep my rusty old shotgun but am not sure where a wide open interpretation of the second amendment would lead.”
My response:
As I have written, I certainly agree with you on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I eagerly await the ruling of the Supremes. You pose an interesting question . . . are there limits? One boundary would or should be . . . individual versus crew-served weapons. I have a really hard time extending the language and intent of the 2nd Amendment to a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier or an M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank. I also believe there should be a bore limitation, e.g., a solid projectile weapon with a bore greater than 12.7mm; I could argue bigger or smaller, but that seemed reasonable to me. And, I have a really, really, hard time rationalizing any private ownership of special weapons (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical). I inherited a small arsenal from my father, so, added to my existing weapons, I’d say my household is fairly well armed. I have mixed feelings on the prohibitions on automatic weapons established by the National Firearms Act of 1934; I can argue that one either way. While I am a staunch advocate of the individual rights view, I cannot support an unbounded interpretation; there is a monumental difference between a Pennsylvania long rifle and a 20KT thermonuclear device. If We, the People, agree, then the debate rests upon where we draw the line.
. . . with this follow-up:
“Keep up the writing . . . it's a gift but I know also a lot of work . . . .
“Re the second amendment; my thoughts are that the framers wanted the citizens to be as well armed as the government. I approve that idea in principle but carried to its extreme, things gets a bit interesting. Related question, even with the collective interpretation, states should be allowed to maintain any weapon such as nuclear, biological, etc. I guess the Civil war sort of put that argument away by force of arms but the Constitution would still, in my view, allow states to leave the Union and also to maintain any armaments they desired to pay for. If you get bored sometime, look at the movie "The Second Civil War," a comedy about Idaho's leaving the union. Good laughs.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
Beyond writing at work and writing the Update, my principal writing task is continuing my quest for find a good agent to represent my “To So Few” novels . . . a very laborious and frustrating process. But, everyone has said . . . persistence and perseverance, so the search continues.
I make no bones about my apprehension regarding an unbounded interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The collective interpretation . . . perhaps; individual interpretation regarding special weapons . . . I’m sorry, no way. I’ve not seen the movie, but I will look for it.

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