30 July 2007

Update no.294

Update from the Heartland
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 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 :-)

23 July 2007

Update no.293

Update from the Heartland
No.293
16.7.07 – 22.7.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Several subscribers wanted to know how Rocky is doing. Our not-quite-as-big-as-he-used-to-be, male, Rottweiler had a good week. Jeanne felt quite strongly that some of the prescribed medications were making him ill; turns out, she was correct. Now, his butt wags like a shaker machine, and he is moving around better. Rocky has taken a few steps away from the precipice. In other family news, I was in Salt Lake City all week working a forensic investigation on a troublesome roll control actuator. No need to bore y’all with the technical details, but I mention this effort to highlight a delightful restaurant in downtown Salt Lake City – Rodizio's Grill in Trolley Square, a Brazilian cuisine establishment; they bring an endless supply of various grilled meats for an incredible sampling of tastes and flavors. Rodizio’s Grill in Salt Lake City = highly recommended.

The follow-up news items:
-- International inspectors confirmed the shutdown of the DPRK's, plutonium-producing, nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, North Korea. The history of this macabre dance with Grand Dear Leader Umpa-Lumpa continues to unfold, but this appears to be the first positive, physical sign the door may be opened. However, we must not forget the long list of advance and retreat with the DPRK. [198, 239, 246, 252, et al]
-- From the on-going budget battles regarding war funding [265, et al], the Senate pulled a publicity stunt, all-nighter, Tuesday night to demonstrate their earnestness in ending the war . . . presumably they mean the Battle for Iraq, rather than the War on Islamic Fascism. Needless to say, we had a mind-boggling stream of amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 [H.R. 1585]. Included in the torrent was the Dorgan amendment [actually, S.Amdt.2135 to S.Amdt.2011 to H.R.1585] that was passed by the Senate (vote: 87-1-12), and increases the bounty for Usama bin Ladin from US$25M to US$50M -- interesting idea but unlikely to make any difference whatsoever. The folks who might have reward-able information about Usama’s whereabouts are not motivated by money. Nonetheless, the best assessment of the Dorgan amendment came from James Taranto; "If $50 million isn't enough, maybe they can pass legislation offering a million billion trillion zillion squillion dollars" -- my sentiments precisely. Then, after the silly all-nighter, the Senate voted on the cloture amendment [S.Amdt.2087] to end debate in an effort to bring the defense spending and specifically the withdrawal directive to a final vote. The vote to end debate failed [vote: 52-47-1; 60 yea’s needed].
-- The Pakistani peace deal with mountain tribes sympathetic to the Taliban and al-Qaeda is probably defunct in the aftermath of the Red Mosque assault [292]. The peace deal with tribal leaders in North Waziristan [209] and other remote provinces was ill-advised when it was signed 10 months ago. Perhaps Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf will get serious about routing out al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other militants in the tribal areas; early signs suggest so, but we shall see.
-- Ah, yes, the Valerie Plame / Joe Wilson affair, the kerfuffle that keeps on giving. [149, 170, et al] Plame filed a civil suit against Cheney, Rove, Libby, and Armitage, seeking damages related to her exposure as a CIA employee. U.S. District Judge John D. Bates was not impressed and threw the case out of court, stating that the action by government officials was surely within the scope of their normal duties. Plame pledged to appeal the district court ruling.

From the author of "Fiasco -- The American Military Adventure in Iraq," we have this important must-read article:
"Exit Strategies --
Would Iran Take Over Iraq? Would Al-Qaeda? The Debate About How and When to Leave Centers on What Might Happen After the U.S. Goes."
by Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post
Tuesday, July 17, 2007; Page A01
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W6RH028A92541059C0E393170DF330
The article concludes with, "[Wayne] White [a former deputy director of Near East division of the State Department's Intelligence and Research Bureau], speaking at a recent symposium on Iraq, addressed the possibility of unpalatable withdrawal consequences by paraphrasing Winston Churchill's famous statement about democracy, 'I posit that withdrawal from Iraq is the worst possible option, except for all the others.'" There is merit to White's observation, and yet, I have not reached the point of throwing in the towel.

Just when I thought I had this week’s Update constructed, Nicholas Noe writes a New York Times Op-Ed piece titled: “Getting Hezbollah to Behave” (21.7.2007), in which he states, “Indeed, the best way to contain Hezbollah may be to give it some of what it says it wants.” I am certain everyone can imagine my powerful urge to chastise such naïveté. Not surprisingly, my thought is “déjà vu all over again,” as that famous contemporary philosopher Yogi Berra proclaimed, with strains of 30.September.1938, blasting into my conscious thoughts. Truth be told, Noe makes some valid and appropriate suggestions, and perhaps even good suggestions. However, the context in which he offers his opinions sours with his opening premise. Rewarding violence and aggression has never and will never be a successful or winning proposition. Hezbollah has repeatedly provoked Israel beyond the threshold of tolerance with acts of violence, and then sanctimoniously claimed innocence when Israel defends its citizens. Those who resort to violence to accomplish their objectives will always see such capitulation as weakness, and thus will return to violence when it suits their goals. Noe could have been far more effective in persuasion without the foolish supposition.

The Strategic Forecasting, Inc., Terrorism Intelligence Report, dated 18.July.2007, titled: "State Sponsors of Jihadism: Learning the Hard Way" by Kamran Bokhari, asserted the Islamic revolution, or what I describe as the modern version of Islamic fascism, began "with the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan in 1979." Usually, the StratFor reports are well-researched, factual, informative and most importantly devoid of political bias. Nonetheless, in the subject report, I must quibble with Bokhari's wellspring definition. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan commenced on 24.December.1979; that action and subsequent clandestine reaction by the United States certainly contributed to the burgeoning of Islamic fascism. Yet, I contend a better marker for the initiating spark of the jihadist movement would be 16.January.1979, when the Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi went into exile, or even 1.February.1979, when Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Mustafavi Khomeini returned to Iran to form the theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran, and shortly thereafter promoted the IRI as the preeminent state sponsor of terrorism worldwide. We could also argue the genesis grew from earlier moments of distraction and complacency, but those elements remain hidden from public view in diplomatic backrooms. The facts and tone suggest Soviet instigation, rather than United States culpability.

I believe this humble Update journal serves as public testament to my criticism of George W. Bush and his administration, and I have certainly leveled my ire at Congress (of both versions) and the Press as well. Then, along comes one of those items that cause me to shake my head and mutter my disgust to no one but myself. A Friday New York Times editorial titled "Federal Hustings Administration" lambasted the administration for using the instruments of State for political gain. They conclude, "Taxpayers must wonder what happened to the notion of governance. The White House nonchalantly insists both parties have laced the duties of federal office with partisanship. Up to a point, perhaps. But the increasingly relevant question as more abuses are disclosed is just how far the Bush administration has gone in mocking the legal distinction between running government and running for office." The other guys do it is hardly a rational, logical or acceptable defense, and only serves to demonstrate the immaturity and low-road values of the speaker. However, the content and tone of this Times' editorial makes me nauseous. I condemn the President and his lackeys as well as a corrupt Congress consumed by largesse, but the Times does serious disserve to the Fourth Estate and public accountability when they pretend the problem is unique to George and his cronies. We must go after the root cause rather than waste precious time on symptomatic, misguided, shallow practitioners of the current variety. The Times editorial staff misses the point entirely.

I have tried to resist this whole Vitter thing; however, the incessant stream of journalists, pundits, columnists, and assorted talking heads spewing forth their opinions has eroded my ability to resist. I took my first shot with the Vitter kerfuffle, as a springboard, in last week's Update [292]. Two Washington Post columns proved too much to resist.
"Sex and the Conservative"
by Dana Milbank
Washington Post
Tuesday, July 17, 2007; Page A02
"Private Sin, Public Matter"
by Ruth Marcus
Washington Post
Wednesday, July 18, 2007; Page A19
Ruth's opinion pushed me to extend my argument. She wrote, "Men, at least some men, tend to think of purchased sex -- even if they would never think of purchasing sex themselves -- as less offensive. It's more transactional, less emotional, therefore -- supposedly -- less troubling." Ruth concluded her column, "You could argue that prostitution should be legal in this country, as it is in many others -- that America should get over its hang-ups about sex and that regulating prostitution would protect women from being victimized. I don't buy that, and in any event, I don't see my privacy-advocate colleagues making that case." I cannot claim colleague status with Ruth Marcus, but my argument regarding prostitution (as with other sinful activities) builds upon a citizen's fundamental right to privacy and the proper conduct of the State. Ruth does not offer up her rationale for "not buying" the regulated prostitution proposition; perhaps someday she will. She also uses an effective and common technique to blunt or thwart opinions like mine -- as a male, I cannot possibly understand; my rejection of such constraints probably has no bearing. Oh well! My opinion remains unchanged. We must get the State out of private affairs, as we must eliminate the criminal and abusive elements of sinful pursuits like prostitution. Our moral objection is hardly adequate rationale for imposing the mass of the State upon the private, non-injurious, conduct of citizens in good standing. Ruth is wrong!

New York Times Op-Ed Contributor Elizabeth Marquardt wrote "When 3 Really Is a Crowd" regarding a contemporary child custody and support case decided by the Pennsylvania Superior Court (their court of appeals). The ruling addresses two related, parallel, trial court decisions: Jodilynn Jacob v. Jennifer L. Shultz-Jacob [PA Super 1499 (2006)] and Jennifer L. Shultz-Jacob v. Jodilynn Jacob and Carl Frampton [PA Super 1527 (2006)] [J.S15032/07 & J.S15033/07; 2007 PA Super 118]. To consolidate the references, we shall use the simplified Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob to represent the Superior Court's action. As a short synopsis, Jodilynn and Jennifer entered into an extended, committed relationship, and engaged a friend, Carl, to produce two children; they decided to separate; the court affirmed Carl's interest/involvement and remanded the case back to the trial court for a calculation of custody and support that included all three parties. Marquardt used this case to raise her concern regarding the welfare of the children, and implicitly, rejected such multi-party relationships as detrimental to children. The welfare and the growth environment of the children are and must remain paramount. While the specifics associated with each adult party in the subject relationship are quite relevant to this case, what really matters is not the relationship arrangement employed by any parents, but rather the care, education, and nurturing provided to the children. We do such a magnificent job of teaching and training our children already, he said sarcastically . . . our moral revulsion and disapproval does not validate knee-jerk emotional reactions. I reject Marquardt's homophobic saber-rattling and encourage proper public intercourse regarding the State's interest in rearing children to healthy, responsible, productive adulthood. The Pennsylvania court's decision in Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob is appropriate and proper given the facts. We must resist inherent reaction due to the private choices of citizens in good-standing and concentrate on the State's true interest in such disputes. We must return to a condition of proper balance between private and public, between the citizen and the State, that recognizes the inherent freedoms endowed to us by our Creator.

In the same issue of the New York Times as the Marquardt opinion column noted above, we find an intriguing, juxtaposed, Op-Ed column by James Andrew Miller, titled: “Preparing for a Broken Home.” Miller sketches the accomplishments of friends who negotiated detailed pre-nuptial agreements, none of which included children. He suggests providing for a prior custodial agreement for any children produced by the marriage. Prima facie, such agreements take on the appearance of a negative starting point for what should be a lifetime relationship; however, Miller does make some valid points. Nonetheless, my take from his opinion column suggests that we appear to be getting married for all the wrong reasons – attraction, lust, mutual interests, love, legal consensual sex, companionship, whatever. As such, marriages fail when partners lose the connection and balance necessary for relationship stability. Centuries ago, marriages were intended for procreation, to produce another generation, to yield loyal hands to extend the family business. Offspring were the focus for marriages in the olden days. Not so, today, as we see in resplendent and dramatic color virtually everyday through a myriad of examples. If we concentrated upon and chose our life-partners for their child-bearing, child-rearing potential and ability, we might choose differently. Perhaps centuries ago, the disparity between all these various factors was minuscule; however, in our supercharged world of instant communications, global reach, and propensity for instant gratification, we have lost what should be our primary focus. We see a glimpse of the consequences in Ruth Marquardt’s column noted above, but more importantly, we see the worst of consequences in the tragedy of neglected and abused children. One day, we shall achieve a proper focus on children, when our very survival depends upon the strength of future generations.

Comments from Update no.291:
"Some insight on Libby's sentence. Actually, it was not high, but well within the new federal sentencing guidelines. Recently, a conservative, (and largely Republican) effort had focused on getting mandatory sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimums for federal and state courts. The thought was that federal judges were too lenient on criminals and federal judges needed to be given guidelines to follow. The new rules are now in place, and to be candid, Judge Walton was not overly harsh and was well within the guidelines. Add to that the fact that Libby has not confessed or stated remorse (usual requirement for lenient treatment), and Judge Walton was not harsh. True the probation report called for a much shorter term of confinement, but that is the general rule for probation reports, they call for lenience. The same conservatives who were complaining about Libby's conviction and the severity of his sentence are the same who lobbied and legislated the new federal minimums. Where is the consistency?
"Now the President may have caused more havoc than he intended or even contemplated by his unilateral action of commuting Libby's sentence for the reasons given. Already, dozens of convicted criminals are making 'Libby motions' based on the commutation and the President's expression of 'harshness.' He really opened a can of worms for the DOJ, which quite frankly, has enough problems already. Stay tuned."
My response:
Allowing politics to override principle seems much like the fiscal largesse corrupting our governance processes . . . highly unstable and fuel for revolution . . . as one party or the other see-saws back and forth promoting their interests rather than the needs of the Nation. This whole Libby kerfuffle is yet one more disgusting example.

Comments and contributions from Update no.292:
"Haig is good. He made a meteoric rise to fame a long time ago now. From semi-obscure LtCol to 4 star General in a very short time. And from there on to much bigger things. I haven't always liked what he has said, but I have always listened to him.
"My Opinion: I do not care what faction, group, individual person, etc -- If Islamic then we may well have a problem with them. Sorting out the ones we do/will have a problem with is one of OUR problems. Islam is not bad in itself -- I think. It's the interpretation of it's tenents which separates some Muslims from others.
"That is true for other religions too, including Christianity and Judaism, though we see today more radicalism in the Islamic faith. Go back several hundred years, to the Crusades, and we can see ourselves as the bad guys in some ways.
"Almost as an Aside: I find that most Military Officers who reach the highest ranks and highest positions of responsibility have been students of history, perhaps specifically Military History. Along with all the things which go very closely along with that -- GeoPolitics, Religion, The instinct of survival of the fittest, etc, etc.
"GW is struggling to maintain any semblance of a successful 2nd term. But he is too bull-headed to listen to the winds of both public and private opinion.
"Want MY opinion? Iraq is already Vietnam re-incarnated in somewhat different clothes. And that ain't going to change no matter WHAT we do.
"I am not bright enough to see what needs to be done now. I saw long ago that what was planned was VERY short of the planning needed to ensure long-term success.
"So now -- with the 2008 races beginning to heat up I can only say that as far as any candidate is concerned who says 'stick with Bush -- give it time -- make a few minor adjustments -- throw in a few more troops . . . ,' etc, etc -- I WILL NOT vote for them in 2008. Their heads are in the sand.
My reply:
[I]f you are correct in the "Vietnam incarnate" observation, then I'd say we should get out soon and take what comes . . . as it will surely come. This administration has failed. I still believe the Battle for Iraq was the right thing to do; we just tried to fight the battle on the cheap. I don't need to reiterate all that again; you know how I feel. Perhaps the battle is no longer winnable. The President has shown no action to do what really must be done, and now has no chance whatsoever for gaining the support of Congress to do what must be done. So, let's withdraw; let chaos reign; wait for the next attack and another President; and then, let’s see if we can get it right. If we do withdraw from Iraq, I believe we will have to go back for the same reasons we went into Afghanistan. The jihadistanis and al-Qaeda are not the same as the NVA in many ways; our current enemy will not confine themselves to Iraq, Afghanistan, or even the Middle East; the North Vietnamese were content with Indochina. This war is not going away.

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

16 July 2007

Update no.292

Update from the Heartland
No.292
9.7.07 – 15.7.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
For those who may be concerned or interested, Rocky [290] has had some ups and downs. He was back in the vet’s clinic for three days this week. Jeanne called me at work Friday afternoon and told me I needed to go the vet’s office, evaluate Rocky, listen to the prognosis, and make the decision. Taylor was already there. After conferring with our vet, Kevin, and Taylor, we agreed on a set of criteria to be reevaluated Saturday morning. Long story, short, Rocky is home, but he is not as perky as he was a week ago. We are in the day-to-day phase, now; but, he is still fighting and that is a good sign.

The follow-up news items:
-- The dreary saga of our embattled Attorney General took an interesting twist this week. The Justice Department's chief of the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, James A. Baker, publicly indicated that the FBI repeatedly informed the Attorney General regarding probable abuses as well as legal and procedural violations, contradicting Gonzales’ public statements and testimony. The latest revelations are yet one more reflection of Gonzales’ ineptitude and ineffectiveness, and more importantly, the apparent contempt the FBI holds for the man.
-- Pakistani security forces stormed the Red Mosque in Islamabad. The firebrand, radical, fundamentalist cleric Abdul Rashid Ghazi was killed along with most of his armed militia inside the mosque and its underground chambers. Ghazi’s equally radical cleric brother, Maulana Abdul Aziz, dressed in a female burqa, was captured trying to escape the siege when some women and children were evacuated. It seems his pot belly gave him away. Eight commandos died in the assault along with an estimated 108 militants. Hopefully, this tragic episode will convince the Pakistani government to crack down on the Islamic radicals within their borders and loosen up their resistance to allow U.S. and coalition operations in the tribal, northern highlands adjacent to Afghanistan.

We can add another voice to the burgeoning choir . . . from this opinion column:
“Our Own Worst Enemy”
by General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., USA (Ret.)
Wall Street Journal
July 10, 2007; Page A21
http://www.wsj.com/wsjgate?source=jopinaowsj&URI=/article/0,,SB118403572723161796,00.html%3Fmod%3Dopinion%26ojcontent%3Dotep
Haig identifies three principal "bad habits" in dealing with the Palestinian issue that reflect upon our overall failures in the region.
Electing the anti-democrats – meaning, we allowed radical, terrorist groups, like Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Sadr and his Mahdi Militia, to gain legitimacy by recognizing their participation in negotiations.
Speak fast, act slow – we broadcast our intention to “surge” more troops in Iraq, and then take six months carry out the action.
Too many generals – another version of too many chefs spoil the soup.
Haig concludes, “John Quincy Adams warned us against going abroad ‘in search of monsters to destroy,’ and some argue that the war on terror is just such a case. I disagree. On 9/11, the monster found us asleep at home and will continue to find us inadequately prepared unless we muster more strength and more wisdom. Unless we break with illusionary democracy mongering, inept handling of our military resources and self-defeating domestic political debates, we are in danger of becoming our own worst enemy.” I have not always agreed with Alex or supported his views, but in this instance I think he hits the head of the nail squarely.
The next day, another interesting news article was published.
“Iraq: Go Deep or Get Out”
by Stephen Biddle
Washington Post
Wednesday, July 11, 2007; Page A15
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W6RH0290D4556059C0E39314122600
The title of the article fair well says it. I have been a persistent, vocal and aggressive denouncer of half-measures or proportional response [72, 129, 140, 162, et al]. I was skeptical of the President’s so-called “surge” and saw it more as a knee-jerk political maneuver rather than a serious military initiative [265, 267, 271], and yet, General Petraeus appears to be having some success in dealing with the al-Qaeda in Iraq elements. Although I have no direct evidence of successful counter-insurgency operations, as yet, there are signs of positive results, such as the engagement of Sunni tribal operatives against al-Qaeda in al-Anbar province. The President has chosen his course, and we are still not in a “Go Deep” mode. We probably will not get there unless another serious 9/11 attack refocuses the Nation. President Bush is incapable and the present Congress is unwilling to do what must be done to win the Battle for Iraq.

Last week’s Update [291] presented a couple of examples of biased Press reporting that played to the emotions of ill-informed citizens. This week, we can add another example; this time from James Taranto’s Best of the Web Today (11.7.07) regarding the consequences of his so-called “Roe Effect” – referring to the Supreme Court’s controversial Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] decision. In his article, he stated, “It was in 1973 that the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, found a ‘constitutional’ right to abortion, effectively legalizing the practice nationwide.” If you have never read Roe v. Wade, I think it would be easy to assume that Taranto (et al) is correct, i.e., the Court declared abortion was legal. While that may have been the consequence, the ruling actually focuses upon and deals with a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and within that context with a woman’s freedom of choice regarding certain biological/physiological functions within her body. I would argue that Roe v. Wade is predominately about a citizen’s right to privacy and of course the converse of the topic being the State’s authority to impose upon the private lives and conduct of its citizens. None of us would ever know that by listening to James Taranto and others. Lastly, please do not take my word over Taranto’s; I urge every citizen to go read the controversial opinion and decide for yourself. All I ask is, do not be swayed, mislead or colored by anyone, who seems quite comfortable painting a skewed picture.

In the same issue of the Best of the Web Today and based on a Times-Picayune article by Bruce Alpert, titled “Larry Flynt catches another L[ouisian]a politician,” Taranto lays into the hypocrisy of the hypocrisy surrounding Senator David Vitter of Louisiana and Hustler Magazine Publisher Larry Flynt’s claim of outing Vitter regarding the DC madam telephone records exposé. Taranto stated, “Prostitution is illegal because it is wrong, not the other way around,” which got me to thinking again. Yeah, yeah, I know . . . that’s a very dangerous thing. Anywho . . . I know why prostitution is illegal, but why is prostitution wrong? Oh sure, I recognize and acknowledge that our Puritan society has a long hate relationship with anything sexual, and thus prostitution must be a bad thing. Our Christian heritage condemns anything and anyone sexual outside a church-sanctioned, monogamous, procreation-only activity. Nonetheless, I am compelled to ask why? Why is prostitution wrong? We can certainly point to the negative products -- the destruction -- associated with illegal prostitution, but would those same products plague us if the process was legal, regulated, protected and supported? My answer: no! Like so many of the sinful activities (gambling, substance abuse, alcohol use, dancing, et al), prostitution is wrong because we make it wrong. I have been to Nevada many times, where prostitution is legal (well except Clark County [Las Vegas] and Washoe County [Reno]), along with several countries where it is condoned, if not legal; and, I have never felt the need or urge to partake of those readily available services. To my knowledge, such that it is, the legal brothels suffer none of the negative products . . . well, other than they have satisfied customers and no one was hurt or abused . . . well, other than those whose sense of propriety is offended by such sinful conduct. We must rethink our laws regarding the sinful pursuits like prostitution and recognize the freedom is too important to be cast aside so easily. Moral projection into the private lives of individual citizens is a cancer that will consume us.

Gambling has become a big, touchstone issue here in Wichita and Kansas in general. We have a local election coming up in four weeks; the question of whether to allow a casino in the county will be placed before the voters. As is so often the case with sinful topics, the "anti" crowd seems to have a loud and dominant voice; after all, being against sin is a good and popular thing. The “pro” folks, more often than not, do not want to attract attention, and thus, do not speak out. So it is with this latest local opinion column.
"Gambling would harm Wichita's quality of life"
by Jon Rolph
Wichita Eagle
Thursday, 12.July.2007; Page 7A
I certainly laud Jon's candor and confidence in sharing his family's tragic experience with gambling. Contributors to his humble forum have shared their family's experience with sinful pursuits. [127-8] We can see the pain that comes to those who love the ‘seductees’ of sins like gambling. Yet, gambling, as with other sinful pursuits, is a matter of individual choice. And, as with many forms of entertainment, recreation, or personal activities, the vast majority can enjoy the pleasure without excess, while a few succumb to the intoxication as with other sinful exercises – alcohol, prostitution, psychotropic substances, pornography, et al. Then, because a few individuals cannot control their urges, we pass laws to prohibit such activities for every citizen, and make the attraction illegal for those so inclined, thus creating a criminal sub-culture with all its collateral negative consequences. Naturally, politicians, the Press, government officials, and community moralists and activists point to the negative elements and say “see, I told you so” – a self-fulfilling prophesy. I reject John Rolph’s emotional argument and choose to side with the individual citizen. We can deal with the abusers in a different manner without imposing restrictions upon all citizens. Self control is an essential element of liberty and our pursuit of Happiness. Let us acknowledge the importance of freedom and keep the State focused on true criminal conduct rather than induced criminal activity created by these prohibitions. We have only to examine the consequences of the 18th Amendment (alcohol prohibition) to see what happens when we try to prohibit private conduct. Hopefully, reason will prevail over the emotionalism of moral projection, and we can allow citizens to have a safe, proper environment for their pursuit of Happiness.

The recent public debate among fellow citizens regarding the proposed casino referendum raised an important point. Questions are put the voters either because it is prudent to do so, or because the legislature failed to arrive at a consensus, or a constitutional amendment required affirmation by the citizenry. How the question is framed can have a profound impact on the outcome. An opinion poll or editorial/opinion page submittal allows a citizen to express their personal view of any particular topic. Unfortunately and regrettably, far too many citizens view a vote in the same context. In this instance, we say, I do not approve of gambling; I think it is sin; therefore, I will vote against allowing a casino to be built and operated in my county. The question should be whether I should impose my view on every citizen in the county, or do I feel strongly enough that I would accept the citizens of the county requiring me to go gamble at the casino? If not, then we probably should not fall victim to the seduction of moral projection.

In the “ah well, what do you know” category (that is the exclamatory vice interrogative version), the U.S. Senate finally confirm Judge Janet T. Neff, of Michigan, to be U.S. District Judge (vote: 83-4-13). You may recall that Janet Neff’s nomination ran aground last year [254, 263] when Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas learned that Janet attended a confirmation ceremony of a family friend, who happened to be homosexual. Judge Neff has now been confirmed without the demands sought by dear ol’ Sam. I look forward to reading Judge Neff’s opinions, and I suspect she will be a worthy judicial practitioner. Just in case you might be interested, dear ol’ Sam voted nay.

Carry-over comments from Update no.290:
"I learned leadership from men who I came to respect and admire for Their leadership abilities, and techniques. And the results they got. Whether or not it all got THEM further on up the ladder.
"George W, (who I voted twice for), has his hat in the right corner of the ring in many ways, though does not know how to wear it, and so screws up. But in other ways he is just flat wrong! The 'Good Ole Boy' Texas mentality -- which goes WAY back, is Gospel to him. And it is biting him in the ass. And us too!! His choices for key positions in his administration have often been disastrous -- maybe because those choices were in fact not really qualified to do the job they were hired for.
"But they made it past the Congressional hearings. And how was that possible? Politics. The give and take, scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, the trading of votes for or against any particular measure, the allowing of items to be added to a Bill which have not one tiny bit to do with the Bill's intent, etc, etc, etc.
"But you can bet your best saddle and harness that ALL appointed, regardless of performance, have made a lot of $$$ in one way or another. That's how the game works. It seems to work that way in the highest echelons of big business too. CEO's paid multi-millions, even though they FAILED in their job.
"I think it (GW etc) will cost us Republicans the 2008 elections. Including the White House. The most prominent sharks of the Liberals are smelling blood in the water and moving in for the kill.
"SO -- has GW been 100% the President we elected him to be? Hell no!! Why?
"Partly because he is not as savvy as his Dad was. Partly because he is not as bright as many of his predecessors were, nor as politically competent. Partly because he is bullheaded, and follows the course he set well after all credible critics have spoken out that it is not the right way to go.
"THAT is NOT the sign of a good leader!!!
"Maybe more later. But we conservatives are in trouble in this country, and THAT trouble comes ultimately from the top -- trickling down.
"The real Buck does stop at the Oval Office, as Harry Truman (a Democrat BTW) said, so long ago."
My response:
Loyalty without performance is self-destructive . . . that is one of W's errors. Rummie had the right idea to transform the military in peacetime; he was precisely the wrong SecDef for wartime and especially this particular war . . . just as numb-nuts McNamara was in our wartime. Gonzales may be a loyal friend, but he is a lousy Attorney General. Every leader's primary responsibility is finding good lieutenants. Loyalty is only one factor in the equation of balance, kinda like weight or cost in aircraft design. When a leader favors loyalty over other factors, the balance is unstable. And, a leader must place the mission of the unit above personal relationships. Rummie should have been replaced circa mid-2002, if not sooner, when it became obvious he would continue to browbeat the professional military and try to fight a complex war on the cheap. W’s loyalty to Rummie clouded his judgment. W. has numerous faults; this is one.
Indeed, the Democrats are smelling blood in the water. Yet again, W. brought this on himself and his political party in no small measure by his arrogance and lack of political sophistication. He could have learned valuable lessons from history by studying the political actions of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill; neither of them was perfect, and yet both manage bipartisan coalitions in wartime. W. has failed in one of his essential wartime tasks as the leader of the Nation . . . to mobilize, coalesce and focus the will of this Grand Republic. He squandered the unanimity of the country in the years after 9/11.
History will not be kind to W. Whether W’s missteps will sweep the Democrats into the White House and a decisive majority in both chambers of Congress is debatable and yet to be seen. I hope not. We will trade the fiscal insanity of W’s first six years for a different fiscal insanity. Neither seems particularly attractive. I would rather have paralysis than the arrogance and audacity of partisan decisiveness given the ridiculous performance of both major political parties. Let them turn isolationist and prepare our medical community for the destruction surely to come to us; we will survive; and, cynically, another 9/11 or two will overcome the disgusting political partisanship.

Comments and contributions from Update no.291:
"I am conflicted on the Scooter fiasco. I agree that following Clinton's lead is an untenable path. One thing I am sure of is that 'Justice for All' is often 'Justice for those who can afford it . . .'
"Even a 'drunken sailor' will eventually run out of money. Our politicians don't seem to grasp that concept. And, the creation of fear to promote an agenda with fiscal irresponsibility is across the board for the most part. Just look at the nonsense being promoted about global warming. Reputable science does not support the alarmist agenda no matter how hard they scream. Take a look at this article from Real Clear Politics, a website that publishes both sides and even sometimes common sense. But no matter how clear the real science evidence may be, alarmists who use visceral positions left their intellect at the door long ago. It will be an expensive mistake to fall prey to the fear. I vote for intellect.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/global_warming_is_so_yesterday.html
My reply:
I’m not so conflicted on Libby. I don’t think it matters a hoot what he was lying about; he lied to the Grand Jury. That is serious stuff. Our choices are:
1.) tell the truth to the best of our ability,
2.) refuse to answer and take the contempt charge, or
3.) fain poor memory and pray they don’t find hard evidence in the paper or electronic files.
He did “none of the above;” he lied. The Press and the uber-Left love to play this up as a conviction in the Valerie Plame pseudo-leak case, but it is NOT! He perjured himself, plain and simple. The topic could have been who stole the cookies.
I am conflicted about global warming. I try to listen and understand both sides. On one hand, the notion that we puny little humans could affect global weather is audacious in the extreme. And yet, the reduction of the Artic ice cap and Greenland ice sheet is evident. However, they could be normal Earth cycles. All that aside and as I’ve stated before, any reason to get us to be smarter about our finite resources seems prudent to me. The fear, as you note, is over-reaction. Where is the balance?
Round 2:
"My conflict over Libby is not his lying, that is clear. It is the entire affair and other people culpable to be brought to justice.
"I am, however, not conflicted about global warming alarmists. The scientific evidence that is solid science should be the guide. Junk science and agendas, however, are ruling the day. Like you I think prudence is a good thing regardless."
. . . my reply to Round 2:
In that sense of the background to the Libby affair, I share your conflict. The whole Joe Wilson -- Valerie Plame kerfuffle was a stinky, political, bogus, nonsense affair. Wilson sought to use his wife's employment as his political cover for a purely political action. I have condemned Joe Wilson's “mission” from the get-go [169]. However, just like the U.S. attorney firing episode, both situations were handled ineptly . . . almost as if the administration intentionally sought confrontation, like a bully on the playground. Yes, I certainly agree, this disgusting brouhaha was a tempest in a thimble, not even a teapot, but Libby’s faux pas and the administration’s foolish conduct made this story into what it is.
I am wary of the embellished, emotional inflation of incidental events. Greenland is called Greenland for a reason. And yet, in my lifetime and in contemporary history, Greenland has had a thick ice sheet. That ice sheet is melting. I would be foolish to have no apprehension regarding those facts. Nonetheless, we must wean ourselves off fossil fuels for a host of reasons. I would rather not have economic conflagration as the motivator.
Round 3:
"Finding a clean, renewable source of energy as soon as possible is imperative. I presume you are concerned about sea levels concerning Greenland. I realize that as a behavioral scientist and trained skeptic, I am a novice in climate science other than my Marine F-4 pilot days watching and studying the weather. Anyway, here's what I learned by paying attention to credible scientists and evidence including NASA and Los Alamos scientists (two groups of credible scientists). While Greenland's west coast is melting some, the inland glaciers are growing. The growing ones get no attention. Greenland was warmer in medieval times when Vikings grew things there. Essentially, if sea levels are going to rise, Greenland and Antarctica will be the cause and Antarctica is not warming. Greenland was warmer in the 1920s that it is today and was warming at a faster rate.
"We live in climate cycles that vary around the earth over time. Apparently, our ability to discern it is troubling given the "global cooling" scare of the 70s noted in Newsweek in 1975 and again in 1992. What we get from alarmists are exaggerated statements devoid of intellect. The website www.CO2Science.org is a worthy place to read a more reasoned perspective. It is the online location for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change where reality is separated from rhetoric.
"Regardless, while you and I may differ a little in our reasoning for why, finding a renewable source of energy that is clean and cheap is a required pursuit for our survival. And, I'd rather we invest our resources in that pursuit as opposed to feeding the alarmist agenda. If we follow good science and avoid visceral hyperbole, then we can do something about it. We'd better be right on this one."
. . . my reply to Round 3:
Actually, I doubt we differ much at all. The audacity of ego-centric arrogance is staggering . . . to think we can alter the climate of the Earth. And, we are basing much of our alarm on 100 years of spotty data to represent millions of years of climate change, and predominately 30 years of detailed data collection. I struggle to reconcile any of it.
. . . and the contributor's closing comment:
"We are on the same page. More people need to get there so we can get on with the business of finding effective solutions and skip the nonsense."

Another contribution:
"In your update, you cited a quotation from an unknown source regarding the runaway spending that has become the hallmark of both parties. I won't claim to know the origin of the author of those sentiments, but I will point your attention toward certain philosophers who understood very well the dangers of popular government and fiscal responsibility as contradictory. Plato, Aristotle, John Stuart Mill, and even Karl Marx noted how citizens of popularly chosen governments would eventually seek only to aggrandize their own economic security UNLESS a solid attention to the welfare of the whole community held sway. Closer to home, Publius (the aggregate author of The Federalist) understood this, as well."
My response:
The problem with the quote I used is: 1.) there are conflicting attributions with no clear path to resolution, and 2.) the thoughts expressed show up in various forms as you illuminate. I tried my best to settle the attribution issue; what I published is the best I could manage in the time I had.
In the context of my usage, Publius = Mark Alexander, the editor/publisher of the Patriot Post; he plays on the aggregate Publius of Federalist fame.


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

09 July 2007

Update no.291

Update from the Heartland
No.291
2.7.07 – 8.7.07
To all,
A Nation at war makes the celebration of America’s Independence Day all the more poignant and dramatic. The Wichita Eagle published the Declaration of Independence in toto with a similar thought, reflective of my view of our foundation document; we used the newspaper medium this year. Also, this year marked another milestone for our family. Our children grew up listening and then reading the Declaration of Independence word for majestic word. This year, our oldest grandchild – 10-year-old Aspen Shae – read the preamble to the family for the first time; her mother – our oldest child, Jacy Lynn – finished the list of grievances and the somber conclusion of resolve – “we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” Listening to our granddaughter read those glorious words brought an ear-to-ear grin and tears of pride to my eyes. We are blessed.
Aspen Shae reading the Declaration of Independence

The follow-up news items:
-- On Monday, President Bush commuted the prison term portion of former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby’s sentence after he was convicted by a jury of perjury and obstruction of justice. [199, 203, 270, 287] The President reportedly believed Scooter's sentence was too harsh given the underlying crime. I think the judge's sentence was on the heavy side given the crime, but the President's action, while partially beneficial to Libby, will only serve as yet one more example of elitist political patronage that thumbs its nose at We, the People. I acknowledge that the original investigation rapidly turned political, but no one directed Libby to lie to the grand jury. A contempt charge (without Executive Privilege) would have been more tolerable than perjury. No matter what placed him in that position, he chose to commit a crime that compromises our judicial processes. The appeals process is there to ensure fair and reasonable treatment. The President decided to take Libby's case above the law. I have no sympathy for Libby, and I condemn the President's injection into the judicial process. The message: political cronies are above the law -- not a good message in my book. It seems W. believes partisan political motivation is a tolerable rationale for lying to a grand jury. Just because Slick Willy Clinton did these sorts of things does not mean anyone else should; and, for someone who claimed to be so principled, this was a really bad move.
-- In last week's Update [290], I referred to the unusual number of 5-4 Supreme Court decisions. Thanks to Linda Greenhouse at the New York Times, who took the time to count those rulings, we have some interesting statistics. Of the 68 spring term opinions, an unusually high number – 24 (35%) – were decided by a narrow 5-4 margin; of those, 19 were fully polarized along ideological lines. Further, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy voted with the majority is all of the 5-4 cases; and he dissented only twice in all 68 cases. Since Kennedy appears to be assuming the role as the swing vote, much as Sandra O’Connor did in her day, we can expect more conservative opinions as he seems to be ideologically to the right of O’Connor.

A year ago, I acknowledged and offered my opinion on the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, in the case of American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency [Case No. 06-CV-10204] regarding the government’s warrantless surveillance program. [245] On Friday, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court decision in ACLU v. NSA (Nos. 06-2095/2140), based on plaintiffs’ lack of standing, i.e., the plaintiffs did not demonstrate injury or impact from the program. I do not need to take us into another court ruling of standing, similar to Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation . [290] Yet, based on the Supreme Court’s Hein ruling, I suspect the 6th Circuit’s ACLU v. NSA decision will not exceed the Court’s Hein standing criterion, and thus will likely stand without Supreme Court intervention. The exception might hang upon an overriding concern regarding the definition of the President’s War Powers, but I suspect not. In addition to recognizing the 6th Circuit’s proper decision, I must illuminate a news article written by Associated Press Writer Lisa Cornwell, titled: “Court rejects Ohio domestic spying suit.” She chose to set the tone for her news article by focusing on the political party of the president who appointed the circuit judges to the appeals court bench. We appear destined to further politicize and polarize the Judicial Branch and the judicial process. As Cornwell implies, she apparently believes politics are more relevant than the legal arguments. Further, I can find no evidence that she has read either of the court decisions or even cares about the law involved. Since many folks do not take the time to read these legal epistles, reporters like Cornwell can effectively and seriously color any judicial ruling. Such is the case here. Forewarned is forearmed. The federal level judges tend to be a rather independent lot, and I truly believe that politicization of the Federal Judiciary does a significant disservice to this Grand Republic. I reject Cornwell’s rendering of the 6th Circuit’s ACLU v. NSA ruling.

Here is another thought that came to me . . . fiscal conservative . . . can any politician claim that label? I doubt it. Those who claim the ideology are far more likely to be fiscally conservative with everyone else's spending, but not their own grotesque spending. Based on popular information, I cannot find such an animal. They all spend the public treasure like drunken sailors . . . every damn one of them . . . and such an accusation does a serious disservice to honorable sailors. These weak politicians cannot stop their largesse; they all do it; they seek their share for their constituents – it is a vicious vortex that proves too strong for these weak men to extricate themselves. And, We, the People, pay the price for their lack of fiscal responsibility and accountability. In a quotation I find particular coherent and resonant:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
-- attribution unknown (several attempts at attribution have failed to coalesce)
Despite the lack of a clear, unequivocal progenitor for the quotation, the premise seems quite reasonable, logical and appropriate. We cannot continue the insanity of secret, attached earmarks and unchecked spending, especially in the face of so many failures to deal with the serious fiscal threats we face – social security, health care, unconstrained illegal immigration, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum.

In the aftermath of last week’s flurry of Supreme Court rulings, coupled with a long standing frustration in my inability to engage a respected constitutional scholar within my sphere of friends regarding certain fundamental rights, I continue my rumination on one central puzzling and essential question. How are we to view the boundary between public and private, and the hierarchy of relationships between the individual citizen and the various levels of government instituted to serve the People? The 6th Circuit’s ACLU v. NSA ruling, noted above, adds to the body of law associated with the relationship between the State and any particular individual citizen. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote 172 years ago, “Within these limits, the power vested in the American courts of justice of pronouncing a statue to be unconstitutional forms one of the most powerful barriers that have ever been devised against the tyranny of political assemblies.” That reality has certainly become more striking in the last 60 years. We can look at a growing number of cases where one group of Americans see judicial activism or legislation by judicial fiat, while at the very same time, another group of Americans see the Court as their only protector, their only defender . . . the only bulwark against the oppression of a willful majority using the instruments of State to further their aims. While the following list is most assuredly not exhaustive or all-inclusive, these cases represent the dilemma we face.
Sipuel v. University of Oklahoma [332 U.S. 631 (1948)], racial discrimination;
McCollum v. Board of Education [333 U.S. 203 (1948)], school prayer;
Brown v. Board of Education [347 U.S. 483 (1954)], racial integration;
Griswold v. Connecticut [381 U.S. 479 (1965)], citizen’s right to privacy;
Loving v. Virginia [388 U.S. 1 (1967)], racial equality;
Stanley v. Georgia [394 U.S. 557 (1969)], privacy;
Swann v. Charlotte Board of Education [402 U.S. 1 (1971)], forced busing;
Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)], privacy and freedom of choice;
Carey v. Population Services International [431 U.S. 678 (1977)], privacy and choice;
Romer v. Evans [517 U.S. 620 (1996)], homosexual rights;
Lawrence v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003)], privacy;
Gonzales v. Oregon [546 U.S. 243 (2006)], right to die with dignity;
All of these cases, along with several of last week’s decisions, share a common theme – the rights of the individual versus the power of the State. So much seems to hinge upon the political interpretation of the seldom cited 9th Amendment.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The words are simple and direct as well as expansive, and yet, I think the Court fears the words of the 9th Amendment and the potential consequences of too liberal an interpretation. The fundamentalists see the cases noted above as judicial activism -- defining rights of the people not expressly provided within the Constitution. As a consequence, lacking constitutional definition, the laws passed by Congress and the states establish the rights of the People. Further, since the rights "retained by the people" in the 9th Amendment are not precisely defined or established, then the Court has no place or authority to define those rights. Such logic implicitly creates the primacy of federalism rather than the People or even the states. Associate Justice David Souter’s dissenting opinion in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. [290] got me thinking. We read the English language of these judicial rulings, and we understand the meaning through the lens of our beliefs in the primacy of the individual or of the State. So it is when we view pivotal cases like Brown, Griswold, Roe, et al. I believe in the individual -- each and every citizen. This Grand Republic depends upon the individual citizen -- good, bad and ugly. We must have faith.

Another clear example of contrasted, or I would say slanted, press reporting can be found in several newspaper articles. The topic is: Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. 551 U.S. ___ (2007)] (06-969). For those so inclined in this exercise, I offer this article:
“Unfree Speech”
by Robert J. Samuelson
Washington Post
Wednesday, July 4, 2007; Page A15
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W6RH029DCD0BD059C0E3931507AC70
I offered my opinion in last week’s Update [290], and some related thoughts as noted above. If you wish to develop your own opinion of the ruling, here is the link:
Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (06-969)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=06-969
Samuelson struggles with the meaning of the conflicted ruling. He concludes his article, "Politics requires money. Try to purge politics of money and politics is crippled. Free speech's value is not only a diversity of views; it is also the ability of people to contest those views. The only desirable controls are contribution disclosures. Let people see who's giving to whom. Free speech involves no right to secret speech. Otherwise, recognize that campaign finance 'reform' is a dagger in the First Amendment." Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? The key, in my humble, novice opinion, lays in the dissenting and concurring opinions of Associate Justices David Souter and Antonin Scalia, respectively, in the FEC v. WRL decision. Congress has struggled with the adverse consequences and impact of "concentrated wealth" on the electoral and representative processes, thus, the feeble attempt of McCain-Feingold. The Court's struggle with finding the proper balance in our most fundamental processes of governance and protection from the corrupting influence of "concentrated wealth" can be seen in the FEC v. WRL ruling. I am not arguing in favor of McCain-Feingold, but I am most assuredly arguing against the corruption of "concentrated wealth." Nonetheless, as with Cornwell's rendering of ACLU v. NSA above, so it is with Samuelson's version of FEC v. WRL. We cannot continue down our present path; we must recognize the corrupting influence of money; I would rather do something than add campaign financing to the list of irreconcilable issues. And, writing like Cornwell and Samuelson keeps me motivated to continue reading these court rulings, to understand and appreciate the significance of these judicial pronouncements.

Another newspaper article offers up an interesting history debate.
"Why Winston Wouldn't Stand For W --
George W. Bush always wanted to be like a wartime British prime minister. He is. But it's not the one he had in mind."
by Lynne Olson
Washington Post
Sunday, July 1, 2007; Page B01
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W6RH029DCD7A9059C0E3931507AC70
Olson's contention is George W. Bush is more like Neville Chamberlain than Winston Churchill. Olson makes an interesting argument with good facts, at least those he chooses to use to make his point. He is, of course, correct in the perspective he offers. However, a contrary perspective can also be presented, as is so often the case. I am not a defender of W's mistakes, missteps or failures; he and his administration have made them. However, given the nature and character of our enemy, I am thankful he took a resolute, determined, focused commitment to the War on Islamic Fascism. To ignore W's successes is to tell only half the story. Franklin Roosevelt made his share of mistakes. Churchill was not perfect, and neither is George W. Bush. Regardless, there is a war going on, and there is a war to fight.

In the on-line Patriot Post of 15.June.2007 (vol.07, no.24), Publius wrote,

“Dr. Jim Lee, a pastor and director of Living Free ministries, writes that the Christian marriage paradigm is built on a foundation of five principles:
first, God is the creator of the marriage relationship;
second, heterosexuality is God’s pattern for marriage;
third, monogamy is God’s design for marriage;
fourth, God’s plan for marriage is for physical and spiritual unity; and
fifth, marriage was designed to be permanent.”
I thought about letting this pass . . . too sensitive and too controversial, but I am obstinate and opinionated enough to take the shot. I have no intention of arguing God's plan. To Christians and Jews, Lee’s version of marriage is readily identifiable and acceptable; to other religions, less so. As free and independent citizens, each of us is guaranteed the right to our religious beliefs. Yet, the part I find offensive emanates from the implication of Lee’s words and the underlying faith of the nation. Our national motto “In God We Trust” in combination with Lee’s definition means anyone who does not agree with his rendition must not believe in the principles of this Grand Republic and is defying God’s plan; therein lies my objection. If we separate the interest of the State from the religious beliefs of a Christian pastor, we can take a broader, more tolerant and expansive view of what is the most personal and intimate of human relationships. I return to an earlier suggestion [116, 166, 284] . . . let us put things in their proper perspective. Unfortunately, the emotions involved with mixing church and State, as implicit in Lee’s words, corrode and contaminate the proper public debate.

The Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland approved a new sex-education curriculum for 8th and 10th graders that reportedly acknowledges homosexuality but goes no farther. There are conflicting reports whether this decision is from the Maryland State Board of Education or the Montgomery County Board as reported by the Washington Post; I believe the Post is correct. The supposedly Christian, American Family Association (AFA) expectedly puts a clearly homophobic spin on the school board’s decision, claiming that the State of Maryland is superseding parental rights, and promoting homosexuality and the so-called homosexual agenda. Interesting spin! I can find nothing in the publicly available information on this subject that even remotely substantiates or validates the AFA contention. To ignore homosexuality or gender identity in sex education is to ignore the facts and reality of life. I have faith that one day we shall back away from and overcome the emotionalism and mysticism of ignorance. The State of Maryland may not have it correct, but at least they are trying.

Comments and contributions from Update no.290:
“As the SC's term comes to an end in a flurry of pronouncements, what I find most surprising and interesting is their willingness to take on the Gitmo question in the next term.
“Most of this term's decisions split 5 to 4, not a huge surprise, as Bush's latest appointments feel their way among a group of more seasoned Justices. I suspect that Roberts will be an asset to the Court for many decades, but I also suspect that the general election of 2008 will force him to reconsider his approach to the Constitution. Those on the 4 side will hang on until the next president's inauguration to announce their resignation, unless, of course, they die by the side of the road before then. Because as polls seem to indicate, the next president will not be a member of the GOP.
“Our Constitution has endured through some truly atrocious decisions that flew in the face of the written word(s). Your most recent contribution to the ongoing discussion of America's political system identify the most well-known of those decisions, but they don't really address how far afield we have come from 1789 that we rely on the decisions of nine people to somehow bolster and affirm or undermine and deny the decisions of legislatures at the state and federal level.
“We live in a form of popular government that has never been equaled in world history, and yet, too many people in this country are willing to abrogate their responsibilities as citizens of the United States. A reliance on the ‘Supremes,’ as you call them, smacks of ancient reliance on the wisdom and prescience of demi-god-like beings informed by a special relationship with the deity.
“The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address and numerous other formative documents are available to all Americans. They are short and readable. I suggest that we all read them, make decisions based on our reading and abandon our reliance on the federal judiciary to make decisions for us.
“Read, absorb and write your representatives at every level. Talk to your neighbors and your co-workers to form a consensus. And on July 4, celebrate that we are unique in the world. That we have the opportunity to continue a discussion of ideas begun in July, 1776.”
My response:
On to a couple of different thoughts . . . we seems to be missing as essential baseline of citizenship. And, we have confused, or allowed to be confused, the relationship between the baseline citizenship and governance. Most of my objections seem to sprout from this caldron of conflict. Perhaps someday, we shall achieve a proper, reasonable and stable relationship, but we are a long way from that state. As we have seen graphically demonstrated, those who seek positions of political power are predominately self-serving, ego-centric and to various degrees corrupt. The two dominant political parties serve up flavors of corruption, but corruption nonetheless. They spew forth into the public domain information that should be confidential, and they keep secret information that should be public . . . all for one purpose – selfish political partisanship and retention of power. Politicians are certainly NOT serving the People. As has been written in his forum, the rumblings of revolution can be heard. In my naïveté, I truly believe that one day we shall actually achieve Lincoln’s ideal – “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” We have strayed from the path to that ideal. And, while I certainly agree with your view of the Supremes, I see them as the only, albeit flawed, bulwark against a willful majority bent upon subjugation of those who do not subscribe to their dictates. Until we achieve a basic equality and respect for every citizen’s Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness, we shall not know peace. We have few protections . . . case in point, the obscenity of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, et al. Thus, my irrational, dogged insistence upon a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy beyond the paucity of any constitutional reference, among other elements of that baseline.
. . . with this reply:
"But here is what this is really about. We have a whole bunch of morons out there who have adjusted history and philosophy and documents to support their understanding of America. It doesn't matter what the controversial issue is--proponents pronounce and proclaim the most egregious misrepresentation of history and our founding documents. Unlike most Americans, I have read the documents and studied the history--over and over and over again--because that is part of the rite of passage to being a responsible citizen.
"Sadly, citizenship in this country does not depend on responsibility. Like parenthood, Americans largely fall into it. It is a sad commentary that most of our naturalized citizens know more about American history and American government than the native-born.
"Maybe what we need is a confirmation process for all Americans at the age of 18. Failure to identify the three branches of government identified in the Constitution will result in temporary citizenship.
"Of course, I am one of these strange people that believes in mandatory service to the country for all high school graduates. God, I am a dinosaur!"
. . . to which I add this response:
National service . . . a citizenship qualification process . . . yea verily; I can support that . . . and, you are certainly not a dinosaur, but rather a concerned citizen, indeed. Too many of our citizens choose complacency . . . to follow their flock like sheep, or perhaps more appropriately, like lemmings. I would like to claim altruistic motives for the time it takes to listen, read and write the weekly Update, but mixed in there are my curiosity, need to learn, and my enjoyment of a vigorous, public debate. Among my many fears as a citizen are the growing influence of dysfunctional federalism, the corrosive consequences of moral projection into our private lives, and the paucity of parental responsibility and accountability. I keep plugging away. We are a long way from stable, proper, functional governance. We have been through rough patches and convulsive growing pains before, I have faith we shall endure and survive this phase of our evolution as well.
Happy Independence Day. “We hold these truths to be self-evidence . . .” magnificently glorious words; and, the principles they represent have stood us in good stead for 231 years. May God bless America.

Another contribution:
"'Manage things, Lead People.' Adm Grace Hopper.
"It's a philosophy I tried to follow, even Well before I even KNEW that that was what I was trying to do -- throughout my career in the Marines. I didn't always do it as well as I'd wanted to do in some situations, and in fact failed, in MY opinion, a couple times, But in others I did pretty well -- even VERY well at least a few times. That applies to both sides of that philosophy.
"But the point is that I never ever gave up on that philosophy. It is one worth believing in for Military folks. Probably for most others too.
"On Criticism: As I got more senior in the Marine Corps and had jobs of Commanding Officer or high ranking staff officer, I found that my subordinates, with few exceptions, were very reluctant to "criticize" my thoughts, opinions, and certainly my decisions. We Marines are trained from early on to say no more than yes sir, aye, aye, very well, sir, etc, when a commander makes a decision. BUT -- that is not always the right thing to do -- in MY opinion. It certainly CAN be in the heat of battle when the commander makes his decision. But back in the command in the states, the CO needs every bit of intelligence, every bit of opinion, every idea, and every voice from his/her subordinates, in order to make the hopefully best decision. Unfortunately, as an officer advances thru the ranks, the junior officers willing to speak out become fewer. So the Commander gets, as HE gets more senior, less and less honestly felt advice from his subordinates. Thus being sometimes forced to make a decision which Might not have been the best one available or possible.
"But unfortunately it is now the decision from the Commander. It will be carried out. And, because, at least in the Marine Corps, all Junior Commanders, right on down to a Fire Team or Squad Leader in the Junior Enlisted ranks have the right and authority to change an order from above because the circumstances have changes or at least are not the same as anticipated. It is always, in the Corps, the commander or leader on the ground, up front, and in the middle of it, who has the authority. I think this philosophy is perhaps unique to the Marine Corps as a whole Service, though may be the same in certain very specialized parts of other Services. Military folks will know what I mean.
"I cannot say if Bush was wrong in vetoing the stem cell legislation. I have not been keeping up with the specifics of it. I do, however, believe in the principle of stem cell research, as a way to further our abilities to help people in the future.
"Standing behind your man: Is Gonzales a Texas man? Is Peter Pace? Sometimes I think our President's loyalties are based on who they are, where they came from, and why he appointed them, rather than any sort of reasonable/logical thought.
"Where can I get Tom Rick's book, Fiasco? I already know him as a brilliant interpreter of what is actually happening or what Has happened in various dangerous times past. Plus his superb account of what goes in to making a Marine. And from what you've said, Tom says in a much better way than I ever could have, just what I was saying, and now cannot seem to find since I changed computers, back just before Bush actually made the decision to invade Iraq. One piece published on the GoLakeChelan website, but now apparently lost. I said then that we could no doubt defeat the Iraqis, and bring down Saddam. But then what? I'd been a participant in the beginning, the middle, and the end (very end) of the Vietnam War. I felt that we were going to get ourselves into another Vietnam -- in whatever form that might take. Win the battle, so to speak, but then lose the war in the end. Because there was no REAL and viable geopolitical strategy, which would take into account that just like the orientals, these more radical, and determined middle eastern peoples can and will fight for years, or even centuries, to win. While WE always look for the short time solution and cannot seem to stay the course for very long. If we don't win it soon, then get out. What is it President Nixon called it as we left Vietnam? 'Peace With Honor.' BULLSHIT!!!
"I think that has happened."
My response:
The phenomenon of less criticism with higher rank exists in the corporate world just as it does in the military. I think, in many cases, it is the tone set by the commander or executive. I've seen the process far too many times . . . the executive wants candid, straight-up advice, and then bites the head off the first guy to offer a serious criticism; puts the damper on further proffered criticism. The higher you go, the harder you must work to encourage constructive criticism and dissent.
Well, I can say that W. is wrong on embryonic stem cell research. I am certainly not an expert, but I know enough to have an opinion and to argue in favor of federal support of and involvement with embryonic stem cell research.
Alberto Gonzales and W. go way back. Peter Pace was not of that group. Unfortunately, W. seems to be far more consumed by personal loyalty than by performance and leadership.
I got my copy of "Fiasco" from Amazon.com. But, I'm sure any bookstore chain, like Barnes & Noble or Borders, will have copies. I think you will see quite a bit of commonality in Tom's words, and I'm fairly certain he will tell you some things, fill in some knowledge gaps . . . sure did for me. Tom does an exceptional job articulating tragic mistakes perpetrated by Rummie, Franks, Sanchez, et al. You have the same view of Nixon's ludicrous façade for our defeat in Vietnam.
. . . to which came this reply:
"I already told you about my experiences as an ever higher ranking Commander and/or senior staff officer (perhaps more importantly in the view of my subordinates -- the Reporting Senior or possibly the Reviewing Officer on their FitReps). It took one of my finest subordinate CO's to stand up at a staff meeting and flat disagree with what I proposed to do about something. I asked him why. He told me, and backed it up with some facts and a lot of well thought out ideas. I asked for comments from others and slowly got them. In the end I changed my mind about what I would do and issued an order mostly along the lines of what my subordinates felt was the right way to go. It turned out to be right -- or at the very least far better than my idea. Why? Those officers were at least one step closer to the actual situation than I was.
"I began to slowly get more and more officers speaking up. I listened to all. I asked them questions and wanted them to show me why their way was better. They began to do that. I did not ALWAYS do what others thought best, and sometimes because of a larger picture I was privy to and they were not. But I found that ALWAYS, I got 100% backing once my decision had been made. They had had their input -- had not been left out. That's maybe all they expected. So 'Aye aye, Sir' in MY command meant it would get done, and done well. Maybe even better than I had hoped for. I never faulted a guy on a FitRep for speaking out. If I thought (which only once I did -- that what the officer was saying/proposing was a serious breach of good judgment on his part, I talked to him in private with no common knowledge among other officers that I was doing so. His FitRep never had a word about it because he made definite improvements). Anyway, I was now doing a better job as CO than I had been before my guys trusted me.
"Yes, Our Pres is wrong on the stem cell thing. I also agree with you that he is more into loyalty to friends than in performance. Seems if you were one of the Boys back in Texas, then you still are."
. . . to which I add my response:
Well said. We all handle leadership in different ways. I was driven to leave the cockpit and the controls of an aircraft to prove that you did not have to be an asshole to be successful in business. I failed. And, I lost the drive, ambition and ego for that path now. But, the fire still burns within me. I truly enjoy working with people toward a common goal. If you respect the people you work with, there is nothing that cannot be accomplished.
I wanted W. to be successful, despite his flaws and limitations. But, he has been a serious disappointment, although I still believe he did what had to be done in the War on Islamic Fascism; and yet, so many mistakes and failures. Life is what we make it.

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