28 December 2009

Update no.419

Update from the Heartland
No.419
21.12.09 – 27.12.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- On the morning of Christmas Eve, Congress moved one hurdle closer to passage of the massive health care reform legislation [227, 292, 360, 368 & sub] {Senate: HR 3590; 60-39-0-0(1)}. Now, the two chambers must reconcile the their versions into one final bill. Since the Senate amended the House bill, the House can approve the Senate amended version, or a conference committee will be charged with reconciliation, which in turn must be voted upon by both chambers. The President’s new target date – 20.January, the State of the Union report to Congress and the Nation.
-- On 18.December.2009, Iranian troops under orders from the Islamic Republic of Iran crossed the Iraqi border, took control of a producing oil well, planted the IRI flag, and claimed the well as Iranian property. Interesting! The IRI regime chose this time to make such a statement – nearly 30 years after the beginning of the Iran-Iraq War – and after the public disclosure of the IRI’s nuclear trigger research [137 et al + 418]. Could this be a test of Allied will? So it shall be . . . “Cry Havoc! and let slip the dogs of war.”

On the day Christian’s celebrate the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, we were extraordinarily lucky . . . there but for the grace of God! Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, attempted to detonate an explosive charge (sewn into his underwear) on a trans-Atlantic flight from Amsterdam [AMS / EHAM], while on approach to Detroit [DTW / KDTW]. Northwest Flight 253 – an Airbus A330-323X aircraft in Delta livery – landed safely with only minor injuries to passengers (other than the attacker). Reportedly, the perpetrator has talked freely with investigators and has claimed to be an al-Qaeda operative. He supposedly used 80 grams of explosive material – PETN (PentaErythritol TetraNitrate), a military grade explosive commonly used in Detcord or as an accelerant in high-order devices, and allegedly acquired in Yemen. Based on the material and the result, I suspect the detonator either malfunctioned or was not sufficiently intimate with the explosive material, as it burned relatively slowly rather than rapidly.

The Wall Street Journal reported on an FBI investigation into a computer-security breach at Citigroup's Citibank subsidiary that apparently resulted in a theft of tens of millions of dollars by computer hackers who appear linked to a Russian cyber-gang. I suspect there is more of this type of criminal activity we have not heard about, and I am afraid we are going to see more of these events.

News from the economic front:
-- The government revised the 3rd Quarter U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) [398, 408, 413] for the third and final time to a +2.2% annual rate– down from the +3.5% initial estimate, then revised lowered again to a +2.8%, now below the Wall Street forecasts of 2.7% growth.
-- The National Association of Realtors reported that U.S. previously owned home sales in November rose 7.4% to a 6.54M annual rate, while inventories of previously owned homes decreased by 1.3% to 3.52M units available for sale, representing a 6.5-month supply at the current sales pace.
-- Ford Motor Company announced that it is close to selling its loss-making Volvo unit to Geely Automobile – the largest private automotive company in the People’s Republic of China – and expects to close the deal in 1Q2010. Ford acquired Volvo in 1999 for US$6.45B, and needs to sell the Swedish component to raise precious cash and focus on its three core brands: Ford, Lincoln and Mercury.
-- The Commerce Department reported American personal spending rose by 0.5% in November, while incomes increased by 0.4%. Both figures came in slightly lower than economists' expectations, though the gain in income was the largest in six months. October spending was revised down to +0.6% from +0.7%, while incomes were revised up to a +0.3% from +0.2%. While the positive signs are not overwhelming, they are positive.
-- The Commerce Department also reported new single-family homes sales decreased 11.3% in November to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 355,000. Economists had estimated only a 1.2% decrease to a 425,000 annual rate.

Comments and contributions from Update no.418:
“Not sure where you were going for a while...talking about the two pilots who overflew Minneapolis and then moved on to sex. For a minute, I thought you were insinuating that instead of falling asleep or working on their laptops, other "shenanigans" were going on. And then again, that might be it.”
My reply:
The NW 188 pilots & sex . . . the thought had crossed my mind, i.e., what could have been that distracting? Laptops . . . never bought it. Asleep . . . possible, but highly unlikely for both pilots, for that long, with no apparent pre-fatigue issues. At this stage, with all the government, Press and public attention, I doubt either pilot has the courage to stand up, tell the truth, and accept the consequences, plus if it was sex, it had to be homosexual, which carries its own stigma, unfortunately.

Another contribution:
“I have pretty much reached my limit with Obama and his leftist cronies. The Copenhagen Summit was a joke. What was it I read? A non-binding agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions? Which basically means if no one feels like doing it, they won't. And for our "illustrious" SecState Hillary Clinton to just promise a 100 billion bucks to Third World nations to supposedly combat global warming. We're in the middle of a recession! And how much of that money will really go to "combat global warming?" more likely it will go into the pockets of dictators and their friends. Global warming/climate change, whatever you want to call it is a scam! There are a bunch of reports saying our planet is cooling. And no debate is allowed in the mainstream. If you're not onboard with the mantra, that global warming is caused by man and we need to wreck the economy and everyone's freedom to stop it, then you are shouted down and you must be silenced. Why are they so afraid of debate if they are so sure of their stupid stance!? Probably because they know the "science" they spew is bullcrap, and they just want to grab power for themselves. But then again, that's what happens when something goes from being an issue to being a religion, with a buffoon like Al Gore as their deity. Why can't Obama concentrate on getting our economy back on track instead of pretending to save the world and desperately trying to make everyone in Europe and the Middle East love him? Oh yeah, I have the answer. Because he's a narcissist! The world revolves around him and his wife. I can't help it, but with everything he is doing to this country, not defending us, trying to socialize everything, I have no respect for him or that troll Harry Reid or that hag Nancy Pelosi. Maybe name-calling is juvenile, but they have shown through their actions in the health care debate that they have no respect for the opinion of the American people, whom they work for, so why should I have any respect for their them?”
My response:
My opinion remains the same. I don’t really think whether the Earth is warming or cooling [as it has been doing for eons, long before hominids walked upright], or whether humans have any effect whatsoever on the temperature of the Earth, is relevant to the fact that we should not be polluting our air, water or soil. So, I conclude, for whatever reason suits each individual’s fancy, we need to clean up our act and respect the Earth. It is the only one we have . . . so far.
We can rail against the President and his policies, but he is not a dictator. He does not decide the law or make the rules. We have processes that have been tried and true for more than 200 years . . . all intended to moderate the political whimsy of the moment. I, for one, have faith in the American political system, despite its many mistakes. Those mistakes are largely self-correcting in time.
Anyway, at the end of the day . . . keep the faith. All will be right with the World . . . in time.

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

23 December 2009

Update no.418

Update from the Heartland
No.418
14.12.09 – 20.12.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
At the outset, I offer my apologies for the late distribution of this Update issue. We made an extended weekend journey to Austin, to visit our Grandson Judson James and his parents. We took our Granddaughters Aspen Shae and Shalee Lynn with us. A great time was had by all. Thank you very much, Melissa and Tyson.

The follow-up news items:
-- In furtherance of his political agenda, the Obama administration has apparently decided to repatriate six Yemeni, battlefield combatants held at the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, and may well portend additional such releases of captive battlefield combatants to achieve the President’s 22.January Executive Order [371]. My, my, I feel better already.
-- President Obama flew to Copenhagen, Denmark, to salvage the World Climate Conference [417] and reportedly achieved some “claimed” breakthrough of the loggerhead stalemate that paralyzed the conference. Obama called the emerging agreement imperfect and emphasized that no country would get everything it wants. He called the agreement a “substantial step forward.” Time shall tell the tale.
-- A couple of rather sobering articles from across the pond:
“Siemens High Tech for Tehran – German Government Probes Shipments to Iran”
Der Spiegel
Published: 14.December.2009
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,666900,00.html#ref=nlint
and
“Secret document exposes Iran’s nuclear trigger”
Catherine Philp
The Times [of London]
Published: December 14, 2009
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6955351.ece?&EMC-Bltn=EFPBO1F
Each of these news items is what I refer to as a dot. We collect dots (we have been collecting dots, in this case). Then, as best we are able, we connect the dots to see what picture emerges. Taken individually, perhaps none of the dots is particularly ominous . . . well, except the uranium deuteride, neutron initiator, nuclear trigger item; that one is threatening no matter how you cut it. As I understand the physics, there is only one purpose for uranium deuteride – and, it is not civil. I hope someone beside the Iranian regime feels good about and finds comfort in this news. I do not! I see this news much as the Israelis must see it – as the proverbial Damocles Sword hangs precariously above their head. Israel has a far lower threshold and tolerance of the very real threat from Iran [137 et al]. Each day, the Western Allies take on the image, if not the role, of whiners, frustrated and confused, who cower in the corner unable to figure out how to deal with the bully. The latest news from the Times amplifies the image. Pakistan may have been a breeding ground for Islamic-fascist fodder, but they were never state-sponsors of terrorism. The Islamic Republic of Iran rarely sends its own minions to do their dirty work, and they have become experts at encouraging and supporting other mindless, suicidal fanatics to carry out their bidding. Pakistan with nuclear weapons; we can tolerate. The IRI with nuclear weapons – unthinkable! The issue with the IRI is not their use of WMDs, but rather who they will provide the material and capability to as they continue their sponsorship of Islamo-fascist activities. The Times’ revelation certainly did not get the Press play and interest it deserves. We are talking about something that is as close to a smoking gun as you can get without with the seismic recording of the actual event.
-- A public update by our Director of National Intelligence:
“Strengthening our nation's front line of defense”
by Dennis C. Blair
Washington Post
Published: Friday, December 18, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703672.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
Denny [366] tries to give us a “warm & fuzzy” regarding his responsibilities toward the national defense and specifically the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 [PL 108-458] [343]. Oddly, our greatest intelligence weakness and vulnerability – HUMan INTelligence (HUMINT) – was not recognized or addressed. I suppose we can only hope the Intelligence Community (IC) leadership and professionals are working feverishly and purposely to fill the gap in our capabilities.
-- Mayor Adrian Fenty of the District of Columbia signed into a law a measure allowing gays and lesbians to marry [148 et al] in the city. The bill passed the City Council by a vote of 11-2. Unique to DC, the law must also pass a 30-day congressional review process before becoming effective. A long journey begins with small steps.
-- The Northwest Flight 188 incident with the supposedly laptop-distracted crew overflying their destination continues to spark attention. An Op-Ed column in Wednesday’s New York Times reminded me of work done 25 years ago.
“Pilots on Autopilot”
by Arnold Reiner
New York Times
Published: December 16, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/opinion/17reiner.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
Set aside my opinion of the pilots of NW Flt 188 [414], Reiner – a retired airline captain – raises some interesting points, not least of which includes the fundamental fallibility of human beings. In the mid-1980’s, we worked on a complex and challenging task to develop a single-pilot, advanced, attack helicopter for the U.S. Army, in an operational environment that can easily saturate two focused pilots. We created, refined and tested a highly automated flight control system that dramatically reduced the pilot’s basic flying workload, ostensibly to allow the pilot to focus more attention on the combat and situational awareness task. One of many questions posed by the Army with single pilot operations was, what happens if the pilot is injured or incapacitated? We devoted part of our development effort to working out the algorithms necessary for the “system” to alert the pilot or assume control of the aircraft in the event of incapacitation. We proved the process in advanced simulations, and by the time I left the project, we had flown parts of the program. The capability existed 25 years ago. Cockpit automation has continued to advance, which makes the implementation of those algorithms even more practical and feasible today. Whether the NW Flt 188 crew was sound asleep or jointly distracted by their laptops is irrelevant; they were essentially incapacitated as far as flight management was concerned. Arnold Reiner is correct, but he did not go far enough. We can do better.

There are a few subjects that most folks are simply uncomfortable talking about; one of those topics is sex – a natural, normal, biological function common to virtually every living thing in existence. Of the vast array of organisms and creatures, only humans and some primates can express pleasure associated with sexual activity. A couple of recent articles accentuate the dramatic contrast in the dilemma we face regarding any discussion of sex in this country and especially regarding any meaningful debate about childhood sex education.
“Obama’s risky-sex czar”
Editorial
The Washington Times
Published: Wednesday, December 9, 2009
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/09/obamas-risky-sex-czar/
The other article is:
“Parents’ Sex Talk with Kids: Too Little, Too Late”
by Alice Park
Time [magazine]
Published: Monday, December 07, 2009
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1945759,00.html, or
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091207/hl_time/08599194575900
When you read the former article first, I imagine most folks would react as I did – nope, not touching that 3rd rail with a ten-foot pole. Further, place such charged rhetoric in the context of the last administration’s insistence upon “abstinence-only” sex education [190 et al], can there be any wonder why no one wants to even mention of the words “sex” and “child” in the same sentence in any context? The first sentence of Park’s article speaks volumes. “The sex talk is never easy. It’s not comfortable for anyone involved — parents are afraid of it, children are mortified by it — which is probably why the talk so often comes after the fact.” I invariably ask myself, why? Why is it “never easy”? Why does it make us so uncomfortable? I ask these questions as points of inquiry. I shall not bore you with my opinion. Our laws, which are a reflection of our Judeo-Christian heritage, have at their root an assumption (or expectation) that sexual activity should be confined to adult, heterosexual, monogamous, state (and church) sanctioned marriage, and beyond that for procreation only. In 1897, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. observed, “It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV [1399-1413]. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past.” [notation & emphasis added] Wise and evocative words, it seems to me. Further, any sexual conduct beyond that foundation assumption invariably instigates emotionally charged epithets such as slut, whore, tramp, adulterer, pedophile, philanderer, abuser, and the like – all with the purpose of producing shame and forcing conformity to the socially acceptable norm of previous generations. Add to this, our Puritanical / Victorian notion that nudity / nakedness is inherently sexual, we have mothers who are afraid or embarrassed to breastfeed their infants; we have parents who are fearful of any progress whatsoever toward enlightenment for their children regarding matters sexual. The bottom line here, in this context, is recognition that we must amend the law and our attitudes to define proper public conduct while we remove the government / law from private family affairs. Changes such as this would allow parents to make the best decisions for their children, based on their values, without fear of retribution; the Jones’ choices do not have to agree with the Smith’s choices. Part of the public fascination with Tiger Woods’ recent difficulties springs from the need for titillation with the forbidden topic – in the guise of news, somehow it is OK for consumption. The tragedy of his private life being thrust into the Klieg lights of public scrutiny comes from our judgment of the news nuggets by the metric of our social norms, rather than as a private matter. The news suggests he stepped far beyond the norm; yet, what really matters is between a wife and husband – a private relationship. At the end of the day, unless we can convince enough citizens the law and our attitudes must change, we shall continue fumbling along condemning our children to the lottery of ill-informed choices, and somehow we feel vindication when we excoriate our neighbors for their choices. So, are we going to blindly imitate the past, or are you going to examine the basis and rationale for our laws and our standards of conduct? Clearly, I advocate for the latter, and in this topic, for a more mature, informed and interactive relationship with our children. Let us not blindly imitate the past.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed this week to hear an appeal by the City of Ontario (California) of a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Quon v. Arch Wireless, Inc. [9CCA 07-55282 (2008); D.C. no.CV-03-00199-SGL]. The Supremes view of this case could have far reaching consequences for all of us who are still employed and use electronic communications at work. The 9th Circuit held in favor of Ontario Police Sergeant Jeff Quon, that text messages sent via a police department pager were protected by a reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus the city’s search of Quon’s text messages violated his 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Circuit Judge Kim Anita McLane Wardlaw rightly observed, “The extent to which the Fourth Amendment provides protection for the contents of electronic communications in the Internet age is an open question. The recently minted standard of electronic communication via e-mails, text messages, and other means opens a new frontier in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that has been little explored.” Since oral arguments will not be heard until spring, we may not get the decision until the end of the session. We shall wait patiently to see what the Supremes think.

In my relentless endeavor to illuminate the challenge and threat we face with government encroachment upon our “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness,” I search, read, listen, argue and try to learn. Volatile, emotionally sensitive topics often thwart or deflect constructive debate. A great deal of the difficulty comes in my ability to find topics that average citizens can related to regarding the issue of the citizen versus the State, or in other terms, private versus public. My latest attempt comes from a curious and interesting Supreme Court ruling – Barnes v. Glen Theatre [501 U.S. 560 (1991)] – an Indiana case involving nude dancing and freedom of expression [1st Amendment]. The Supremes reversed the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, deciding the state could require / demand that female dancers (no mention of requirements for male dancers) wear pasties over their nipples/areolas and G-strings over their genitalia. The Supremes relied upon analysis of the O’Brien criteria {United States v. O'Brien [391 U.S. 367 (1968)]}, which states that a government regulation of a citizen’s 1st Amendment expression is sufficiently justified:
1. “if it is within the constitutional power of the Government;
2. “if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest;
3. “if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and
4. “if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.”
In Barnes, the Supremes decided the Indiana statute satisfied the O’Brien criteria; the dissenters (4) disagreed. Beyond the law, let us use this case to further the public-private debate. I think we can all agree that the State has a proper, legitimate interest in defining and regulating public conduct. Likewise, although numerous powerful and influential people adamantly disagree, I think most of us would concur that the State has no authority to enter a citizen’s home for similar moral regulation. The question to us is, where is the limit, the boundary, and how stretchable is that boundary? In Barnes, the Supremes considered the adult entertainment theater or bar as a public locale or venue, thus susceptible to State regulation. The Court declared, “Public nudity was considered an act malum en se [wrong in itself],” and noted that it had been so in English common law since 1664. Chief Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist writing for the majority stated, “Public indecency statutes such as the one before us reflect moral disapproval of people appearing in the nude among strangers in public places.” The Court saw a pay-for-entrance, adult-restricted, club, bar or “theater” as a public place. In essence, virtually any establishment other than a private home can be classified as a “public space.” Further, Rehnquist wrote, “[The Indiana nudity statute] and other public indecency statutes were designed to protect morals and public order.” Once again, I am reminded of Oliver Holmes’ wise words noted above. Fortunately, the Court has begun to tip-toe back from such an intrusive interpretation of the law. Justice O’Connor noted a decade later, “A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the State's moral disapproval of that class and the conduct associated with that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, under any standard of review” [emphasis added] – Lawrence v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003)]. We have a very long way to go in rolling back the Court’s sanction of extraordinary governmental intrusive upon our privacy all in the name of “protecting the morals” of such a fragile, immature and subvert-able citizenry. The Court was drastically wrong in Barnes. I defend absolutely the State’s interest in defining acceptable public conduct, regardless of whether any of us agrees with those public restrictions. One day, we shall return to a proper relationship between the government, and our most fundamental and precious freedoms. For what it is worth, the Court rather cavalierly validated the State’s authority and interest in suppressing a citizen’s freedom of expression; the Supremes were wrong. Unfortunately, the Indiana law (and similar laws in other states) still exist and are occasionally enforced when some socially-conservative politician, prosecutor or police chief wants to make a point that his sensitive moral values are offended and is disgusted that any other citizen might not be as morally grounded as he is. A controlled access club is not a general public location and should be regulated in accordance the associated restrictions. Nudity is quite like a loaded pistol; it hurts no one until it is used. Perhaps one day, citizens will cease peering into other folks homes and being offended by nakedness.

I found a modicum of capacity and decided to read Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s inaugural opinion as a member of the Supremes. The case – Mohawk Industries Inc. v. Carpenter [557 U.S. ___ (2009); no. 08-678] – was marginally of interest in that it dealt with an internal judicial procedural question regarding collateral order appeals of attorney-client privilege rulings – really exciting stuff. Nonetheless, I like her writing style and reasoning, even though Justice Thomas thought the Court a smidge more liberal than his liking – hard to discern the subtlety. So, Sonia gets a pass from moi, not that it really matters a hoot for nuttin’. I look forward to reading more of her work.

News from the economic front:
-- Abu Dhabi has fronted US$10B to Dubai's government, which will pay part of the debt held by conglomerate Dubai World [415] and its property unit, Nakheel. In turn Dubai authorized US$4.1B toward paying Nakheel's Islamic bond obligations. They are still a long way from the US$60B at risk.
-- Citigroup [396, 410] announced it would repay US$20B in bailout money as the bank tries to convince regulators that it is healthy enough to stand on its own. The Treasury backed away from plans to sell a portion of its stake in the banking giant. Further, the IRS has issued an exception to tax rules for the benefit of companies including Citigroup that will allow the bank to retain US$38B in tax breaks that otherwise would decline in value when the government sells its stake to private investors. I am not convinced Citigroup is stable . . . at least by the public signs.
-- Wells Fargo is selling US$10.4B in new stock to repay all US$25B in bailout aid it received from the government at the height of the market meltdown last fall. I can understand and appreciate the banks wanting to get out from under government restrictions, but doing so prematurely might well precipitate a backlash crisis.
-- The government reported that U.S. producer prices rose more than expected in November, lifted by a surge in energy costs – the first increase since November of last year.
-- Credit Suisse will pay US$536M to settle a five-year investigation involving parties subject to U.S. economic sanctions including Sudan, Syria, North Korea and Iran, and their access to the U.S. banking system. This case among others may well be one of the unsung victories in the War on Islamic Fascism . . . and against other bad people.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that a federal grand jury in Manhattan charged Raj Rajaratnam [409/10] with five counts of conspiracy and six counts of securities fraud related to the insider-trading case involving hedge fund Galleon Group. The grand jury also charged Danielle Chiesi, a former consultant to New Castle Partners LLC, with three counts of conspiracy and seven counts of securities fraud. Rajaratnam and Chiesi are also defendants in an insider-trading complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
-- Consumer prices moved higher on energy costs while most other prices were quite modest, suggesting the sluggish economic recovery will keep inflation in check in the months ahead.
-- The U.S. Federal Reserve left its target for the federal-funds rate unchanged at a range of 0% to 0.25%, and will leave rates near zero “for an extended period.” The Fed also acknowledged recent signs that the economy is gaining momentum after its worst slump in decades.
-- After the withdrawal of Swedish boutique carmaker Koenigsegg and Dutch sportscar maker Spyker, General Motors announced it will begin “an orderly wind-down” of Saab – closer to a sad end to a proud company.

Comments and contributions from Update no.417:
Comment from the Blog:
“I find myself unable to resist a background discussion of economics.
“Most of the discussion in the United States is based, knowingly or not, on the theories of Adam Smith (1723-1790), whose work Wealth of Nations (1776) has been used to justify every sort of deregulation and greed. Smith wrote over 230 years ago in a ‘nation of shopkeepers’ (Bartleby attributes the quote to several people, including Smith himself; http://www.bartleby.com/100/777.39.html.) His work deals with a far simpler economy than any developed nation has today, and the most-quoted parts assume honesty by all parties. Thomas Sowell, in his book Basic Economics, points out that Smith had no such faith in his shopkeepers. He quotes page 144 of Wealth of Nations: ‘People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.’ It’s an interesting article; here’s a link:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b88769e200e553868e848834
I suspect that Smith would not be surprised at the use and abuse of his work.
“Smith did not take into account multi-national corporations, instant communication, or markets the size and style of Wall Street. The methods of a given set of supposed competitors ‘meeting together’ have changed, and the scale of the damage they can do has changed even more. This has made Smith's quote above even more important. If we are to base our thinking on his work, we need to consider the quote above as part of that work. It seems to me that people in important places have found ways to disable or amputate Smith’s ‘invisible hand of the market’.”
My reply to the Blog:
Your observations of Adam Smith’s “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” appear to be quite accurate from my perspective as well. However, the same criticism / observation can be leveled at any historic document including the Constitution of the United States of America, or the Holy Bible for that matter. The key, it seems to me, lies in the interpretation / translation of those historic texts in the context of modern society. As has been pointed out numerous times, the Constitution makes no mention of a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy. Was that because the Framers thought the notion unimportant, or because they considered privacy so fundamental as to be beyond the need to even mention it? The same is true for Smith’s treatise. Just because he was not prophetic enough to see 200+ years into the future does not invalidate his observations. The forces involved in a truly free market are powerful and largely self-correcting. However, as with our laws, the root assumption is people are inherently good and responsive to those market forces. When an unscrupulous individual who has no respect for his fellow man comes along, we invariably experience a Bernie Madoff or Adolf Hitler.
. . . an eMail follow-up:
“I agree with most of what you said, but on second thought I didn't say my piece as well as I might have. My point was that Smith himself apparently did not trust the small-scale capitalists of his day; what I should have clarified is that his mistrust, which I share, has become more important now that we deal with multi-national corporations and with the likes of AIG and General Motors that have grown "too big to fail." The shopkeepers and small industrialists of Smith's time faced poverty if their businesses failed; AIG faced sound if unwelcome advice accompanied by enormous loans.”
. . . and my follow-up reply:
A seemingly appropriate analogy comes in the form of a case to be heard before the Supreme Court next spring regarding the Constitution, the law and modern technology – texting – as the law is slow to adapt to the relentless advance of technology, so too Adam Smith’s notion of capitalism. Yet, when we distill the principles and apply them to modern society, I believe they still have value. The popular notion of “too big to fail” is yet another bastardization by unnatural processes that subverts the underlying principles. If GM, AIG, Citigroup, et cetera, had been allowed to fail, then we would have been closer to Smith’s descriptive model – “the invisible hand” and all.
Intellectual intercourse aside, the broader societal question we face in such discussions remains, how much collateral damage can we tolerate? If it was only the shopkeeper who suffered by his poor choices, I would be OK with that. When millions of people are made to suffer by the irrational and unethical greed of a few bankers and insurance executives, then I find it far less palatable to tolerate the “invisible hand.”

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

14 December 2009

Update no.417

Update from the Heartland
No.417
7.12.09 – 13.12.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
This is getting to be embarrassing – 17-3 Navy defeated Army . . . again, 8 straight. My cousins must wait for another year. Sorry guys. Go Navy, Beat Army!

I am proud to acknowledge that we are done our humble part to stimulate the economy in its hour of need. We have done our duty!

The follow-up news items:
-- The FBI has requested an independent review of the Bureau’s actions prior to the shootings at Fort Hood [412] – a sadly necessary examination that will undoubtedly yield improvements in our approach to imbedded Islamo-fascist terrorists. The Fort Hood tragedy is yet one more example why we need a portion of the FBI to emulate Great Britain’s accomplished MI-5.
-- A good news, bad news week for Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina [393, 415]! A panel of South Carolinian lawmakers decided that Sanford's conduct was not serious enough to merit impeachment and proposed a formal reprimand. On the downside of the ledger, Jennifer “Jenny” Sanford, née Sullivan has filed for divorce. We move on.
-- When the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced the selectee for the 2009 Peace Prize, I ended my opinion with the admonition, “Earn this!” [408] I hope he does. I listened to his entire Nobel lecture. Succinctly . . . impressive and admirable! He expertly delivered a well-crafted speech with the odd juxtaposition of war and peace – a peace prize recipient who had to justify the use of military force in some situations. Very well done, Mr. President!

This week, Senator Earl Benjamin “Ben” Nelson of Nebraska introduced Senate bill 2846 – United States War Bonds Act of 2009 – which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Finally, a Member of Congress offered up something constructive toward engagement of the nation in the War on Islamic Fascism. Unfortunately, without a promotion campaign on the scale of the World War II effort, such an initiative will have limited success, but better to try something rather than the nothing of the last eight years. I suspect Nelson’s proposal will not make it out of committee – it implies the Gov needs help and we can’t have that.

As is so often the case, the folks at Strategic Forecasting, Inc., give us an excellent assessment of our enemy.
“The Jihadist Strategic Dilemma”
by George Friedman
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: December 7, 2009; 21:25 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091207_jihadist_strategic_dilemma

In our continuing discussion regarding U.S. foreign policy, the prosecution of the War on Islamic Fascism and our relationship with other peaceful nations of the World, a contributor sent along the following Pew Research Center report on world opinion in 2002. While foreign policy cannot be based on public, popular opinion, our relationship to our neighbors and friends remains important.
“What the World Thinks in 2002 – How Global Publics View: Their Lives, Their Countries, The World, America”
Pew Research Center
Published: December 4, 2002
http://people-press.org/report/165/what-the-world-thinks-in-2002

The House approved a wide-ranging financial system reform bill – H.R. 4173 [House: 223-202-0-9(1)]. The bill goes to the Senate, now. I have a lot to learn about this legislation. At first blush, it appears to be comprehensive, extensive and hopefully appropriate. More to follow on this one.

Congress sent a US$1.1T omnibus appropriations bill ladened, of course, with the oh-so-familiar earmark, pork-barrel spending by the powerful in Congress. The profound nausea associated with events like this one never seems to go away or dampen.

A long-time friend, contributor, and retired military officer sent this note and link in our continuing debate regarding homosexuals serving in the military. He wrote:
[Based on this document from this URL:]
http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/FGOM-SigList%281087%29-033109.pdf
“Note: As far as I can tell, all are now retired. Makes a difference.
“I’m sure many gays have served and served well in the past and now too. So I’m not totally sure of my stand, though I think it is against them serving.”
I replied:
Very impressive list. Many names I recognize. Some I even know.
You and I both served on active duty when the U.S. military endured the trauma of racial integration and women were admitted to the service academies. You were still on active duty when the role of women in service expanded dramatically. During those years, I was for racial integration but highly skeptical of gender integration, especially in the combat arms. The question of homosexual integration simply never rose to debate or even conversation. As recently as 1998, I wrote an essay resisting gender integration. Since then, I have had abundant opportunity to rethink my position. Now, I freely admit I was wrong, then. Regardless of how many general officers seek to maintain the status quo, they are wrong. We must mature as a society. Eventually, we will recognize that none of the social factors are valid excuses for exclusion or discrimination. The military has an obligation to define proper, public behavior, but homosexuality should not be treated any differently from heterosexuality. The issue is performance in the job, not private activities or private freedom of choice.
. . . with this follow-up comment:
“Still think I’m probably against it. Not because of them but because how they would be accepted, especially the men, by their comrades.”
. . . and my reply:
Point taken. However, I'm sure you can remember how well some folks wanted racial integration. People have to get over their phobias. Homosexuality is not contagious. It does not rub off on someone. I would think that most good Marines will say, if he's a good Marine, he's a good Marine. Who someone is attracted to or chooses to live his life with has nothing to do with being a good Marine.
POSTSCRIPT: Change is never easy or without trauma of some sort. The time is now. We must shed our antiquated and irrational fear of non-heterosexuality. It is just time!

In another on-line exchange with another friend and contributor on a different topic:
“This is exactly what I was saying, when under Bush (43), all the TARP stuff started to flow.
“My key question, was the government’s interference to avert a global quicksand, delay one, or cause one? I really wonder sometimes. They’d better start throwing more oil on the machinery, because I’m seeing some signs that we’re getting ready to go into another round of the same stuff again.”
. . . the author referred to this essay:
“Leave Markets to Themselves”
by Don Cooper
LewRockwell.com
Published: 10.December.2009
http://www.lewrockwell.com/cooper/cooper28.1.html
My reply:
Leaving markets to themselves is exactly what got us into this mess. Even what regulation that remained was not being faithfully enforced.
. . . to which came this follow-up:
“[M]any people would agree with you. Having said that, on the Coast to Coast AM show last night, George Noory interviewed Edward Griffin who stated the TARP bailout was exactly the wrong medicine for the economy, and that the interference will re-stall our economy. I was also listening to the KNX Business Hour on Wednesday from Los Angeles, and the director of the Los Angeles Business Federation (I believe that is the name, and sorry I don't have guest name), was stating that the government role in the crisis, has not helped, and will only slow the recovery. He also predicted that our next crisis is commercial real estate.
“I was corrected by a blogger in another forum, where I had written about the nature of the weak points in capitalism, and s/he corrected me saying ‘that is not capitalism, it is called GREED.’ I thanked them and agreed, that the greed element is within all of us, we keep it tempered through resisting temptations that violate our code, morals, ethics, principles, beliefs, policies, etc.. But in any economic and regulatory system, the greed aspect plays out.”
. . . along with my reply:
I am certain our children and perhaps their children will be debating the wisdom of the Government’s intervention in this particular recession, just as we continue to debate the Government’s intervention during the Great Depression.
The difficulty for me as in so many of these socio-economic debates remains finding balance between opposed and often conflicting forces. In some measure, I think Gordon Gekko was correct – “Greed is good.” The profit motive is a powerful, driving force. Yet, as you note, greed got us into this mess – at an individual level, at a corporate level, and at a governmental level – not rational capitalism. So, where is the balance?
In just about any interaction between two or more human beings – friendship, marriage, business, war, and everything in between – we can view it as a spectrum. On one pole, absolute freedom (no rules, no laws, no restrictions, i.e., anarchy); on the opposite pole, absolute totalitarianism (no individual freedom whatsoever). Each of us seeks balance in our relationships at some point near the middle of that political spectrum; some favoring more or less control. The economy is just another human interaction. As Don Cooper stated, “A market is the voluntary coming together of two groups of people.” If there are no rules, then the market becomes survival of the fittest – every man for himself; show no quarter. Conversely, excessive rules stifle innovation, ingenuity and the entrepreneurial spirit. So, where is the balance?
As I argued last fall, the government could have simply taken a laissez-faire approach and done nothing – let the market sort itself out. Unfortunately to that end, the true injury will not be born by the perpetrators who took the risks, but rather largely by the innocent – the workers who took none of the risk and will pay a heavy price. The financial deregulation that began in 1977 and reached a fever-pitch in 1999, set the stage for what we experienced in 2008/9; who bears the brunt of that trauma? Certainly not the Wall Street bankers and insurance idiots who slipped away with hundreds of millions in personal gain and left 10+% unemployment in their wake.
We saw signs of this debacle for many years. The Savings & Loan disaster of the late 1980’s was a stark preview. The near-instant Barings, PLC, collapse in 1995, should have been the proverbial canary in the mineshaft, but we chose to ignore the dead canary. Even worse, in 1999, we pulled out almost all the remaining stops.
As with our laws, regulation has at its base an inherent assumption that people are good; thus, people seek the minimum regulation. An economic terrorist like Bernie Madoff escaped detection for so long because his crimes were so outlandish, destructive and disrespectful of other human beings that the regulators could not see reality, or chose not to believe what they were seeing. We had individual citizens signing mortgage papers for 125% of the already grossly inflated value of a house with the expectation they would flip the house in a year for a handsome profit – greed at the private, individual level.
My concern has been, is, and will remain with the innocent collateral damage. I could care less about the Bernie Madoff’s of this world [In fact, there I think the Chinese have it right; a single bullet to the back of the head would be too kind for him]. I condemn those individual citizens who believed in the get-rich-quick pabulum they were being fed by unchecked and unscrupulous mortgage lenders.
I am not too keen on the rampant spending by the USG, but in all candor, I am more offended by devastating collateral damage and near paucity of punishment for those who brought this to our doorstep. For most of my adult life, I have invested conservatively, content to make a modest return without undue risk only to see 50% of our Net Worth evaporate in a month, not at my hand. Fortunately, we shall weather this storm. Many others are not and will not be so lucky. We have heaped an unimaginable debt on our children and grandchildren just as we are about the retire, so pardon me while I say, never again; I have been moved toward greater regulation. The greedy bastards have proved themselves unworthy of free markets.

News from the economic front:
-- As a few positive signs of economic recovery trickle in, now we hear rumbling from the Obama administration about diverting US$200B of unused or returned TARP funds [361 et al] for the introduction of a new jobs program. I understand the need, but I think this has a peculiar odor . . . and it is not good. We shall see how this plays out.
-- The Treasury Department expects to recover all but US$42B of the US$370B of the funds it fronted to troubled companies during the plunge of the financial crisis last year, with the portion lent to banks actually showing a slight profit, probably to contribute to the jobs program noted above.
-- Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Maclean Darling announced a one-time 50% tax on bonuses in excess of £25K (US$41K). The tax, to be paid by employers, will affect all U.K. banks, as well as their foreign branches and subsidiaries. The government ostensibly wants to reduce the deficit “in an orderly way” and professed confidence that the U.K. economy will start growing by the turn of the year.
-- U.S. exports of goods and services in October increased more than imports, pushing the U.S. trade deficit down 7.6% to US$33B from the revised $36B deficit in September.
-- Wow! As rallying equity markets inflated the 3rd Quarter profits, Goldman Sachs announced its top executives will not get cash bonuses in 2009. Instead, they will receive stock that cannot be sold for at least five years. The investment bank set aside US$5.35B for benefits and compensation. At least the company is making an attempt to soften public outrage over obscene compensation provisions as the economy struggles to recover from the devastating recession.
-- The Commerce Department reported U.S. retail sales rose 1.3% in November, nearly double the forecast, with increased consumers spending during the traditionally busy after-Thanksgiving shopping days. Excluding sales of gasoline and cars, other retail sales increased 0.6% last month.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that Beijing Automotive, one of China’s main state-owned auto makers, has apparently reached a tentative deal with General Motor’s to acquire certain assets of the company’s Saab unit, including intellectual property for two sedans and equipment to produce those cars, along with their engines and transmissions.

Comments and contributions from Update no.416:
A comment on the Blog:
“‘War on Islamic Fascism’
“This could more accurately be called the War on the Taliban and/or al Qaeda. The problems with that are
(a) neither of those is a nation in the legal sense and
(b) those names would not allow for indefinite expansion of the effort, a central goal of some of the people in charge, I suspect.
“I have no idea why people believe the withdrawal goal has any importance. Those things come and go along with the rest of the political promises. The disclaiming of this one has already begun.
“Most likely, Obama is not seeking further sacrifices (beyond the prior removal of our civil rights) here at home is because the "war" is seriously unpopular already. By seeking sacrifices for this, rather than to improve the economy, health care or even the environment, he would be squandering what remains of his political capital. Such measure would face stiff opposition in Congress regardless of party affiliations. Senators and Representatives seek re-election and therefore must needs oppose moves that unpopular. Obama's popularity has slid far enough without that.”
My reply comment on the Blog:
Yes, the present war could be called lots of things, yet the Taliban and al-Qaeda are simply units of the greater enemy. Nonetheless, spot on! They are not nations; they do not deserve or warrant the benefits or recognition of nationhood. I am not so sure about the “indefinite expansion” part.
The withdrawal goal is not the problem. It is the public disclosure of that goal that is the real problem. Politicians are politicians. They say what they think they have to say to get re-elected. I’m not so sure the disclaiming is actually disclaimer as much as they are attempts to buy political margin.
I’m sure you are quite right. In that sense, I suspect Barack is quite like W. I believe they want to get the job done . . . but for the minimum expense possible, which in turn drives them to make sub-optimal decisions. For them, it is not about winning; it is about doing just enough to get by. Economic progress, health care reform or even environmental improvement cannot happen without safety and security. The political consequences of asking all citizens to contribute to winning the War on Islamic Fascism may not be attractive, but it is the right thing to do. War is a nation endeavor, not just a military activity. I am not quite to a war tax, but I am suggesting war bonds or similar contributions to help win the war. Unfortunately for presidents, their job is far bigger than re-election.
. . . round two, via e-Mail:
“I still don't get it. How can we fight a war against an enemy we cannot even specifically name? How do we know whether we're winning if we don't know who we're fighting? That non-logic leads to the indefinite expansion of always finding new targets, and doing that benefits armchair warriors who make nice salaries and/or profits based on the ‘war.’
“And I’ll say it again. This ‘war’ is already costing Obama his popularity and political support. How do you think he could manage to add a financial sacrifice for it in these hard economic times? It's beside the point whether taxing for this operation would be a useful military strategy; it's not possible to accomplish that.”
. . . my reply to round two:
Please allow me to ask you a couple questions:
1. Do you think we are at war?
2. If so, with whom do you think we are at war?
Those seem to be the two salient questions. The answers establish the context of any further debate or discussion.
I am not sure it really matters what name we call them; they are still trying to kill innocent Americans and even the faithful to further their objectives . . . the tragedy of today’s bombings in Baghdad as an example.
Yes, absolutely, as all wars cost presidents popularity. It will be no different for Barack. His speech last week was a masterful political balancing act, but at the end of the day, he knows what has to be done.
I am not advocating for the government to take more money. I do believe there is more We, the People, could do to support the war effort . . . that is if we agree we are at war. IMHO, just because George W. made dreadful mistakes, does not mean Barack must perpetuate the same mistakes.
You asked: “How do you think he could manage to add a financial sacrifice for it in these hard economic times?” I think the War Bonds idea is noteworthy. I also think he could ask for diversion of some industrial capacity, e.g., instead to producing household aluminum foil, that material and capacity would be applied to war materials. I also think the military should be expanded, and he could ask more citizens to volunteer for service. He could also apply older veterans like me to staff jobs to enable younger soldiers to take on combat duties. He could ask Hollywood to take on specific communications tasks to reach out to moderate Muslims world-wide, in an effort to blunt the radical, fundamentalist vitriol spewed by rabid clerics. There are a myriad of volunteer tasks that could be performed to help families of deployed warriors; all that is needed is leadership and focus. I could go on, but I think you can sense my approach. As I said, war is a national endeavor, not just a military action. So, if we are at war, we should be all in. George W. failed to mobilize the nation for the War on Islamic Fascism. Barack is trundling down the very same road.
. . . round three:
“I think we are in a large, dangerous military event. ‘War’ is a legal term and I'm not a lawyer; we’re not in a declared war.
“Damned if I know. That's my point. I don't think anybody knows with any clarity. ‘Islamic Fascism’ (or ‘terrorism’ or whatever term) is not a nation or a concrete group of people. If you can define a tangible enemy for this ‘war,’ please do so.”
. . . my reply to round three:
Let’s try this the other way around.
For the furtherance of this discussion, let us assume there is no enemy(ies). Further, since there is no nation-state involved, let us also assume, therefore (by definition), we cannot be at war. Given those assumptions, please allow me to ask:
1. Was the 9/11 attack a simple criminal act of large scale?
2. Since the 9/11 executioners all died in the attack, should we simply close the case file with a hearty “oh well”?
3. Should we have taken any action at all as a consequence?
Depending upon the answers, we can progress to another level.
If, as you say, we are not at war, then I would agree, immediate withdrawal is quite reasonable and appropriate, as we have exceeded our Article 51 authority.
. . . round four:
“Why? We need to clarify, but I never said we ought not to defend ourselves. I just want to do it in some way that makes sense.
“That’s a good question for lawyers. Certainly, the least we need to do is prevent a repetition, if that's at all likely.
“If we cannot find concrete evidence of others’ involvement, yes. If we can find such evidence, see above.
“We should have taken some saner action than attacking Iraq. Iraq has oil, but at the time, they harbored no Islamic extremists; they would have competed with Saddam Hussein for support. Perhaps we should still take some action to address those actually responsible for 9/11. Very likely, those guys with the box cutters were directed by people with higher IQs and smaller death wishes.”
. . . my reply to round four:
I assume from your reply that you do not believe the aggressive, “take the fight to the enemy” approach of the previous administration and apparently the current administration as well makes sense. If so, what would you propose? What do you think is a better approach to dealing with the bad guys?
We have discussed the threat posed by Saddam’s Iraq. We disagree on that assessment; I don’t see either of us changing our views. I am incapable of producing the intelligence / evidence to support my opinion.
Re: Afghanistan. POTUS has defined his position / policy. General McChrystal has accepted the challenges with the resources provided. Obama has taken a more structured approach than his predecessor, which I see as positive. I can also see alternatives. We do not have to fight in Afghanistan. However, the farther we step back from the locale, the more defensive and thus reactive we will become.
Re: Q1. I care about your opinion far more than I do lawyers, as the answer sets the context. Whether lawyers define our presentation as war or simple police action does not alter the very real threat we face. IMHO, I believe the aggressive approach has prevented a repetition. As the warrior’s saying goes, the best defense is a good offense. Since 9/11, the United States has chosen to take the offense. To put this in a different context, our laws, by their very nature and history, are reactive; the criminal must act, not just think or talk about the crime. Pre-emptive police action is extraordinarily difficult to take as the burden of “proof” rests on the government to convince a judge to issue a warrant without a crime. Since 9/11, we have chosen to not wait for the crime. I could argue that we should have taken the aggressive approach at least as far back as 1979, but 9/11 forced our hand.
Re: Q2. Crime & prosecution are about evidence. War is about threat. POTUS & AG have decided to place some of the 9/11 contributors on public, criminal trial in a civilian court, so for better or worse, we shall eventually see whether evidence and war mix well. Further, as you suggest, lacking evidence we should close the case file and return to a normal peacetime condition, which in turn means no pre-emptive action, i.e., we wait for the bad guys to act, and then we capture them and place them in the dock before the bar. When the “crimes” are of the scale of 9/11 or even yesterday’s bombings in Baghdad, conventional police & prosecution hardly seem appropriate or even functional. Our system of laws assumed most folks are law-abiding, inherently peaceful people, and does not deal well with a bevy of suicidal fanatics bent upon maximum destruction.
Re: Q3. The complication in this discussion / debate is reactive versus proactive; defense versus offense; police versus war. I believe the War on Islamic Fascism is precisely going after the guys with the higher IQs and smaller death wishes. We are trying to disrupt the very processes that generated the mounting list of terrorist events dating back to 1968 (or earlier depending upon how we wish to define such things). We tried to do the policing approach for 33 years; to paraphrase Dr. Phil, so how did that work out for us? The terrorist actions against the United States and our Allies steadily escalated until 9/11, until we decided war was more appropriate and invoked Article 51. There are many other consequent elements now, but I still believe our objective is to eliminate the plotters and processes that have perpetrated decades of offenses against us.
. . . round five:
“Somehow I get the feeling that you are having a moral discussion whereas I'm having a functional discussion. ‘Taking the fight to the enemy’ requires identifying the enemy, which is where my reservations come in. We cannot realistically expect to conquer everyone in the world who harbors some resentment against the U.S. Therefore, we need to figure out exactly who to attack; preferably that's based on far more evidence than the Bush administration bothered to uncover. Once we choose a target, we need to quantify what we mean by victory and what is the highest price we are willing to pay for it. I see no signs of that process having begun so far, and we are deeply embroiled in action based on nothing more than rage.
“At this point, we have to fight in Afghanistan. Even if we decided to leave immediately (which I do not recommend), we would have to fight our way out. Whatever our next move, it should be a reasoned decision, implemented over an appropriate period of time, not another blind reaction.
“That’s not a logical assumption in my world, based on the example of Vietnam.
“My opinion? I don't really care what it's called, although I find the term ‘war’ grammatically incorrect. If I recall correctly, Vietnam and Korea were ‘police actions’ or some such thing.
“That saying is offensive in itself. How about ‘as you give, so you shall receive’?
“We began taking such actions in response to our fears in the 1950s, sometimes covertly, sometimes not. Korea and Vietnam come to mind, along with our overt and covert removals of foreign governments. We have no positive results so far.
“Certainly war is not about prosecution in the legal sense. All the same, rational behavior (identifying an enemy, making a strategy that befits that enemy) is never inappropriate.
“I have no idea why they have chosen to try those people now. Had they tried people in 2002, or at least announced that they were wanted fugitives, before bringing in the military, that action would have had a decent chance of improving reaction to the military operations abroad. What we get by doing this today is a no-win situation. Any acquittals convince the entire world that we acted rashly; if all are convicted we face accusations of rigged trials.
“I have yet to be convinced that the ‘bad guys’ have survived the military actions we have already taken. Osama bin-Laden is a shadowy figure at best. The pursuit of him reminds me of the movie ‘Wag the Dog’ with its fictional but convincing war. Others are more real and serious, but we never bothered to distinguish who has attacked us from those who merely talk.
“As stated, I agree with you. The difficulty is how to detect those people without shutting down freedom and privacy. That's one of the most difficult questions of our time.
“I disagree. It’s not reactive versus proactive. It's responding proactively and rationally versus responding in rage and/or fear. We are indeed trying to disrupt those processes; we are not succeeding.
“What we have now is essentially an expansion of the policing approach. It’s still not working. What is Article 51?
“That sounds good until you realize that ‘the plotters and processes that have perpetrated decades of offenses’ are not a definable population but a set of ideas and attitudes that our actions are making more popular in their target markets. The people carrying out those ideas change almost daily. Nobody will be able to find and kill the individuals promoting those ideas before they are replaced by more. The situation calls for some other approach once we get beyond specific incidents and organizations to a larger perspective.”
. . . my reply to round five:
There is always a moral element to any discussion of war, but I was also trying to face the functional aspect, as you note.
Knowing just a little about the intelligence world, I think it safe to say the Allied (greater) intelligence network has a constantly growing list of identities of those involved in the Islamic fascist movement – combatants, clerics, planners, financiers, all of them . We do not see that list or those names, and thankfully we cannot; but, just because we can’t see the list, does not mean it doesn’t exist. I also believe the intelligence community has an expanding list of markers that help in the identification process. A key function of intelligence in wartime (and even in peacetime) is developing what is called the order of battle for our enemies and potential enemies – the hierarchy of how things work, if you will. As you point out, we cannot attack geography as our enemy in this war holds no geography, but they do occupy space. We can be critical of Bush 43, as we both are for different reasons, but unfortunately, we will not see what POTUS 43 saw during his presidency until 20 to 50 years from those days (when data are declassified). I do not know the answers to the victory & price definitions, but I think the answers were and are known within the government. I do not agree that our actions have been reactionary, petulant rage. I have leveled criticism at Bush 43 and specifically Rummie, for the choices they made, but ultimately I believe the objective has been and remains the same – prevent further attacks, which in turn means stopping the attacks before they manifest.
I tend to take a path of more humility in dealing with other human beings. Obama’s approach is closer to mine, rather than Bush’s more unilateralist path. I would like Barack’s softer approach to be successful. I am a firm believer in Teddy’s “Speak softly and carry a bid stick” philosophy. I would like Barack’s more multi-lateral efforts to work. The proof will be in the result, and we need time for that to play out.
Let us examine the defensive = reactionary hypothesis. I am not sure exactly how Vietnam contributes to this, but let’s see. If I know someone seeks to enter my home, kill me and my family, and take over my home, I have choices to make. I can wait for him to enter my home and either eliminate him or arrest him. I can reinforce my home to hopefully keep our attacker from entering, but that will cost a lot of money and there is no perfect security. I can inform the police of what I know and hope they gain enough interest to stop our attacker before he strikes. Or, I can stop him before he is able to attack. The former is defensive & reactive. The latter is offensive & proactive. In our culture with our laws, freedom demands evidence of illegal activity before a court of law and a jury of peers to stop the illegal activity. Thus, the latter action is itself a violation of the law. Nonetheless, the principle of defense versus offense should be apparent. Even Interpol does not have the capacity, authority or inclination to take pre-emptive action; they are very good at reacting to international crime, not good at stopping it. Further, in this instance, we are not talking about bank robbery. We are dealing with an enemy who is quite comfortable convincing its minions to become suicidal fanatics bent upon mass destruction using instruments of modern civilization for their diabolical purposes. The key here: we cannot afford to wait for an attack (a crime to be committed). Our enemy is a rabid ideology and those human beings contaminated with its hatred. We cannot attack the ideology, but we can certain go after body of such ideology.
Politicians can call war something else to make themselves feel better. For those who must fight it, war is war, period! I know many tried to call the Korean War a police action, presumably to soften the consequences. I do not recall anyone trying to make that claim with the Vietnam War. I suppose, as we often do, we return to the definition of war. The Heritage Dictionary defines war as, “A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.” To my understanding, the War on Islamic Fascism qualifies, i.e., open, armed, conflict, parties. Looks like war, sounds like war, smells like war, feels like war . . . by any other name . . . still war.
I do not intend to be offensive, just rational. I am also acknowledging rules of warfare since Sun Tzu articulated its principles 2,500 years ago.
I offer no defense for mistakes made in previous generations or those to be made by future generations. To say that “no positive results” have come from war seems to ignore history. The Republic of Korea is a peaceful, democratic, prosperous nation rather than a vassal province of the DPRK because of our sacrifice of precious blood and treasure. Japan and Germany are among the wealthiest nations on the planet because of our sacrifice and generosity. I hope Iraq will join that group in time. I would like to think (perhaps naively, I must admit) that Afghanistan and Pakistan will rise above the Islamic fascism that cripples them today. “No positive results” . . . au contraire mon ami. This is not to say he have not made dreadful mistakes.
I wholeheartedly agree . . . “rational behavior is never inappropriate.” Yet, to understand or appreciate “rational,” we must see the circumstances and conditions. We can only see a mere fraction.
Until this conflict, we waited until the war was won to try the perpetrators for their war crimes. I believe that standard should have been maintained. If they died of old age in captivity while we prosecuted the war, I am comfortable with that outcome. In this trial, I see the prospect of a successful outcome as a minority probability, and I do not see this action as contributing to waging war successfully; thus my opposition.
When it comes to the actual “bad guys,” I am afraid we are all in the same boat. There should be no doubt our guys have the identities of many beyond the leadership. I have no doubt we have hunters on the scent and in time we shall nab them or kill them. Trying to fight this war without national mobilization certainly contributes to the “Wag the Dog” comparison; however, personally, I think the analogy is quite inappropriate.
“. . . without shutting down freedom and privacy,” man, you got that right. As you have noted many times, there is a strong ideological component to this conflict. That means a significant emphasis on Human Intelligence (HumInt), which we were ill-prepared to conduct and largely dependent on our brother services for information. I am fairly certain our aversion to the dirty business of HumInt has faded or disappeared entirely, but we have decades of neglect to overcome. Without aggressive HumInt, we are largely blind, especially with this enemy. As we have discussed, our system of rights and justice is equally ill-prepared to deal with our present enemy, and it must adapt. Unfortunately, I have not seen the innovative thinking toward adaptation I would like to see. So, we muddle along.
We may have taken the brute force approach to proactive response, but I do believe we are trying to refine our tactics. Only time will tell whether we are succeeding; so far, I believe we are on the positive side of the ledger but that’s just me.
Article 51 of the UN Charter states, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
The United States abandoned the reactive, “policing” approach after 9/11. President Bush did not wait around for a warrant. So far, I do not see President Obama rejecting pre-emptive action.
There are bodies that house and transport those “ideas and attitudes.” I will not disagree that the brute force approach enhanced recruitment of jihadistanis. We chose to ignore warning signs for decades. Now, we must spin up the necessary intelligence assets and resources to wage the War on Islamic Fascism successfully. I think we are learning fast, and we will continue to do so until we have defeated our enemy. The brute force approach is not going to be successful, but it is all we had in 2001. We have grown our intelligence community and our special operations forces. I think we have expanded our diplomatic capability. We are adapting and refining our tactics as we saw in Iraq and we shall soon see in Afghanistan / Pakistan, unfortunately nearly a decade late; but better late than never.
. . . the end of this thread for the moment.

Another contribution:
“Obama is doing just as other Presidents and high ranking officials have done for years----telegraphing our intentions to the enemy. That gives them the means and time to counter our efforts. That is BAD!”
My response:
Amen! Spot on!
If an official does not believe or does not recognize that we are at war, he will see no reason for secrecy or withholding vital information.
Jim Jones surely knows and appreciates the need for secrecy in wartime. Presumably, his counsel was overridden by the politicos; after all, POTUS had to throw some meat in the direction of the uber-Left.
Unfortunately, I see timelines in wartime in the same light as short resources . . . just expands and prolongs the bleeding.

A different contribution:
“Having read your commentary on McCulloch vs. Maryland, it appears you have neglected the most significant part of the decision by John Marshall, probably the most brilliant and transformative Chief Justice in U.S. history. Certainly, ‘...the power to tax [is] the power to destroy....’, but in stating this, Justice Marshall was merely taking note of an economic axiom, although in a particularly powerful way. New students in Constitutional law often focus on these words because they are so compelling, but they do not have special relevance to the Constitutional issues under consideration.
“As for the supremacy of Federal laws over state laws, it is clearly stated in Article 6 (2nd paragraph) that ‘This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.’ Even if Marshall had wanted to allow Maryland law to supersede National law (highly unlikely because as you so rightly observed, John Marshall was a staunch Federalist), it would have been a patent violation of the Constitution.
“What you did not include in your commentary, was Marshall’s careful examination of the ‘necessary and proper’ clause of Article 1, section 8, clause 18. Now often referred to as the ‘elastic clause’ because it is often used to expand the enumerated powers of Congress based, in large part, on Marshall's decision, the clause states ‘The Congress shall have Power ...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.’ To establish the ‘implied powers’ of the National government, Marshall first notes that the ‘necessary and proper’ clause is included under the powers of Congress, not under its limitations. He then offers a careful examination of the word ‘necessary’ noting that ‘necessary’ does not connote ‘absolutely indispensable’ but rather ‘suitable means’ for Congress to accomplish its express or enumerated powers. And finally, Marshall examines the 10th Amendment which states ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ He notes that the word ‘expressly’ is not included before the word ‘delegated,’ a deliberate omission on the part of the framers of the Bill of Rights because ‘it was perceived, that it would strip the government of some of its most essential powers, and it was rejected.’
“In any case, the Constitutional foundation of ‘implied’ powers, set forth so carefully by Marshall, combined with the Court’s interpretations of the Commerce clause, which also greatly extend the enumerated powers granted to the National government, have resulted in what you rightly bemoan as an ‘excessive application’ of governmental power. Don't even get me started on Executive Orders and Executive Agreements. I doubt John Marshall would have approved of the use of his very deliberate and well-considered opinion.”
My response:
I did not intend a treatise on McCullough or Marshall. Rather, as is my practice, I selected a few relevant sentences for the purpose of the Update item aside from the implications of the decision.
My only salvation rests in my notes to the reading, which unfortunately (or fortunately depending upon one’s perspective) were in Hidden text and thus not printed. Let it suffice to say, the lessons you raised were not lost in my original reading or in reading your commentary.
I have no argument whatsoever with your assessment. I read the decision with the same enthusiasm and interpretation. ‘Nuf said there.
Based on our prior discussions, I noted with considerable eagerness Marshall’s discussion and interpretation of the 10th Amendment . . . as you have previously noted, not one of the more featured elements of the Constitution. Even more so, it is the 9th Amendment that intrigues me for reasons we have touched upon in our social intercourse. Someday perhaps, we can find the time to teach me. Also, I must say, your inspiration has sparked a desire to monitor a constitutional law course or two at a nearby university to amplify my learning, if they will allow me.
. . . and a follow-up comment:
“Our Federal judiciary system has certainly come a long way from being the ‘least dangerous branch.’ As you know, I am extremely conservative when it comes to the Constitution, and our Justices on both sides of the political aisle unfortunately regard themselves as super legislators.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
I agree. Even today, in an atmosphere disinclined to tolerate judicial fiat, we continue to see too much. Yet, as they say, one man’s garbage is another man’s art.

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

07 December 2009

Update no.416

Update from the Heartland
No.416
30.11.09 – 6.12.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The National Institutes of Health (NIH) under the Obama administration have authorized the use of human embryonic stem cells [146 et al] for experiments to be conducted by federally funded scientists. As we have discussed, embryonic stem cell research will enable us to better understand the molecular and biological processes that sustain us and contribute to or prevent disease. I am grateful the Federal government has returned to this important field of scientific exploration and applied more realistic constraints to avoid abuse. For the record, I am thankful the Obama administration has undone the highly restricted policies of the previous administration.
-- On Wednesday, the New York State Senate voted 38-24 to reject Bill S66003 (same as Assembly Bill A40003) – AN ACT to amend the domestic relations law, in relation to the ability to marry – that would have legalize same-sex marriage [087 et al] in the state. The Assembly previously passed the bill by a 088-051 vote. Another setback on the long journey to equal rights! C’est la vie.

Tuesday night, the President addressed the nation to announce his long-awaited plan for the Battle of Afghanistan as a part of the War on Islamic Fascism (my words, not his). As we have come to expect with Barack, he expertly delivered a well-crafted speech with a thoughtful message. He talked about the need for the Afghan government to reject the rampant corruption that contaminates the faux-government and the requirement for the Afghans to step up for their defense. The President committed 30,000 additional troops, three quarters of what General McChrystal requested [406]. While the troop increase (rather than reduction) is onerous to the anti-War crowd and the uber-Left, a paramount controversial element was the July 2011 gate for withdrawal. Any timeline is a huge mistake from a military operations perspective, and yet it is probably reassuring to the public. I am thankful he did not regurgitate the past administration’s mistakes. My criticism of President Bush’s very short-sighted approach to Afghanistan & Pakistan remains sharp, direct and appropriate, yet such criticism offers no relief for President Obama. Regrettably, I must now level the same criticism at Barack as I did with George W. He failed to place the nation on a war footing, to define the contribution (sacrifice) of We, the People; we could be doing so much more to support the war effort. W failed to prepare the nation for war. It appears Barack is going down the same path. Beyond my specific critique, I have a natural curiosity, which in this case seeks to understand the details of the administration’s plans in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the larger War on Islamic Fascism. As an American citizen, I would prefer everything out on the table so we can deal with it properly – good, bad or ugly. However, my curiosity and right to know are and must remain subservient to the requirement for secrecy in wartime. See ACLU v. Department of Defense below. As a former warrior, the last thing I want is disclosure of our plans to defeat our enemy, which is precisely why I advocated against any definition of constraints upon achieving our objective. Time gates for withdrawal are foolish in the extreme and will only serve our enemy and those who seek retreat.

Another worthy view of the President’s speech, plan and initiative:
“Obama's Plan and the Key Battleground”
by George Friedman
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: 2.December.2009; 11:55 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091201_obamas_plan_and_key_battleground
. . . along with another worthy opinion:
“A plan in need of clarity”
by Jim Webb
Washington Post
Published: Friday, December 4, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/03/AR2009120303784.html

The Press reported on a Supreme Court vacation and remand order of a ruling by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals; the case at issue: ACLU v. Department of Defense [2CCA 06-3140-cv (2008)] – the public release of the remaining Abu Ghraib (and others) photographs. The 2nd Circuit affirmed the district court’s order to the government to release redacted versions of the photographs. The Supremes based their rejection on a recently enacted law [28.October.2009] – the Protected National Security Documents Act of 2009, as part of Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 [PL 111-083; H.R.2892; Senate: 79-19-0-2(0); House: 307-114-0-11(3)] – which explicitly excludes images designated by the Secretary of Defense taken between 11.September.2001 through 22.January.2009. Of course, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claims the public’s right to know supersedes the government’s prognostic national security concern. The one and paramount difference between the ACLU’s contention and reality is and remains . . . we at war! No matter how much the uber-Left wishes, dreams, thinks, wants or considers that it is not so . . . we are at war! I have no objections whatsoever to public release of the prisoner abuse images and no interest whatsoever in protecting perpetrators of any illegal or abusive conduct by any soldier or agent. As much as I advocate for proper intelligence interrogations including the use of enhanced techniques, I condemn abusive behavior intended simply to humiliate battlefield captives. Of course, the ALCU argues that the government’s interest is to cover up illegal activities. The question is whether the government is protecting its agents who violated the law or concerned about the depicted conduct’s effects on its ability to wage war successfully. There is ample precedent. I note the British government’s public deception regarding a tragic friendly fire incident that occurred three days after World War II began – the Battle of Barking Creek, as it is known. An American version occurred a month prior to the Normandy landings, after the debacle of the Battle of Slapton Sands, as the Allies covered up the horrific loss of life during the final rehearsal operations. As wise, eloquent Sir Winston said, “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” It continues to baffle me how so many citizens have convinced themselves that somehow war does not exist. Those images can be released when the war is won.

I have only one thing to say about the whole Tiger Woods episode . . . one of many valuable teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

I subscribe to a wide variety of source material from both extremes of the political spectrum and an array of Press offerings. Occasionally, one of these tidbits sparks my ire. This particular item comes from former Arkansas Governor Michael Dale “Mike” Huckabee. Mike has his panties in a knot over a piece of legislation that he refers to as “the most evil piece of legislation in the history of our republic.” Curious as to what could spark such an epithet, I searched the Library of Congress database and found only two proposed bills, both stuck in committee, which could even remotely qualify for Mike’s invective. To the best of my knowledge, this is the very essence of emotional, charged, ideological drivel meant to instigate the affiliated believers without substance or reality. The Internet enables, perhaps even enhances, such excess. I suspect it works as most folks are not inclined or knowledgeable enough to challenge or check such spurious claims. I can find no substances to Huckabee’s accusation and condemn his effort to stoke the fires of political division.

In 1819, the Supreme Court issued a controversial ruling that evokes debate to this day – McCulloch v. Maryland [17 U.S. 316 (1819)]. Some say this SCOTUS decision was the true progenitor for the realization of Federalism as we suffer to this day. The case grew from a suit filed by James William McCulloch, cashier of the Bank of the United States, Baltimore Branch, against the State of Maryland, alleging a recent state law taxing the bank was unconstitutional. The Supremes unanimously declared the Maryland law unconstitutional. The Bank of the United States was actually a private national bank chartered by Congress in 1791 for 20 years, and rechartered in 1816 for another 20 years. As an historic note, the years 1836-1864 are often referred to as the “Free Banking Years” when only state-chartered banks existed with virtually no Federal regulation or oversight. The National Bank Act of 1864 [12 U.S.C. §484] [399] began the process of building the banking system. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 [PL 63-043; 12 U.S.C. §3] created the current structure of the American central bank system. Back to McCullough, writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Marshall observed, “If the states may tax the bank, to what extent shall they tax it, and where shall they stop? An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.” More significant and truly overarching, Marshall noted, “This great principle is, that the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme; that they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them.” [Italics added] The primacy of the Federal government was tested in 1861, boosted to an order of magnitude higher level in the 1930’s, and penetrated to unprecedented depths during the Nixon administration. In this whole debate and so many ancillary social issues, one side or the other wants to Federal government to “enforce” their views, their values, their constraints, and even worse seem willing to fall on their sword to keep the other side from using the government for exactly the same purpose but for their causes. One side or the other claims the Constitution does not say anything about [fill in the blank], but magically validates their position. My point, my objective, is to get government out of all of it, to get government out of our private lives and return the essential and personal freedom that begat this Grand Republic. As John Marshall so accurately observed, the very power wielded by the government inherently includes the power to destroy. In McCullough, we can see the struggle to find balance. The balance of Legislative, Executive and Judiciary actions, of Federal and state authority, and of the rights of government and We, the People, is a sensitive and precarious multi-dimensional, old-fashioned scale that requires gradually and precise adjustment to allow for progression and adaptation while preserving reasonable balance. If the delicate balance cannot be achieved and maintained, the People must seek reformation via their representation in the halls of government. Failing that, the only remain instrument of change is revolution. The political rhetoric of my generation has not sought balance. The societal trauma of the 1960’s and 1970’s polarized the political arena and radicalized various factions at the polar extremes, with the camps at both extremes seeking their support in the Constitution, which in turn abuses and bastardizes the resultant interpretation. John Marshall was a Federalist by political affiliation and philosophy. I can see, appreciate, understand and accept Marshall’s argument in McCullough, as the issue at hand was essential to the conduct of Federal affairs – then the Bank of the United States, now the Federal Reserve. Yet, such arguments can and have been taken to excessive application that in turn cause the balance to be disturbed, with the faction in benefit un-offended and the opposite group abused. I shall end this particular edition of a perpetual topic with a set of questions. Do we have certain basic principles or standards that are applicable to all citizens in good standing regardless of their state of residence? Was the Bill of Rights specifically and intentionally meant to establish those basic standards of public conduct? Does government have the right to abridge those rights in part or in toto for the purposes of the political party in power?

News from the economic front:
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that “some failed banks are in such bad shape that potential buyers won't touch them at any price, even if the government agrees to eat losses on the failed bank’s bad loans.” A combination of depleted capital, locations in depressed regions, and loaded with expensive broker deposits make such banks about as toxic as possible. I say, let them die.
-- The Reserve Bank of Australia raised its benchmark interest rate to 3.75% – an unprecedented third monthly increase in a row. Australia remains alone among G-20 countries in raising rates, having skirted recession and now appears to be focused on a forecast commodity-price boom led by demand from China and other Asian countries.
-- The Bank of Japan left its unsecured overnight call loan rate at 0.1%, where it’s been since December 2008. The bank also made provision for a new ¥10T (US$116B) lending instrument, under intense pressure from the government of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama to support an increasingly fragile economy.
-- The National Association of Realtors said Tuesday its seasonally adjusted index of sales agreements rose to 114.1 (+3.7%) from September to October – the highest level since March 2006 [+32% from a year ago (the largest annual increase ever for the index)].
-- The U.S. Labor Department reported non-farm payrolls fell by 11,000 last month, slowing substantially from the revised 111,000 drop in October. The unemployment rate eased slightly to 10.0% from 10.2% in October – a tentative positive sign the labor market is finally starting to heal as the economy recovers.
-- On Friday, Federal regulators seized AmTrust Bank – a battered Cleveland thrift and the 4th largest U.S. bank or savings institution to fail so far this year –increasing the total to 128 bank failures, the highest number of since 1992. Regulators continue their efforts to purge weak institutions.

No comments or contributions from Update no.415.

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

30 November 2009

Update no.415

Update from the Heartland
No.415
23.11.09 – 29.11.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina [393] is under investigation for 37 ethics charges stemming from his disappearance for an extramarital affair with an Argentine woman. The charges, if substantiated, may well lead to impeachment proceedings.

An express train enroute late Friday from Moscow to St. Petersburg derailed, killing at least 26 people and injuring scores of others, with 18 still unaccounted. Early reports suggest sabotage of at least one of the rails by an explosive device and suspicions that it may have been the work of Chechen terrorists and/or al-Qaeda operatives.

The Associated Press reported public announcements and statements by the Islamic Republic of Iran to build ten (10), industrial-scale, uranium enrichment facilities – a dramatic expansion of the program in defiance of U.N. demands it halt enrichment efforts and a direct slap in the face of the United States and its Allies. My suspicion that there will be blood remains.

News from the economic front:
-- The National Association of Realtors reported existing-home sales rose 10.1% in October to a 6.10 million annual rate – more than expected from September as a tax credit offset fears about joblessness. The median price for an existing home last month was $173,100, down 7.1% from $186,400 in October 2008.
-- The U.S. Department of Commerce reported consumer spending rose in October by 0.7% as incomes rose and inflation remained low – another positive sign of economic growth. Personal income rose by 0.2% for the second straight month. However, a contrary sign came with manufacturers' orders for durable goods declining 0.6% to a seasonally adjusted US$166B in October, brought down by the defense sector.
-- The U.S. Department of Labor reported initial jobless benefits claims declined by 35,000 to 466,000 in the most recent week.
-- Unexpectedly, new-home sales rose 6.2% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 430,000 in October, while the median price for a new home slipped 0.5% to $212,200.
-- The dollar traded at ¥87 – its weakest level in 14 years – as central banks across Asia looked for ways to deal with the weakened U.S. dollar and uncertainty in the currency markets.
-- Dubai World reported trouble meeting its US$60B debt obligation, which in turn sent shockwaves across world financial markets. The fallout from this latest trauma will have to be watched closely for the next few months.

Comments and contributions from Update no.414:
“It was very interesting to read of your ‘close call,’ but also sad to read of the end result. Regarding the Ft. Hood incident, I was forwarded the following recently [Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West, USA (Ret.) opinion]. Please note, I have not verified.”
My reply:
I did not have the time to verify Colonel West’s opinion, but it seems generally correct, even if a little farther down the road than me. I am not there yet, but I certainly hold similar suspicions.

Another contribution:
“I’m with you on the Jefferson thing. No wonder so many in Congress feel they can break the law. Even when they get convicted, someone comes up with some ruling to make sure their punishment isn't too harsh. Talk about a double-standard.
“Good point on the PC crap. Even with everything coming out about this guy, people are still afraid to say radical Islam was a big part of the reason he went on this shooting spree. We are at war with terrorists, yet it's like if we point out who the enemy is, we're somehow racists. Crazy, man. Sometimes I feel like this country is an extended version of high school, where if you don’t believe what the so-called ‘popular people’ believe (i.e. the lamestream media, elitist pundits, left-wing academics, etc) then you're treated like a pariah. God forbid we disagree with someone yet still respect them as a person.”
My response:
Some convicts are allowed to remain free on appeal, but usually it is the judge who does not perceive the convict as a flight risk and there are grounds for appeal. Perhaps the judge sees something the rest of us peons do not. Based on what I know, “Dollar Bill” certainly did not deserve to remain free on appeal. But, it is what it is; so we move on.
Indeed! Some folks are cowed by their PC ethos. I am not one of those. Like the Tim McVeigh terrorist event, I suspect a larger connection but I have not seen any evidence to substantiate or validate my suspicions. Spot on, again; there are far too many people who judge the worthiness of others by their perceived coherence with their political positions – opponents are considered unworthy Neanderthals.

A different contribution:
“What I don't understand about the Northwest pilots' overflying their destination is that they missed the radio messages from the controllers. As I understand it, when the controllers received no response to their queries, that is when the ANG F-16's started to warm up and when everyone went into high warble over a possible terrorist incident. As you noted, there has to be something other than computer use that was going on.”
My reply:
They missed a lot more than just radio calls. Modern avionics systems present a variety of alerts and prompts to the crew, with the intent of helping the pilots maintain situation awareness. Plus, most big iron aircraft have company text messaging systems. Those two Northwest pilots missed a lot of things; not least of which, is a burning 6th sense that all pilots feel when they don’t hear anything on the radio for an extended time and especially approaching the boundary of controller regions. There is far too much we do not know, yet. On the ground side, aircraft do occasionally go NORDO (= NO RaDiO), which in itself is unusual since most modern aircraft have at least two radios; airliners like the A-320 have 3, 4, sometime 5 radios. There are NORDO procedures that have existed for decades. The controllers would have assumed NORDO since the aircraft was cruising at altitude and did not descent at its TOD (= Top Of Descent) point, which is what they would have expected for a NORDO aircraft, and is thus when they notified NorCom. I suspect the procedures may change that will scramble the fighters after so many minutes of no radio, transponder, or message contact. I get distracted when I’m focused on a research or writing task, but never distracted for over an hour. Yes, there is much more to this story than we know, and given the pilots’ sense of self-preservation, I suspect we may never know what happened in that cockpit on that day.

Another contribution:
“Regarding the notes of the Saturday night ‘procedural’ vote, I ask only this: I understand that for any domestic financial obligations be created the Internal Revenue code is a logical place for the law(s) to be established and documented, however, what does the ‘first-time’ home buyers credit have to do with health care? I'm amazed we can find anything in our financial accounting systems....or can we? This might also be a clue as to why we cannot find graft, mis-use, etc. with the current entitlement programs.”
My response:
The procedural vote was to end debate on the financial bill in order to open the floor debate on the health care bill. The two bills are not related, except by closing debate on one opened the debate for the other.

Our last contribution this week:
“Right on with the PC diversity discussion on the good raghead major. I'm surprised that no one has the nerve in the media to mention that he stayed in the service only because everyone who knew better was afraid to confront him because of the issue of diversity. It's was the same issue some years ago when ADM Stan Arthur was ‘Bork-ed’ by the PC police (Sen. Pat Schroeder) from his assignment as CINCPAC because, after no one in the chain of command had the nerve, he told some young female pilot that she didn't cut it. Same story with the female commander of the Abu Greb (sp?) prison who was obviously promoted far beyond her capability. I'm sure you've also noticed the USNA drill team where two members were replaced to show diversity. The message to our military members is obvious, do the PC thing, not the right thing.”
My reply:
I did not know the Stan Arthur story directly – only indirectly via the Pat Schroeder episode. I’m not so sure about the USNA Color Guard event; that was not a life-or-death situation like flying, and as I understand it, all 26 or 29 Mids were equally qualified to perform those duties. If so, then other selection factors may well have been appropriate.

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