Update from the Heartland
No.416
30.11.09 – 6.12.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
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 :-)
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 :-)
2 comments:
"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.
MrMacnCheese,
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 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.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment