Update no.435

Update from the Heartland

No.435

12.4.10 – 18.4.10

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

The follow-up news items:
-- Information about the Smolensk Tu-154 crash [434] that killed Poland’s President Lech Kaczynski continues to trickle out. The pilot (captain) was Polish Air Force Captain Arkadiusz Protasiuk, 36 – an age that seems fairly young for carrying a head of state. Conflicting bits of information make it difficult to gain a clear image of what happened. One report indicated the aircraft clipped at tower and rolled. Another report suggested the aircraft clipped an 8m tree at a point on approach that it should have been at about 60m height above ground. Polish sources are not embracing the pilot error scenario, while Russian sources hint at what would be a classic CFIT accident.

Please permit me to make a couple of general observations.

All this kerfuffle over Governor [Robert Francis] “Bob” McDonnell of Virginia and his Confederate History Month proclamation has now blown up into an indictment of Southern Republicans. Under a massive barrage of righteous indignation, Bob acknowledged the error of his proclamation and revised it to acknowledge the involvement of slavery in the formation of the Confederate States of America. Then, to stoke the fire, Governor Haley [Reeves] Barbour of Mississippi in another interview proclaimed the brouhaha “didn’t mean diddly.” I witnessed an interesting little on-line debate – one side outraged that no mention was made of slavery, and the other side offended that such a noble cause was being diminished over a peripheral issue like slavery. The only thing I can figure is this must be selective memory for political purposes, on both sides. To suggest slavery was not a primary factor and a major cause for the Civil War is just flat-assed wrong. The catalytic event was the election of Abraham Lincoln – not some new legislation, or law enforcement action . . . an election – three months before he became President. Just the perception of expected future action was sufficient to instigate a horrendous armed conflict. The first shots fired came one month after Lincoln’s inauguration. I have been a Jeffersonian states-rights person for a long time. I have long believed in the elegance of the 9th & 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, despite the reticence of the Supremes to face the implications of those two amendments. Yet, I must put all of that aside when there is a collective need like an attack or infringement on a citizen’s rights. The key has always been and will always be balance and respect. The Confederacy is our history, just as slavery is part of what has made us what we are. We must not deny the horrible consequences of slavery. Conversely, to denigrate the noble intentions of the Confederacy is equally wrong in the other direction. The War between the States became a violent struggle for the definition of union, federalism, and primacy; that struggle has been reinvigorated of late. The Civil War accomplished many good things, but it also killed 600,000 American citizens and wounded another 500,000. Lest we forget.

I understand the dissatisfaction of a goodly portion of our citizens with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [PL 111-148] [432] and the method of its passage, leaving us with the impression that it was rammed down our throats. Yet, much of what I hear today has nothing to do with health care reform and seems to be exclusively dogmatic, anti-Obama vitriol – the flip side of the anti-Bush venom of a few years ago. I mean, really, states challenging the law in court, talk of armed rebellion, throwing labels like socialist and communist around like spit-balls in school . . . is this really what political intercourse has degenerated to? To me, what is far worse than all of the political diatribe . . . the opposition has offered nothing, nada, niente, not a word about alternatives. I am left with the impression that the opposition’s attitude is quite akin to an earlier era’s royal nonchalance – “Qu'ils mangent de la brioche” = Let them eat cake! Despite my objections to the methods employed, at least the President and Democratic congressional leadership did something about a very real, tangible problem. It might not even be the correct solution, but it is far better than the status quo ante. It is easy to grinch & grind about all the things we don’t like; it is far harder to offer solutions. I am tiring of listening to all the naysayers who have nothing to offer toward solutions. Furthermore, it seems rather sanctimonious to pretend there is no problem when you have adequate medical insurance coverage or sufficient resource to pay for treatment outright. I ask all the naysayers . . . where is your compassion for those not so fortunate? I recognize and acknowledge how hard it is for the opposition party to have to watch the other guys spending the People’s Treasury on their pet projects. I understand their interest in denigrating the party in power for one sole reason . . . to return their party to power . . . so they can spend the People’s Treasury on their own pet projects. It seems all politicians are just simple variations of exactly the same traits. Sure, we can all agree that none of us are interested or enthusiastic about supporting those among us who prefer to be non-productive and make no contribution to the betterment of society; however, there are far more citizens who are productive and need our assistance. So, if the [law] is not the answer, what is?

President Bill Clinton was interviewed by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on the 15th. When asked about the harsh rhetoric during the health care reform debate, Bill said, “By all means keep fighting, by all means, keep arguing, but remember, words have consequences as much as actions do, and what we advocate, commensurate with our position and responsibility, we have to take responsibility for. We owe that to Oklahoma City.” Bill’s point: people must mind their words and tone down the divisive rhetoric as less stable citizens can easily become unhinged and injure others, like Timothy McVeigh, David Koresh, Scott Roeder, among far too many others. Spot on, Bill. I fundamentally disagree with Rush Limbaugh’s condemnation of Clinton’s statement; sometimes I wonder if el-Rush-bo has gone ‘round the bend.

On Tuesday, the United States of America and President Obama hosted the chiefs of state for 47 nations in the Nuclear Security Summit. The first sentence of the resultant communiqué fairly well stated the purpose. “Nuclear terrorism is one of the most challenging threats to international security, and strong nuclear security measures are the most effective means to prevent terrorists, criminals, or other unauthorized actors from acquiring nuclear materials.” The summit was the culmination of a series of actions by the President to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and further isolate rogue states like the DPRK and IRI. I continue to hope the President’s approach is successful.

Before the ink on the Nuclear Summit memorandum could dry, a secret, three-page memorandum from the Defense Secretary to top White House officials was disclosed that the United States does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran's steady progress toward nuclear capability. I am not sure what purpose was served in releasing such a document other than some disgruntled alter-ego for Tom Drake (noted below). Leaks like these are destructive to this Grand Republic, i.e., all of us . . . We, the People, no matter what your political persuasion or party in power.

Thomas A. Drake, a National Security Agency (NSA) employee, stands accused by the government of providing classified information to various Press outlets between February 2006 and November 2007. Based on public information, it is rare that we try, convict and punish one of these guys, so I hope he feels the full weight of the United States of America to the fullest extent of the law. I have railed against guys like Drake for many years, and now I want retribution for his betrayal of We, the People.

On Thursday, President Obama issued another historic memorandum, this one to the Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius née Gilligan, titled: “Respecting the Rights of Hospital Patients to Receive Visitors and to Designate Surrogate Decision Makers for Medical Emergencies.” The first sentence of the memorandum: “There are few moments in our lives that call for greater compassion and companionship than when a loved one is admitted to the hospital. In these hours of need and moments of pain and anxiety, all of us would hope to have a hand to hold, a shoulder on which to lean -- a loved one to be there for us, as we would be there for them.” The initiative is intended to end discrimination against non-heterosexual, non-conventional relationships and allow individual citizens to identify the people who are significant to them at an important part of their lives. Fortunately, some vestiges of humanity are beginning to creep into our public policy.

I am getting very tired of this “Party of No” crap. I am always thankful for a vigorous opposition, but if I had tried to do in the military or in business what the Republicans are doing in Congress, I would be a destitute, unemployed, homeless vagabond. Now, to be fair, the Democrats were doing precisely the same thing when they were the opposition, so while the Republicans garner my ire today, my anger applies to both parties. Why we continue to tolerate the “nattering nabobs of negativism” from either political party is simply beyond my comprehension. We need solutions to very real problems. I do not want to listen to anymore whining from these malcontents. Take what is on the table and make it better, or offer a better alternative. Enlist We, the People, to help achieve a reasonable compromise. Just saying NO simply ain’t gonna cut it.

News from the economic front:
-- U.S. retail sales increased 1.6% in March from a month earlier. Strong automotive sales led the way, yet other retail sales, excluding the automotive sector, rose 0.6%. Consumer prices rose 2.3% compared with a year ago, while prices excluding volatile food and energy were 1.1% higher on the year – the smallest annual increase since January 2004. Americans appear to be gaining confidence the economy is improving.
-- This has not been a good week for the investment bank, Goldman Sachs Group in the legal arena. The expanding Federal investigation into insider-trading and the financial crisis of 2008, is pointing toward the venerable Wall Street firm, largely unscathed in the crisis. A board member is under investigation for providing inside information about the Wall Street firm to indicted, Galleon hedge-fund founder Raj Rajaratnam [409-10] during the height of the financial crisis. The firm also stands accused of grievously misleading investors regarding an array of sub-prime mortgage instruments, essentially advising customers to buy while they took out derivatives that the funds would fail. This is going to get very ugly before we see the light of a new era.
A postscript: What is any different from what Goldman Sachs (and probably other [if not all] commercial and investment banks) has allegedly done and what Pete Rose and other sports stars did betting on games they were playing in? I imagine they never considered the ethics of what they were doing, and certainly did not think they would ever get caught. Surprise! I hope more greedy bastards like Bernie will get to be Bubba’s love buddy.
Just an FYI: we are still waiting on the Supremes to decide the appeal of Jeff Skilling (of Enron infamy), not quite nine years after the collapse of the company he ran. Jeffy has been in prison since 2006 – poor boy! Enron was one of many “canaries in the mine” that foretold what was coming. We chose to ignore the signs. Skilling is whining like all the other greedy bastards who got caught. We have many more to go before retribution is served.
-- President Obama signed into law the Continuing Extension Act of 2010 [PL 111-157; H.R.4851; House: 289-112-0-29(5); Senate: 59-38-0-3(0)] to extend unemployment compensation for another six (6) months.

Comments and contributions from Update no.434:
“The Phelps group sickens me. I heard this morning that they showed up at the site of the West Virginia mining disaster to pull their crap. I know what I am about to say crosses the line into vigilantism, but I don't care. I'd love to see some of those coal miners or their families grab a couple of those Phelps scumbags, drag them into an alley and pummel the snot out of them. If I sat on that jury, I wouldn't convict them. I won't feel an ounce of sympathy for anything bad that happens to those toerags that make up the Phelps group.
“Our moronic President does it again. Hey rogue nations, go ahead and unleash chemical and bio weapons on us, and we won't retaliate with nuclear weapons. This guy has no clue when it comes to protecting the nation. Then again, given his apology tour at the start of his administration, and his association with Reverend Wright, it's clear he doesn't think highly of this country and that he thinks being nice to bad guys is the way to peace. Yeah, that really worked for Neville Chamberlain, didn't it? And I thought Bill Clinton was a bad President.
“Yes, I admit, I am letting my emotions getting the better of mine. But I'm to the point where I just don't care.”
My reply:
Quite understandable. The Phelps clan has found the means to attract national and international attention for their rabid ideology. I understand your sentiment. Yet, I imagine there are folks who feel the same about my opinions. I would hope there would be someone who would stand up and defend my freedom of speech, as I find myself defending the freedom of speech of the Phelps clan and their right to be uncivil, disrespectful, and otherwise disgusting. The Phelps clan represents one of many heavy, burdensome prices we must pay for “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.” Freedom is freedom . . . not fragments for the chosen.
As I have written, I do not share the President’s approach to many things. Regardless, I want his softer approach to be successful. We need him to be successful. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the moment. I made the reference to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policy for a precise, purposeful reason . . . the similarities are too obvious. Much as I fear the comparable policy approach, there are many reasons that today is different from 70 years ago. The speed of modern life makes realization of the consequences easier to see and quicker to recognize . . . at least in theory.
BTW, FWIW, IMHO, Jimmy Carter was far worse as a president than Bill Clinton – the worst in my lifetime. Also, Barack is way too early in his presidency to make such judgments. Results will prove or disprove his policies and establish his success or failure. Time shall tell the tale.

Another contribution:
“Re the Polish plane crash…the Russians warned the Polish plane not to land, some accounts say ordered. The Russian controllers had forbid a Russian military plane from landing shortly before the accident. They had attempted to divert the Poles to Minsk, Belaruas, but the Poles still tried to land. Had they landed in Minsk, they well would have been late for or missed the event for which they were traveling. Also, relations between Minsk and Warsaw are somewhat strained, so it would been difficult- but not impossible- to land there and move to Katyn, near Smolensk, Russia. One account held that the Polish president had browbeaten pilots to land in other difficult situations. At any rate, an entirely avoidable tragedy.”
My response:
Available public information supports your views. This accident has all the hallmarks of CFIT. Whether the president browbeat the pilot is really immaterial. Every commercial pilot knows the time comes when pressure is applied from many sources. Military pilots face an even greater challenge – they know lives depend upon their skills & decisions. Yet, at the end of the day, the pilot is trained, experienced, and paid to resist all pressures and make the correct decisions for mission accomplishment. The pilot was probably a Polish Air Force colonel, and should have been immune to such pressure. For whatever reason(s), the captain failed. An entirely avoidable tragedy, indeed!!

One more contribution:
“The only comment to the top portion of this blog in regards to parents is this ... parents can teach kids right from wrong and discourage mean behavior … but just as dogs when they get into a pack, kids at the teen level have a mind of their own and throw all previous learnings into the wind … I have lived with this similar situation when [my daughter] was younger … she had several girls that made life miserable for her on a daily basis at [her high school] . Which is why she ended up leaving the school and getting her GED instead. Those girls at [her high school] could very well have been raised by their parents to be nice to others, but once they got together into their ‘pack’ at school and away from their parents, they fed off each other and had fun playing their little torment games. The incident with the Irish lass sounds so familiar ... [my daughter] also went ‘out’ with one of the boys a grade ahead of her and from that time on, was treated meanly by the young wenches in that grade. The school DOES have a responsibility in that often what happens in school, is merely a school incident and needs to be addressed … maybe parents should be brought in so that ALL are informed of the bad behavior but often kids at that age don't want their parents included thus don't say anything ... the Irish lass probably figured matters would worsen if she brought her mother into it … she probably felt life was futile … she was here in a strange land and had no where else to go … social life is so important at that age and when it is taken away, it is devastating … there are so many psychological factors and schools should not wear blinders nor blame things on parents ... if a student appears to be distressed due to social factors, a formal SIT DOWN of all students involved needs to be had … with no one leaving the discussion until matters are resolved … this can only be done at school, WHERE the events are taking place … parents being involved in the meeting might not be a bad idea either … but it must take place at school.”
My reply:
I remember what you told us about [your daughter’s] experience. I do not know the details either in [your daughter’s] case or in Phoebe Prince’s case.
I offer my opinions only. I am not a psychologist, forensics expert, or even a social worker. I just think.
Sure, those girls that tormented [your daughter] may have been delightful children, raised properly by their caring, involved, attentive parents. Anything is possible. My opinion, based on thinking a lot about these things, I say bullshit! I’d bet a dollar to donuts that parents were at least complacent . . . more likely negligent or even abusive.
Packs occur when individuals cannot hunt by themselves. Bullies rarely act alone; they commonly gather backers, supporters, similarly minded kids. The pack does not have a mind of its own; it has a leader. I also believe the signs of such behavior are readily observable. Bullies lack confidence in themselves and seek validation by dominating or intimidating others, or by inciting others to do their dirty work (Hitler comes to mind on that one), or any combination thereof.
Your assessment of Phoebe Prince’s likely mindset is probably correct, certainly the most probable. If all we did was focus on the bully, as is so often the case, then the “make matters worse” would most likely be the outcome. The right way to deal with bullies or even packs is via the parents . . . to let them feel the heat, to know we are watching, to know that we will hold them accountable for the conduct of their children. Such confrontation would not work in every case, especially the extreme ones, but it does work in most cases.
You have a very good point . . . an all-hands, student sit down would certainly help . . . if for no other purpose than to raise awareness or present relief outlets. But, I keep returning to the root cause. Human children are not born hunters, self-sufficient, autonomous individuals; they are taught . . . by example, by instruction. Children are not born bullies. They are not born killers. They are not born criminals or even bad; they are neutral, clean slates; they learn. They learn everything – eating, cleaning, speaking, sex, relationships, all of it – they learn; when they are not taught by parents, they learn from peers. Schools are certainly a party to the process. After all, kids spend about a 1/3 of their school days in school; it is also where they gain much of their social interactive skills. So, yes, schools must be involved. However, so much of their character is established in infancy; some say the dye is cast by age 5 – infancy – virtually all parent(s).

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