Update no.480

Update from the Heartland

No.480

21.2.11 – 27.2.11

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

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- On Wednesday, the Obama administration announced it will no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA) [PL 104-199], which means the government will not argue the appeal of the companion cases – Massachusetts v. United States and Gill v. OPM [449]. This decision alters the legal terrain with respect to numerous judicial challenges on the long journey to gain equal rights for non-heterosexual citizens.
-- The Julian Assange saga continues [469]. Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) Howard Riddle of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, sitting at Belmarsh Court in southeast London, handed down his decision in the extradition case of Sweden v. Assange [2011]. Julian Paul Assange is to be sent in custody to Sweden for questioning about a set of sexual assault allegations. Assange has the right of appeal, which by British law must be filed within seven days; I expect the judge’s decision to be appealed – the beat goes on. A central element in the judge’s ruling was the legal debate over the propriety and authority of Sweden’s Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny to issue the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) for Assange on 18.November.2010. As Judge Riddle noted, “A prosecutor should not seek to arrest and extradite Mr. Assange simply for the purposes of questioning as long as other means have not been tried, or have been tried and failed.” Most of the judicial contemplation attempted to sift through the defense’s contention on invalidity on various grounds. At the end of the day, the judge concluded, “In fact as I am satisfied that extradition is compatible with the defendant’s [Human Rights] Convention rights, I must order that Mr Assange be extradited to Sweden.” The judge brushed aside the defense’s concern regarding further extradition to the United States (as they said) to face “execution for treason” – a bit strange but properly dealt with by the judge. The decision virtually ensures that Assange's efforts to build and promote WikiLeaks will be dampened in coming months by the possibility that he may face criminal sex charges.

An open opinion letter to my state legislative representatives:
Kansas Senate District 27
Senator Les Donovan
SB 514 - Kansas Community Defense Act
Kansas House District 94
Representative Joe McLeland
HB 2144 - Kansas Community Defense Act
Wichita Eagle
Update from the Heartland
The pending Kansas Community Defense Act (HB 2144 / SB514) is neither about community nor about defense. It is entirely about imposing the moral values of some residents upon the whole state for conduct that is out of public view and a matter of personal choice. To my knowledge, no one is forced to enter sexually oriented businesses (SOBs). Some residents object to what they perceive as immoral behavior inside adult-oriented businesses. I recognize and acknowledge that SOBs like strip clubs, sex toy shops, and erotic video stores are offensive to some of our more conservative, prudish or sensitive residents, but that does not alter reality. Sex is more than just procreation. Whether we like it or choose to admit it, sex is an important part of a citizen’s personal “pursuit of Happiness . . . at least for some.
In the legislature’s talking points, it says, “Sexually oriented businesses, as a category of commercial enterprises, are associated with a wide variety of adverse secondary effects including, but not limited to, personal and property crimes, prostitution, potential spread of disease, lewdness, public indecency, obscenity, illicit drug use and drug trafficking, negative impacts on surrounding properties, urban blight, litter, and sexual assault and exploitation.” Do you actually believe this propaganda and what amounts to political drivel? This is precisely the same circular faux-logic that gun control advocates like to use for their version of imposition on our freedom.

The fact that other states feel comfortable with the denial of freedom of choice for their residents is hardly compelling rationale for such restrictions in Kansas. I truly hope there is more substantive factual data to justify spending one more minute on legislation of this nature. If so, I think the public should see the evidence to justify a drastic imposition on our precious freedom of choice, rather than the supposition and conjecture offered up so far.
Let us stop this nonsense now. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject / defeat this foolishness and move onto far more pressing and important tasks before our state. Freedom is choice. We (You) must err on the side of freedom rather than continue down the path to tyranny.
Very respectfully submitted,
Cap Parlier

In perhaps the largest shift in process since its inception, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) is reportedly considering the alteration of assignment criteria, giving younger, healthier people preference over older, sicker patients for the best kidneys. The new rules would do away with the current system of giving priority primarily to patients who have been on the waiting list longest, as part of the most comprehensive overhaul of the transplant system in 25 years. Congress created the national system and process for organ sharing by the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 [PL 98-507; 19.10.1984].

I strive to avoid acknowledging terrorist or criminal activity, but occasionally an event deserves illumination. This week we experienced a classic example of the value of Human Intelligence (HumInt). The FBI arrested Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, 20, a Saudi national, attending Texas Tech University near Lubbock, Texas, on a proper student visa; he was reportedly studying for a chemical engineering degree. He has been charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. According to the FBI, they became aware of Aldawsari’s activities by tips from concerned citizens, who detected what they considered a suspicious purchase of phenol. Federal prosecutors say he had been researching online how to construct an improvised explosive device using several chemicals as ingredients. The FBI indicated his possible targets included the Dallas home of former President George W. Bush.

The Pentagon awarded the KC-X aerial refueling tanker contract to Boeing over rivals European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (EADS) and Russia’s Antonov, which given past performance may launch a fresh wave of political controversy, protests, wrangling and litigation. The new aircraft will be a B767-200LRF derivative, designated the KC-46A and is expected to replace the aging KC-135 fleet aerial tankers. The announcement instigated considerable celebration in Wichita, Kansas, as a substantial portion of work will be accomplished here. Regardless, I hope this decision will finally end the controversial rancor over nearly a decade. The nation needs to replace its venerable fleet of aerial tankers.

Additional information from Aslan Soobzokov’s long struggle:
“This is an article from 1986. Please read and share with your readers. Attached is a picture of my father before he was assassinated.
“Why is this not on the Internet? It shows my father’s innocence.
“God bless and take care.”
The article noted above:
“The Murder of an Innocent – Tscherim Soobzokov survived the Russians and the Nazis, but not the Jews”
Wilmot Robertson, Editor
Instauration
Published: August 1986; vol.11, no.9; pp.6-10
http://www.instaurationonline.com/pdf-files/Instauration-1986-08-August.pdf
For roughly the first four months of 1945, Tscherim Soobzokov wore the uniform of a Waffen-SS Obersturmführer (first lieutenant) in the Kaukasischer Waffen-Verband SS (Combined Caucasian Waffen-SS) as he tried to survive the final days of the war and protect other Circassian refugees. For that, he was assassinated at 04:30 [R] EDT, 14.August.1985, by a terrorist’s bomb booby-trapped to the front door of his home. The prevailing hypothesis identifies the perpetrators as a hit squad ordered by or affiliated with the Jewish Defense Organization (JDO) – the radical and militant fringe group formed by Mark “Mordechai” Levy, from the Jewish Defense League (JDL) in the early 1980’s. As noted in the article and other sources including the Government’s “Safe Haven” report [472], there was and to my knowledge still is not any evidence whatsoever the Tscherim Soobzokov was a member of the NSDAP, committed any war crimes, or killed or caused to be killed any other citizen. From my perspective, his only “offense” was trying to survive the war. The Soobzokov case takes on even more bizarre dimensions when compared to other real Nazis and actual war criminals. Example 1: SS-Standartenführer Dr. Martin Sandberger – commander of Sonderkommando 1a of Einsatzgruppe A (the largest of the SS mobile killing groups in Eastern Europe) – was sentenced to death by hanging by the Nürnberg Tribunal; his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, and he was released after only 6 years in Landsberg Prison; Sandberger died of natural causes on 30.March.2010, at the age of 98. Example 2: SS-Obersturmbannführer Joachim Peiper – commander of Kampfgruppe Peiper, Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler (LSSAH, 1st Division Waffen-SS) – ordered hundreds of American POW’s and local civilians executed during the Battle of the Bulge in what is collectively called the Malmédy Massacre; he was sentenced to death by hanging by the Nürnberg Tribunal; his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, and he was released after only 11 years; Peiper was killed on 14.July.1976, in a gunfight at his home that was believed to be an assassination that he resisted. Sandberger and Peiper were deep into multitudinous war crimes and crimes against humanity that are extensively and accurately documented; both men were tried and convicted of their crimes; both sentenced to death; neither man suffered their sentence. Tscherim Soobzokov was neither charged, tried, convicted nor sentenced, yet hateful people took it upon themselves to take an innocent life. The assassins must be brought to justice. Good luck and good hunting, Aslan.

News from the economic front:
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is investigating potential conflicts of interest in the fast-growing market for buying and selling shares of private companies like social networking organizations Facebook and Twitter. The move is part of an expanding investigation by the SEC of the “thriving bazaar that has sprung up largely beyond the reach of regulators and traditional securities firms.”
-- The USG reported business activity increased at an annual rate of 2.8% in 4Q2010, down from the initial estimate of 3.2%, as state and local governments cut spending more deeply and Americans spent less than originally estimated.
-- Popular investment guru, Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett expects a better business climate in 2011. The company’s book value grew 13% in 2010 to US$95,453 per share. The increase in book value fell short of 15.1% return of the Standard & Poor's 500 stock-index.

Comments and contributions from Update no.479:
Comment to the Blog:
“I am fascinated by your notion that the CIA has been in decline. The CIA's fumbles and foul-ups date back pretty much to their origin. While I agree that the Department of Homeland Insecurity has added a layer or two of nonsense and a new emphasis on removing Americans' civil liberties, the CIA can only be in decline after it achieves some sort of peak.
“Also, I'll say it again. The ‘war’ on terrorism, or Islamic fascism or whatever is about as winnable as the ‘wars’ on poverty and drugs.
“I am coping with my Statistics course and starting a job tomorrow, so I don't have time for my usual long responses.”
My response to the Blog:
I did not intend to imply that the CIA was in decline; quite the contrary. My point was the Church Committee (1977) shackled, hobbled and otherwise emasculated the CIA regarding vital HumInt (Human Intelligence) – our primary intelligence vulnerability. Has the CIA made mistakes? Yes, absolutely, without question. However, the agency has also accomplished substantial successes. The CIA’s HumInt capability grew rapidly & substantially post-9/11, largely due to the PATRIOT Act. Unfortunately, our drive to fight a war drove the USG to disregard our liberties to an extent. I believe there will be an appropriate correction; I just hope not an excessive correction as occurred in the wake of the Church Committee.
As we have discussed before, I do not share your assessment of the War on Islamic Fascism. Your point does have relevance, however. The “war on drugs” and to a limited extent poverty involve personal and private choices in a free society. Islamic Fascism employs an ideology, which makes it like the others, but it is the actions of the jihadistanis to export their violence that alters the dimensions. From your perspective, if the War on Islamic Fascism is not winnable, how would you suggest we deal with the exported violence of the jihadistanis?
Man oh man, I do not envy you! I really struggled with Probability & Statistics – never understood the mathematics of such misty concepts. Good luck.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“The Church Committee ‘shackled, hobbled, and emasculated’ the CIA for good reasons. Unfortunately, the so-called PATRIOT Act has removed any restraints on the intelligence community and the Department of Homeland Insecurity in general.
“I do not know the future of international relations or whether traditional military operations have a place in it. I suspect that we will never make a peaceful existence for ourselves until we ease off on the name-calling. In a day when a couple hundred dedicated people (al-Qaeda) can bring one of the more powerful nations on earth (the USA) a major defeat, other means are called for.
“By the way, the 9-11 attack and especially the US response becomes stranger and stranger as time goes on. I find it difficult to believe that the full might of the US military and civilian establishments cannot find and kill or capture one man whose small organization was largely obliterated within a hear after 9-11. Something is fishy there.
“What really brought all of this on us, however, was our attacking Iraq, which had nothing to do with al-Qaeda at the time. That was seen worldwide as an unprovoked attack.
“Statistics is far too abstract for me, but I don't see it as ‘misty.’ You and I (and many others) discuss politics and social issues daily. That stuff is ‘misty’ and murky and fuzzy, but important. Statistics is just the opposite.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Re: Church Committee. Indeed, for good reasons! Both the CIA & FBI abused the authority granted them; and, where there were no laws or guidance, they sought forgiveness rather than endure the delay and rigors of seeking approval. Yes, the Church Committee was necessary and warranted. However, my point has been and remains, the consequent laws over-compensated, and the leadership of the CIA at the time believed their own drivel that superior technical means could overcome the paucity of robust in situ HumInt. They were wrong! Furthermore, I also agree the USA PATRIOT Act [PL 107-056] has been abused by the USG, like so many other laws created and enforced by flawed men. I believe, or maybe it is blind hope I feel, the excesses of the USG in the name of national security will be reined in eventually. Yet, the prime counter to my opinion is highlighted by the fact that the majority of the American People have chosen to remain oblivious to the serious encroachment upon our most precious freedoms by the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 [PL 91-513; 27.10.1970], 40 years hence; we still have not seen the light.
Re: international relations. I’m not sure what name-calling you are referring to here. Al-Qaeda’s numbers are far more than a couple of hundred. Next, the United States is a very long way from defeat in the War on Islamic Fascism. Given your opinion, I am quite confused as to the world you see if the U.S. took a pacifist approach to the jihadistanis? Do you think al-Qaeda and the jihadists would return to peaceful, non-offensive existence, if we withdrew all our military forces to within our borders, disarmed and discharged the military? If not that far, where is the acceptable level?
Re: finding bin-Laden. To the point, Usama bin-Laden is not Adolf Eichmann. Pakistan is an order of magnitude more difficult problem than Afghanistan, or in Adolf’s case Argentina. As we bear witness in the Raymond Davis case, our ability to operate in Pakistan is not easy. What conspiracy regarding bin-Laden’s capture / elimination do you perceive?
Re: Iraq. We shall respectfully disagree.
Re: statistics. You say po-tay-tow, I say po-taw-tow. Still misty to me. Nonetheless, you offered a far better descriptor – abstract – oh yes indeedie, abstract in the extreme. Once again, good luck with your studies. I survived mine, but without great margin.

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

Update no.479

Update from the Heartland

No.479

14.2.11 – 20.2.11

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

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The National Academy of Sciences questioned the link between a flask of anthrax bacteria, marked RMR-1029, found in Bruce E. Ivins’s [346] laboratory at the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (MRMC), Fort Detrick, Maryland, and the 18.September.2001, anthrax attack [064] that killed five people and sickened 17 others. The NAS panel of scientists claim the DNA-linkage between the spores used in the attack and those in the RMR-1029 flask are not as conclusive and irrefutably identical as the FBI portrayed in closing the case last year. Ivins committed suicide in 2008, as the FBI moved to arrest and charge him with carrying out the terrorist attack.
-- On 26.September.2010, the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reported that a virus known as the Stuxnet worm had infected computers at the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Public professional speculation narrowed to a handful of nation-states with the capability to produce and inject a virus as sophisticated as the Stuxnet worm. The supposition regarding the infection’s source, operation and consequences continue to garner considerable contemplation and speculation. Then, this week, an anonymous group known as the “hacktivists” claimed credit for Stuxnet and released a decrypted version of Stuxnet into the public domain. This is the same group that carried out a denial of service attack in December [469], on numerous banks & websites seen as turning their backs on WikiLeaks after Julian Assange was arrested.

For the last month, we have been bombarded by Press reports via virtually every medium available regarding the general discontent and mobilization of the population in North Africa and the Middle East. The populist complaints being no jobs, rampant governmental corruption, scarcity of good food and water, rising prices, and general resentment over their near-poverty existence. Those of us observing events in the region from afar quietly cheer for the common folk of Tunisia and Egypt who were peacefully protesting with defiance against the autocracy and rampant corruption of their governments, and for their freedom to choose their government. We want them to be successful, to find the freedom they deserve and we enjoy. Concomitantly, our memory of 1979 remains extraordinarily fresh, with a commensurate fear the religious fanatics might commandeer their newly one and hard-fought freedom. On the dark side of these historic convulsions, I cannot fail observing and noting that unbounded procreation, largely spurred by those same clerics seeking power, surely appears to be the root cause – a burgeoning population that has outstripped the capacity of the land to support so many people. Yemen – a very poor country situated in a nearly barren region on this planet – cannot sustain its population. Is it the fault of the United States for not supporting their unchecked procreation? Mother Nature employs a very rigorous and positive mechanism to ensure that any given population remains sustainable. If the locally available food supply fails, the population dies off until the land can support it. We have altered Mother Nature’s processes in the name of compassion, humanity and generosity. When will they embrace reality? When will Yemenis and Somalis and all the others in barren lands look to themselves for the cause and solution to their economic woes?

A long-time friend, colleague and brother-in-arms sent the following link and wrote, “Some interesting concepts. I am interested in your thoughts on this article.” To wit:
“Congress and the Power of the Purse: Paying for the Ear, Eye, Hand and the Fist”
by James Callard
The American Chronicle
Posted: February 14, 2011
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/217498
. . . to which I answered:
Interesting, indeed! I read a lot of essays like Callard’s from both ends of the spectrum and a good smattering between the poles.
In short, he makes some very good and valid points. However, the impression of a pronounced bias against the naval services diminishes his argument. The focus on the Navy’s aircraft carriers and the Marine’s EFV begs the question: does he understand potential and alternative purposes? A debate for another day, nonetheless.
The underlying point, however, is appropriate and spot on, it seems to me, which is also the point Rumsfeld was trying to make before 9/11 and Gates has been making recently – future wars are not going to be massed armies on the European plain. Yes, we need to cut back the Defense Department, which remains organized and configured for the Cold War, while we seriously expand the unconventional forces to include cyber-warfare.
One of my concerns and in fact a counter-argument to my opinion remains technological advancement. Would we have been as motivated to develop advance control technology without FX / LHX placed in the environment of the Soviet Fulda threat? I strongly suspect not. [As a side note, I find it quite refreshing as a counter-counter-argument to see even little snippets of Sikorsky’s X2 technology demonstrator program.]
From my perspective (which I truly hope is totally wrong), We, the People, have failed to address a far greater vulnerability than our improperly configured Defense establishment – reform and reconfiguration of the Intelligence Community (IC). Our dark-side guys appear to have struggled mightily to overcome the shackles and constraints of the Church Committee, but I respectfully submit, based on the wide variety of court cases and legislation, that we have missed the boat dreadfully. The few publicly acknowledged successes of the CIA’s drone program portends better coordination with ground operatives, so perhaps the Operations Branch has made progress by leaps & bounds; but, those successes do not justify the bludgeon approach to domestic civil rights, inherent freedoms, and pervasive enemy. I have been and remain disappointed in the National Intelligence Directorate, which from my perspective, was created as more bureaucracy on top of bad bureaucracy, hardly a reasoned solution.
Collaterally, keeping our warfare technology current remains an essential requirement. When we look back on history to the aftermath of the War to End All Wars, the drive toward disarmament embodied in the handful of treaties, like the Washington Naval Arms Treaty that were well-intentioned but ill-advised, left us weak and vulnerable. In the 1920’s, few people believed a global war was looming in either Europe or Asia. As a result, we were woefully ill-prepared for what came a decade later. Today, trajectories are flatter and much faster than a century ago. We need technology like the F-22 and F-35; and, without those programs, how do we keep the technology base alive?
Regardless of any service bias, I think Bob Gates is doing what has to be done, and I think Jim Callard has the right idea. I would simply urge a more balanced presentation – neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of Homeland Security is the sole culprit here.
. . . with this follow-up:
“I am not sure that the requirement for new weapons has to be the only way technology advances or even the best way for research to get funded. It would seem much more focused to spend the limited dollars solving more general needs than spinning the technology pursued for weapons out to the rest of humanity. In aviation, I have become more and more convinced that the true leadership in avionics advancements have come from the lowly general aviation end of the spectrum.”
. . . to which I replied:
My point with technology development / advancement was focus, i.e., a clearly identified purpose . . . in our case Soviet aggression through the Fulda Gap. Yes, certainly, there are points of focus like “landing a man on the Moon in this decade.” I would love to see that level of focus on non-fossil fuel powerplants from lawnmowers to gigawatt power generation. Unfortunately, we have not had a leader yet who could focus We, the People, like Franklin Roosevelt did in 1940.
I would also agree on the source of avionics advancements like we used to say with ADFCS development – anyone can fly this. However, let us not forget the discussions we had about flat panel displays and situational awareness depiction.
A good example of the obscenity of the military-industrial complex is this damnable F-35 2nd engine fiasco.
Anyway, I think we are all in agreement. The next bunch of months will be quite entertaining as Congress jumps into the appropriations process.

An update from Aslan Soobzokov [474/6] on his efforts to vindicate his father’s assassination:
“With respect to the suspects, please be advised as follows:
“1- The attachment to the petition I filed is a FOIA request that I received from FBI which lists three suspects but their identifiers were redacted.
“2- The FBI report also lists the name of Craig Leitner who they were seeking his cooperation with the investigation. Nothing further was added. They also redacted the name of another individual who they sought cooperation from.
“3- The report shows that our former neighbour identified an individual involved from a photograph, that individual was apparently casing our home a day before the bombing.
“4- According to the report, the suspects were in the company of the terrorist Maier Kahane both before and after the bombing. Again, other names in the report were redacted.
“5- Robert Steven Manning was identified in a Los Angeles Times article dated June 25, 1988.
“6- Mordechai Levy was identified in a New York Times article dated March 2, 1992.
“7- Bart Silverman, Andrew Barnet Green, and Keith Israel Fuchs were identified in an article published by the Dallas Morning News on July 3, 1988.
“8- Irv Rubin and Robert Kugler were also identified in prior publications, I will read further to provide the source of this information.
“9- I will conduct additional research to provide you with further information.
“Some of these individuals are believed to be residing in the occupied territories in Israel/Palestine at the Kiryat Arba settlements. As you are aware Kahane was shot in New York City in 1992. Irv Rubin and Robert Kugler were killed in Prison within the last two or three years. Robert Steven Manning is serving a 30 year prison sentence for sending a mail bomb that took the life of Patricia Wilkerson in California. He was the only terrorist extradited from Israel to face murder charges for which he was convicted. I suspect that they made a deal with him in some manner so that he would not be implicated in my father’s assassination.
“Manning and the other suspects took up residence in Israel, served in the army reserves there to protect themselves from extradition. Israel has a policy whereby they do not extradite Jews that served in their military. As I recall, Kahane while head of the Kach party who spear headed the legislation while he had influence in Israel.
“By way of update to the petition I filed, I received a motion to dismiss my petition by Department of Justice with a return date of only three weeks. I will seek an extension to reply. In theory they contend that the executive branch has the exclusive authority to determine which cases they prosecute. Their brief contains over 100 sources of authority to support their position. I am outgunned right now and could use the help of an attorney with courage and integrity. Not an easy task my friend.
“Thanks for your support and I will keep you posted.”
My reply:
Thank you for the update.
I am not an attorney, so I am hardly the help you need. It is so typical; the USG uses its mass & hordes of lawyers to overwhelm any challenger. I will post your message in this week’s Update. Let’s see what turns up. Maybe someone of the list would be willing to provide professional assistance.
Is the government’s brief available on-line? If not, could I ask you to scan the document. I would like to read / study their submittal.
Were all the men you identified involved in your father’s assassination? My lay understanding of the law, the Executive does hold that authority to prosecute or not. If your original petition is dismissed, what about a wrongful death civil suit against the individuals, especially Manning, since he is apparently incarcerated in the U.S. and thus accessible. I don’t know the law for international civil cases, but it might be a path to reach those suspects in Israel. Just a thought.
“The only way to get it online is via pacer. I don't know if you will be given access to it through this medium. You did receive it via PDF correct?
“The men that I identified to you were via articles that I read. I provided you with the sources of most of the information. I have copy of the articles if you want to see them.
“Your suggestions are sincerely appreciated.
“Be assured that I will do my best to oppose the government’s motion. There is no doubt in my soul that I will need the help of almighty God. I have faith and am not afraid.”
I read the government’s Brief in Support of their Motion to Dismiss in the case of Soobzokov v. Holder [USDC NJ civ act no.: 06260-DRD-MAS (2010)]. I appreciate the legal argument; however, I am left with one pervasive, dominant, unavoidable impression. So much of proper governance, the stability of society, and the passivity of the citizenry depend upon trust – trust that the government will follow the rules, obey the law, and enforce the law. When the government decides not to prosecute a crime, it steps out onto very thin ice. A crime has been committed. On 14.August.1985, hours after reporting an attempt to run him down, Tscherim Soobzokov was murdered by an assassin’s bomb; his wife, daughter and four-year old grandchild also suffered injuries in the blast. Tscherim was accused of war crimes, but had not been tried before a jury of his peers nor convicted of any crime. He was an innocent man unless convicted by due process of law. His killers deserve to be tried and punished for their crimes. Justice has not been served. Aslan Soobzokov needs our support.

As an important reminder of the world in which we live . . . On Sunday, 30.January.2011, 14-year-old Hena Begum of Bangladesh was raped by a 40-year-old married cousin. As a consequence, a Muslim cleric issued a fatwa punishment of 100-lashes for Hena; her crime . . . having sex out of wedlock. The next day, Monday, 31.January.2011, as Hena struggled to endure her “punishment,” she died as strike number 80 was applied. This is barbarism in the name of religion of the worst possible kind, far worse than any savagery on the battlefield, or the indiscriminate brutality of the Inquisition. This is today. This is the insanity defined by more than a few clerics – the same men who seek to govern us all. This is sharia law that al-Qaeda seeks to impose upon every human being on the planet. This is why we cannot fail to achieve victory in the War on Islamic Fascism.

Last December, U.S. District Judge John Deacon Bates of the District of Columbia dismissed the civil action filed by Nasser al-Awlaqi [a legal resident alien] on behalf of his son, Anwar al-Awlaqi – a U.S. citizen by birth and self-anointed Muslim cleric hiding out in Yemen and closely affiliated with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Al-Aulaqi v. Obama [USDC DC case 1:10-cv-01469-JDB (2010)] [FYI: I use the more common and popular phonetic spelling al-Awlaqi vice the judge’s preference for Al-Aulaqi.] The father accused the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the CIA of unlawfully authorizing the targeted killing of his son. Judge Bates wrote, “To be sure, this Court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion – that there are circumstances in which the Executive’s unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is ‘constitutionally committed to the political branches’ and judicially unreviewable.” Unsettling indeed! Yet, I must confess and confirm my agreement with the judge’s observation and his reasoning regarding “extrajudicial killing” of a U.S. citizen. While the case is unique, it is not likely to remain so, given the circumstances of the present War on Islamic Fascism. As Judge Bates noted, “[al-Awlaqi] has made clear his belief that ‘international treaties’ do not govern Muslims, and that Muslims are not bound by any law – U.S., international, or otherwise – that conflicts with the ‘law of Allah.’” The lack of any overt effort by Anwar to submit to U.S. law became the cornerstone of the judge’s legal rationale. I must add that clerics like Anwar al-Awlaqi are precisely why the separation of church and state is so bloody important. He places Muslims above the law by “his” interpretation of God’s law; thus, he has placed himself above the law as the anointed conveyor of God’s law. This sectarian ideology and credo is the very essence of religious conflict, strife and war; believers believe as he believes, all others are infidels and untermenschen – the epitome of intolerance. It is also precisely this philosophy that demands the defeat or suppression of Islamic fundamentalists bent upon imposition of “their” interpretation of God’s law on everyone. This is also why Islamic fundamentalists hate and despise freedom so much – freedom demands tolerance of others not like them.

News from the economic front:
-- President Obama submitted the administration’s FY2012 budget to Congress, totaling US$3.7T, trims or terminates more than 200 federal programs next year, and makes key investments in education, transportation and research in a bid to boost the nation's economy and reduce record budget deficits. The budget also includes a projected FY2011 deficit of US$1.65T – the largest dollar amount ever.
-- The Federal Reserve upgraded its forecasts for how much the U.S. economy will grow this year, despite persistently high unemployment. The Fed raised its core growth projections from 3.0 - 3.6% to 3.4 - 3.9%, with unemployment rate expected to be 8.8 – 9.0% by the end of this year.
-- The People's Bank of China (PBOC) – the PRC’s central bank – announced an increase in the reserve-requirement ratio by half a percentage point to 19.5%, the second such increase this year, in the bank’s effort to control inflation. The PRC’s Consumer-Price Index (CPI) rose 4.9% in January, up from 4.6% in December.

L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- “From Prison, Madoff Says Banks ‘Had to Know’ of Fraud”
by Diana B. Henriques
New York Times
Published: February 15, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/business/madoff-prison-interview.html?_r=1&emc=na
In his first interview for publication since his arrest in December 2008, incarcerated felon, dear ol’ Bernie said he was shocked by the destruction his crimes wrought upon his family, as he continued to maintain that family members knew nothing about his crimes. He also pointed a crooked finger at unidentified banks and hedge funds that he claims were somehow “complicit” in his elaborate fraud, as he inched away from his earlier position of being the only person who knew. I suspect Bernie’s musing may go into the history books as the understatement of the millennia. More than a few banks and financial institutions must have suspected and chose to ignore their suspicions because they were making big money on Bernie’s transactions. Greed at its worst, but Bernie’s felonious scheme pales in inconsequence compared to the crimes of all those Wall Street bankers who bundled and poured perfume on those disastrous mortgages and their credit default swaps; and, they are back at it already . . . derivatives upon derivatives. Progress by jerks!

There were no comments and contributions from Update no.478.

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

Update no.478

Update from the Heartland

No.478

7.2.11 – 13.2.11

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

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The U.S. Transportation Department reported on its 10-month study of unintended high-speed acceleration in Toyota automobiles [430, 448]. With the technical assistance of NASA, the USG eliminated the electronic engine control system as the cause of the accelerations and concluded the two mechanical defects previously identified -- sticking accelerator pedals and gas pedals that can become trapped in floor mats -- are the only known causes, and both issues were the subject of large recalls by Toyota. The company paid an enormous price for hysteria.
-- In the category of “be careful what you wish for,” after weeks of protests [477], President Muhammad Hosni Sayyid Mubarak of Egypt turned over all power to the military on Friday evening and left Cairo. Mubarak and his wife, Suzanne, flew by helicopter to their resort home in Sharm el-Sheik. The Armed Forces Supreme Council led by Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi Soliman either executed or are the benefactors of what amounted to a bloodless coup d’état. The Council moved quickly to restore order and return Tahrir Square to its pre-protest condition. The military dissolved parliament and suspended the constitution, meeting two key demands of pro-democracy protesters. According to the latest Council communiqué, the military will run the country for six months, or until presidential and parliament elections can be held (expected by or in September 2011). The rumblings of democracy and people seeking freedom continue to spread across the Middle East as the suppressed and restive citizens of Tehran defied the mullahs of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I do not expect Egypt to repeat 1979, but I suspect the country will move toward greater religious influence, which in turn I truly hope I am wrong.

Three recent newspaper articles helped bring the situation in North Africa and the Middle East into focus for me – one is a journalistic offering and the other two are Op-Ed’s.
“N.Y.U. Report Casts Doubt on Taliban’s Ties With Al Qaeda”
by Carlotta Gall
New York Times
Published: February 6, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/world/asia/07afghan.html
and
“Democracy supporters should not fear the Muslim Brotherhood”
by Abdel Moneim Abou el-Fotouh
Washington Post
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/09/AR2011020905222.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
and
“What the Muslim Brothers Want”
by Essam el-Errian, Op-Ed Contributor
New York Times
Published: February 9, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/opinion/10erian.html?_r=1&nl=opinion&emc=tya1
The issue for me has never been religion or even political affiliations. Like virtually every human being on the planet or who has ever existed, my wants & needs are actually very simple; I was to live in a safe, secure environment where people respect and treat others as they wish to be treated, and prosper so that our children can enjoy a better life than we had. In my travels across the Big Blue Marble, I have found commonality and unanimity regardless of language, ethnicity, religion, cuisine or condition. Was the Afghan Taliban linked to al-Qaeda? The answer depends upon definitions and perspective. Is serious concern, perhaps verging on fear, of events in Egypt rational? Again, the answer depends upon definitions and perspective. We tried and supported (perhaps tacitly) a revolution we thought would depose a repressive, autocratic dictator, and lead to democracy and freedom of choice in the Middle East. What we actually got was an oppressive theocracy bent on sponsoring surrogates to export their evangelical jihad to their neighbors and literally across the globe. So, why is the United States walking a very thin, precarious line between freedom and democracy, and stability and cooperation? To me, the answer lies three decades past. In short, better the devil you know. The Muslim Brotherhood asks us not to fear them for the future of Egypt. Unfortunately, they are asking us to buy a pig in a poke. We do not fear the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood or even al-Qaeda. We do fear the violence they export to their neighbors and to us. I want the People of Egypt (and all of mankind) to enjoy the rich rewards and pleasures of freedom, but I cannot tolerate those who seek to impose their will on others and are willing do use violence to achieve their objectives. I could have supported the theocracy of Iran as the free choice of the Iranian people, or the virulent fundamentalism of the Taliban as the free choice of the Afghan people, but I cannot and never will accept those who seek to export their evangelism by violence. I know Muslims will not appreciate the example, but Israel is a reasonable model –secular, democratic governance with a strong religious tone. Frankly, the prominence of religion in Israel is higher than I care for, but the same can be said for Kansas. Yet, Israel has never sought to impose its state religion on others [I note with specific intent the contradiction in the persistence of their settlement construction on the West Bank, AKA Palestinian territory]. Anyone can try to dilute, deflect, or discourage our fear of the popular uprising in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, Jordan, and elsewhere, but it will not be successful. The adverse, destabilizing, destructive and corrosive consequences of the Islamic Republic of Iran are all too real and fresh in my mind and others. If the Muslim Brotherhood wants the West to accept them, they must extend themselves to convince us they are not just another flavor of fundamentalist jihadists bent upon domination by their religion and ideology.

In the wake of Florida v. HHS [477], I read Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood [546 U.S. 321 (2006); no. 04-1144] – a pivotal contributor to Judge Vinson’s ruling. Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in a succinct, direct opinion, which substantiated Judge Vinson’s decision regarding the principle of severability and his declaration of unconstitutionality against the whole of PPACA due to the essential integration of the “individual mandate.” However, it was the happenstance of separate congressional action that triggered this opinion segment. The newly invigorated and inspired Republican-controlled House of Representatives chose to impose its moral agenda on We, the People, as they introduced and pushed H.R.3 – the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. Why is it that we seem to have such a driven penchant for making private decisions we do not like illegal, as if making it a crime will solve the problem? I want all abortions to be relegated to the scrapheap of archaic medical procedures whose day of relevance has past. I have never been an advocate for abortions. Nonetheless, I am even less a proponent of the State taking control of a woman’s body to dictate what can and cannot be done by a medical professional to treat her condition. Making a very private choice illegal simply is NOT the way to end abortions. HR.3 penalizes the women most in need of our support and assistance. I urge all citizens to communicate with their representatives to reject the foolish symptomatic HR.3 legislation. Let us focus on the root cause(s) rather than the symptoms. Our objective should and must be children who are loved, nurtured and cherished . . . not the domination of our particular ideology.

News from the economic front:
-- The People's Bank of China (PBOC) – the PRC’s central bank – announced it will raise the one-year yuan lending rate to 6.06% from 5.81%, and the one-year yuan deposit rate to 3.00% from 2.75%. The PBOC raised its benchmark rates for the first time in nearly three years on 19.October, and once again on 25.December.
-- The Obama administration has taken the first steps reportedly intended to remove Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from the mortgage lending business. The administration’s proposal lays out three options for what could take the place of the two mortgage giants and setting the stage for a lengthy debate over the nation's US$10.6T mortgage market. Fannie and Freddie have accounted for nine of 10 new loan originations in the past year.
-- The Japanese government reported the country’s 4Q2010 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) decreased 1.1% in annualized, seasonally adjusted terms, slowing sharply from a revised 3.3% rise in the previous period. Prime Minister Naoto Kan and his government grapple with prolonged deflation, a staggering public debt, the end of auto subsidies depressing car purchases, a new tobacco tax hit cigarette sales, and the strong yen contributed to an export slump. As a consequence, the PRC replaced Japan as the world's second-largest economy, ending Japan’s 42-year reign in that position.

Comments and contributions from Update no.477:
A regular contributor sent no comment, just a link to this essay:
“Does Behavioral Economics Undermine the Welfare State?”
by James Kwak
The Baseline Scenario
Posted: February 6, 2011 at 1:09 pm
http://baselinescenario.com/2011/02/06/does-behavioral-economics-undermine-the-welfare-state/
My response:
I eagerly await your opinion of the Kwak essay?
First, although Kwak does not explicitly say it, the generalizations of Caplan & Beaulier are offensive prima facie and far too simplistic to be helpful. I have many thoughts after I read Kwak’s words . . . where do I begin?
We have discussed various aspects of this question . . . although in the guise of other topics. “Behavioral economics” boils down to attitude or personal, private thought, i.e., what motivates any particular individual? Much of what Kwak chooses to note from Caplan & Beaulier are symptomatic rather than fundamental, it seems to me. I can think of examples that cross virtually every line they have drawn.
After reading Judge Vinson’s reasoning regarding the “individual mandate” in Florida v. HHS [477], I was struck by the same impression as I was reading Kwak. The government cannot dictate or even ascertain what an individual citizen is thinking of, worried about, motivated by, or desirous of relative to the government’s motives or objectives, or even another person’s thinking. If the government cannot figure it out, none of us can. Case in point, we think we know our wives, but do we really? So, any intention to dictate what another person is going to do, given certain stimuli is destined to failure or disappointment in a free society. Further, as in Florida, once a state or citizen has fed at the public trough, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to wean them off public assistance; it is true for farm subsidies, welfare checks, earmark funding, all of it.
Rather than the presumption of knowledge and understanding explicit in Caplan & Beaulier [at least as represented by Kwak], my suggestion / recommendation for government is focus on factual public actions. They may have a point that offering welfare recipients choices may well be counter-productive; I just cannot support their reasoning to get there.
As you well know by now, my attitude toward addicts, alcoholics, nicotine-fiends, pedophiles, or any anti-social compulsive behavior rests upon acceptance and tolerance of their personal choices, while eliminating the potential for collateral damage to other uninvolved or innocent people. Some citizens are homeless by choice rather than circumstance. Some people choose not to have health insurance . . . for any one or combination of myriad reasons. Our task as a society is to filter and stratify those who need public assistance, so that we can respond accordingly.
Also, as we have discussed, poverty is irrelevant. Neither Amazon Indians or Bedouin herders have or use money; thus, by our definition, they are poor and in need of public assistance. We establish better criteria and metrics to accommodate a citizen’s freedom of choice. One thing that is certain for me, public assistance should be constructed to be productive to public ends, to be effective for the individual, and above all, to be time constrained to outcomes.
. . . to which I received this contribution:
“What Kwak argues is that ‘behavioral economics,’ as proposed in the article, is a set of unsupported and/or misused assumptions that add up to a Theory X approach not just to workers but to people in general. He says, and I agree, that this approach of assuming that poor people are lazy and are poor because they chose to be is wrong much more often than it's right and is simply a set of assumptions used to save money for the owners of conservative politicians. See also the article on ‘culture of cruelty’ that I sent a while back.
“I have yet to see any study or to experience any homeless people who agree that they are homeless by choice. Somebody somewhere might be so opposed to the health care system that they do not want health insurance, but I have yet to meet them or see a study supporting that idea either. What evidence supports your statements? My personal experience fails to support your additional assertion that people who have received assistance cannot be removed from that state. I and others I know have worked very hard and risked our health via the health insurance issue to leave the public assistance rolls. (By the way, calling that ‘feeding at the public trough’ is seriously insulting to me and to others who have received various forms of assistance. Do you apply that to the various military contractors?)”
. . . my response to round two:
Although we are looking from different perspectives, I believe we are agreed on Kwak’s assessment of Caplan & Beaulier. Such generalizations from any perspective are rarely accurate or applicable at the individual level. As previously noted, I do not share the “culture of cruelty” notion as a descriptor of American society or even the conservative segment.
A philosophical thread in my Anod’s series of novels is what I call the “lottery syndrome.” In short, how many people would continue to work if they won the lottery, i.e., acquired substantial individual wealth? I contemplate the evolution of free societies like ours in the environment of rapidly expanding technological sophistication and use of automation.
Freedom works both ways. I struggle with both sides – private freedom of choice and accountability for one’s choices. The notion of the “culture of cruelty” hypothesis seems to rest upon an assessment of entitlement, i.e., every human being, or at least every American, is entitled to a certain threshold standard of living as defined by liberals; thus, anything below the threshold is intentionally inflicted cruelty. I do not want anyone to suffer, but I also do want the fruits of my labor to be abused by someone else who chooses not to contribute to society. How do we help those who want and need assistance to become productive from those who feel entitled to a good life without contribution?
I am not aware of any studies either regarding homelessness, rejection of health care, poverty or other social topics. I imagine they exist if I took the time to go search for them. I simply try to think through the variations and options.
No insult or disparagement intended. I just hope you recognize that you are not representative of all people who are classified as poverty-stricken or have risen above the notional poverty level. I also trust you recognize there are bad people in the region of what we call poverty. The point Caplan & Beaulier were trying to make, in my humble opinion, was some folks do not respond well to public assistance – my usual example being the NYC crack-addicted prostitute who keeps popping out children so she can collect more welfare money to feed her habit. That is abuse . . . in a myriad of ways. So, how do we help good citizens like you without contributing to the abuse of that woman in NYC?
BTW, yes, I do apply the same descriptor to military contractors, mega-farms, politicians, lobbyists, and many other less worthy entities who “feed at the public trough.”
. . . round three:
“I learned some time ago the pitfalls of unassisted logic. Therefore, I seek evidence about anything important to me. I also make a point of knowing how to evaluate that evidence for reliability in terms of the methods used to gather it, potential conflicts of interest, and correlation versus cause and effect. This gives me and others much more confidence in my outcomes.
“In terms of the issues of homelessness by choice and refusal to accept health insurance, I have only personal experience to support my opinions. It should go without saying that I do not accept unsupported opinions, especially as seen on TV and other mass media. Within the next few days, I'll take a look at my college's student research resources for a clearer idea about research on these issues. I suspect that research is sparse or nonexistent because of the obvious drawbacks to these conditions.
“I have talked to at least a dozen members of AA and one in Al-Anon who have been homeless in missions or by sleeping outdoors. Each of them saw homelessness as a very undesirable condition, although the Al-Anon person noted that it was less stressful that contact with his dysfunctional family. None of these people thought a mission or outdoors was a good place to live. My personal experience supports that. Of course, I know people online (and a few I've met in person) who live in RVs or motor vehicles. Some of those living in vehicles share the view of themselves as homeless and in deep trouble; others who fit the definition, see themselves simply as not tied down. Those who fit the definition but reject it include include RVers with quarter-million-dollar rigs and a variety of working IT people. We need to change our definition of ‘homeless’ to exclude them, not our attitude about those who are legitimately homeless.
“In the case of health insurance, I long ago lost track of the number of uninsured people I know. I have not talked to anyone who does not want health insurance, and I know of nobody who would rather ‘rip off the system’ than pay for medical care. I know people who will do whatever they must do in order to get care, but all see insurance coverage and/or Medicare as a much more desirable option. I am currently in that situation, and I see it as dramatically undesirable. While people who prefer not to have health insurance may exist somewhere, I confidently dismiss them as a factor in my opinions.
“I have been playing the ‘big’ lottery when I could afford it and remember to buy the ticket for over thirty years, and I have put serious thought into what I would do if I won. I probably would not do ‘productive’ work until I got my fill of travel, but even then I would occasionally need things to do. Eventually, I would find a fulfilling way to spend my time, which would mean somehow contributing something useful to the world. I never knew whether I was ordinary or an outlier until I began watching a TV show called Lottery Changed My Life. They profile lottery winners, as one might expect. The point that applies here is that most of them work. If they have jobs they like when the win, they stay on. If not, they get something they like better or, more often, create their own businesses. Those who don't work, a minority, typically spend their time with family or volunteering.
“I do not see the ‘culture of cruelty’ as directly hateful, but as a means of justifying runaway greed and the unwillingness to face others' distress. It has become entirely too easy to claim that justify mistreatment of other by saying, essentially, that they would not appreciate being treated as worthwhile human beings anyhow. In a social species, this is dangerous to the species. We need other people. If my prior examples of lions and wolves fail to move you, consider elephants. They have no natural predators and need no help finding food, but yet they take good care of one another. This is because they are social animals. So are we.”
. . . my response to round three:
“Unassisted logic” . . . ay. Well played! I try to collect factual evidence to support my opinions, however time and capacity do not always allow the process. My opinions are not always factually substantiated, but that does not hinder my penchant for rendering opinions. As always, you are welcome and encouraged to discount my opinions accordingly.
As with so many of the social issues we discuss, definitions and perspective are essential. I bow to your experience and research; I have neither. To understand, allow me to ask . . . If a man gambles away his income, his savings, his home, did he choose to be homeless? I think you hit the point precisely; we need to change our definition of homeless. By our current definition, an Amazon Indian or a Bedouin herder are homeless; they are poverty-stricken; yet, they are happily content. As we have discussed before, we tend to view others from our experience, our standards, our perspective (which I might add has led us into the labor situation we have today).
As with so many human conditions, cause & effect cannot be ignored. A person who does not own a home, and has no job or other means of support, has no ability to acquire sustenance and protection, which includes health insurance for medical & dental coverage in case something goes wrong. As a personal level, I’m not sure this is particularly different from the corporate bailouts of the last recession – we are paying for their mistakes. Freedom is choices AND accountability for those choices.
As suggested earlier, the filtration process needs to be refined. I understand mistakes. We all make mistakes. My concern remains abuse. I think most Americans would eagerly and enthusiastically assist those who truly and want help. I hold no compassion nor interest in support those who abuse our generosity. Likewise, I hold no animosity toward those who choose to gamble, consume drugs, alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs, or snort bath salts, glue, or any other intoxicant; but, when an individual’s indulgences, proclivities or personal choices causes any harm, injury or even threatens another human being, then the line has been crossed. So, how do we filter the abusers from the worthy?
Re: the individual mandate. Despite the liberal condemnation of the judge’s ruling in Florida v. HHS [477], the individual mandate is unconstitutional and simply wrong. There must be a better way. I want all citizens to have access to proper health care, but dictating to all citizens is counter-productive. Yet, overhead charges for unrecoverable Emergency Room expenses in every hospital is equally not acceptable.
To be candid, at my age, I would retire and write full time, if Jeanne bought my freedom with her winning lottery ticket. It seems to me, the key is enjoying what we are doing.
In 1867, Karl Marx published Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, in which he describes the injustice of capitalism and urged the oppressed masses rise up and take what is rightfully theirs. I do agree with you that as social animals we should take care of one another – protection of the collective. Again, the difficulty remains, where do we draw the line? Does a man who dropped out of high school, who may work at an entry level job as a manual laborer, deserve the same benefits and standard of living as a doctor or lawyer who works through six to ten years of post-secondary education? Where do we draw the line? How do we draw the line? How to we fulfill the relationship between contribution and reward? Communism is a magnificent ideal, just not a practical system of governance in a free society.

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

Update no.477

Update from the Heartland

No.477

31.1.11 – 6.2.11

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

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- On Monday, another Federal district court judge issued a second ruling of unconstitutionality against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) {PL 111-148} [432], after the previous unconstitutional ruling – Virginia v. Sebelius [USDC VA ED(RD) civ act no.3: 10CV188-HEH (2010)] [470]. I reviewed the latest case below – Florida v. HHS [USDC FL ND(PD) Case No.: 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT (2011)]. The plaintiffs are:
** 26 states – Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming;
** two private citizens [Mary Brown and Kaj Ahlburg]; and
** the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB).
The defendants are the United States:
** Department of Health and Human Services;
** Department of Treasury, and
** Department of Labor (and their respective secretaries).
-- On Wednesday as predicted, the Senate rejected the repeal of PPACA [432] passed by the House [473, 475]. In an odd twist of parliamentary procedure, the Senate voted on S.AMDT.13 [Senate Amendment 13] (repeal PPACA) to S.223 (FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act) [Senate: 47-51-0-2(0)]. Go figure!
-- More on Senate Rule XXII (the filibuster) [474/6]:
“The Senate vs. the future”
by Ezra Klein
Washington Post
Published: Monday, January 31, 2011; 7:30 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013105274.html?wpisrc=nl_politics
Klein’s opening line, “If historians ever have to pinpoint the day that America lost the future, they're likely to look to Thursday [27.1.2011].” I shall state emphatically, I could NOT disagree more. The filibuster [476] (kinda like a gun) is NOT the culprit. The base issue is the rabid parochial politicization that has infected our body politic for decades now. Two generations of politicians have abandoned or lost the art of compromise and negotiation – a process the inherently finds moderation and stability. Now, it is all about one side or the other – one ideology over another – winning, dominating the arena, as with the gladiator. It should be no surprise whatsoever that the rising forces seek the safety of simple majority rule . . . that way the necessity or motivation for compromise is eliminated, eradicated and obliterated. Quite frankly, I find considerable comfort in Senate Rule XXII as I do in my small personal arsenal. Unlike Ezra Klein, I see the resistance to change the process that has served this Grand Republic for several centuries as refreshingly affirming. Klein’s last two paragraphs make my point precisely, rather than his, it seems to me. Long live this Grand Republic!
-- The defense lawyer spin process begins to soften the public image of Bradley E. Manning [450], the Army private accused of leaking classified material to the anti-secrecy Web site WikiLeaks. A “mental health specialist” apparently recommended that young Manning not be deployed to Iraq, but his immediate commanders sent him anyway. The allegation and his commanders' failure to properly discipline Manning, may have contributed to one of the most high-profile classified military network breaches. Don’t ya just love how the spin doctors work? Then we have our favorite congressman, Representative Dennis John Kucinich of Ohio, fretting about Manning’s health in confinement at the Marine Brig, MCB Quantico, Virginia.
-- I have no intention of promoting the soon-to-be-released memoir of former defense secretary Donald Henry Rumsfeld [099 – 257]. Numerous Press sources have reviewed and reported on his magnum opus. According to most reviewers so far, Rummie remains largely unapologetic about his overall handling of the Iraq conflict. At least, Bob McNamara had the courage to admit the error of his decisions. Rummie cost us more precious lives, treasure and reputation than necessary to accomplish the mission. He lost more rungs of respect in my eyes.

I hesitated to jump into the current events of North Africa and the Middle East. I just did not have a clear enough image of what was happening or why. Numerous politicos, talking heads and Press outlets forecast the need of governance reform for many nations, especially among Muslim countries. Many of those forecasts predicted conflagration. The only question was when. It appears more and more each day that when is now as the cascade of dictators progresses. The first domino – the spark that lit the fuse – fell on 17.December.2010, in Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia. An unemployed, university graduate by the name of Tarek al-Tayyib Muhammad ibn Bouazizi, 26, spent the last of his money to buy fruits and vegetables he intended to sell that day to earn a little more money for his family. The police arrested Tarek for not having a street vendor’s license and confiscated his precious produce and cart. Turns out Tunisia had no law requiring a license, which means those local police officers sought a bribe, which Tarek was unable or unwilling to pay. As a consequence of the injustice and economic impact, Tarek chose to immolate himself in front of a local government building; he died three weeks later. The shock waves reverberated throughout Muslim North Africa and the Middle East. Tunisian President [nay dictator] Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, 74, fled to Saudi Arabia on 14.January.2011. Egyptian citizens took the cue and moment to open their protest in Cairo’s Midan Tahrir (AKA Tahrir Square or Liberation Square) against the harsh rule of President [nay dictator] Muhammad Hosni Sayyid Mubarak. The drama in Egypt continues to play out as Mubarak refuses to step down and appointed Omar Suleiman [former Director of the General Intelligence Directorate] as Vice President. Then, President [nay dictator] Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen cracked down on protesters and announced he would not seek re-election [a figure of speech] when his term ends in 2013. King Abdullah II [bin al-Hussein] of Jordan dismissed Prime Minister Samir Zaid al-Rifai and his cabinet on Tuesday, and appointed Dr. Marouf Suleiman al-Bakhit as the countries new prime minister. I imagine trigger fingers in Israel moved ever so closer to the safety lever. The challenges to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are enormous and almost incalculable as they strive to keep up with the changes and adjust U.S. foreign policy accordingly. These are indeed interesting times.

Another learned opinion:
“Where is President Obama's will to win? – Close Guantanamo now”
by Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar
Chicago Tribune
January 30, 2011
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-30/news/ct-perspec-0130-war-20110130_1_federal-courts-military-commissions-guantanamo-bay
They concluded, “It is time to learn. Our courts work. Our Constitution works. Our police and FBI and military work. To ensure that we move forward, and do not continue to backslide on commitment to the rule of law, the president must lead. If the president leads, we will continue to stand by him.” Who could disagree with that? Chuck Krulak was our 31st Commandant. Joe Hoar was Commander-in-Chief Central Command, but more importantly, he was my first executive officer when I was a young lieutenant of Marines. To say the least, I have considerable respect for both men, but . . . They said, “His leadership sent a strong signal that America was changing course and was again a nation of laws, that those who were cleared of misconduct would be released, those who stood accused of crimes would be held to account, and that Guantanamo would then be closed.” Frankly, I am staggered and literally dumbfounded. “Crimes!” As our British cousins say, I am gobsmacked! I guess the generals are convinced that we are not and never have been at war. Well, I respectfully disagree. We are at war! The detainees are unlawful battlefield combatants, not criminals, not mere innocents caught up in world events. The laws of war dictate prisoners captured as a product of war can be detained until hostilities cease. Last time I checked, I believe we are still at war.

“FBI in hundreds of privacy violations, report finds”
by Jeff Stein
Washington Post
Posted: 31.January.2011; 2:35 PM ET,
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2011/01/fbi_in_hundreds_of_privacy_vio.html
. . . more detail:
http://www.eff.org/pages/patterns-misconduct-fbi-intelligence-violations - 9
This story was largely overlooked in the turmoil of the week. We owe the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) our gratitude for their perseverance. As much as I resent and object to such abuses in the name of national security and advocate for safeguards to prevent future transgressions of this nature, I urge caution to avoid the over-corrections characteristic of the Church Committee consequences.

The latest challenge to the Federal health care reform law is perhaps the most significant so far due to the scope as noted above. As numerous Press funzionari, partisan politicos, and miscellaneous talking heads noted, the score is now 2-2 – all destined for the appeals process and ultimately the Supreme Court. The Federal legislation at issue: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [PL 111-148] [432], as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 [PL 111-152]. Federal District Court Judge [Clyde] Roger Vinson [USNA ’62, I might add] of the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division, issued his ruling on Monday in the case of Florida v. HHS [USDC FL ND(PD) Case No.: 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT (2011)]. Vinson noted, “[This case] is not really about our health care system at all. It is principally about our federalist system, and it raises very important issues regarding the Constitutional role of the federal government;” which in turn illuminates the scope of not just this case but also the whole question in the main. More to the point, he said, “The Constitutionality of the individual mandate is the crux of this entire case.” Vinson determined the individual mandate was unconstitutional and was not severable from the law as whole. The judge drew a very find point on his reasoning, “If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be ‘difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power.’” Finally, a breath of reason! By the various judicial opinions I have read so far, it appears to boil down to this: If you believe in and are committed to federalism, then virtually by definition you embrace the expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause (Article I, § 8, Clause 3) and the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, § 8, Clause 18) of the U.S. Constitution, and most likely discount or ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments. Most of the opinions on the ramifications I have read to date appear to be political rather than legal or judicial. From my lay perspective, Judge Vinson struck resonance – the individual mandate exceeded the constitutional authority of Congress or any governmental entity. Unfortunately, if Judge Vinson’s opinion is upheld through appeal and affirmation by the Supremes, that would leave us with an eviscerated PPACA and returns us to the status quo ante and back to our social and political dilemma – medical care for the uninsured.
We have the dilemma of compassion, i.e., wanting everyone to have proper medical care, against the abuse by some of our generosity. There are perhaps numerous options including denial the medical coverage (which is a virtual impossibility from my perspective). I think I am absolutely convinced of is the status quo ante is simply not stable, sustainable or acceptable. So, if the individual mandate, denial of services, and the old method of expense recovery are not acceptable, then we must find some other acceptable method of paying for services rendered. My recommendation: shift the costs of the uninsured from the health insurance industry and those who pay for their health care to the Treasury; the base for payment is far bigger than the fraction who use / need health care. The primary detractor from my recommendation: there are no motivations for insurance coverage. Nonetheless, in this situation, we have an opportunity . . . to tweak-up PPACA . . . to address the ignored carnivores amongst us of tort reform and interstate insurance competition; the replacement of the individual mandate; and, helping health care providers transition from the current expense structure to a new, far-lower, overhead balance sheet and cost of goods & services provided. Lastly, we can malign President Obama and the 111th Congress, but at the end of the day, at least he (they) had the cojones to do something about the health care crisis. We can hide in ignorance behind our employer subsidized health care benefits, but that does not change reality. The system is unstable and has been for several decades.

As is always the case these days, those on the side of PPACA were screaming about judicial activism – the mantra chant for anyone who disagrees with a judicial ruling.
“Judicial Activism on Health Reform”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: February 1, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/opinion/02wed2.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211
and
“Bush-Appointed Federal Judge Tosses Out Challenge to Health Reform”
by Ian Millhiser
ThinkProgress
Posted: 4.February.2011; 10:03 am
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/04/aca-standing/
The injection of partisan politics into the judicial renderings on this very important societal topic ultimately becomes counter-productive as one side or the other discounts or flatly ignores opinions that do not match their political perceptions. We must filter out partisan politics and focus on the facts and solutions to real problems.

News from the economic front:
-- The Wall Street Journal reported 2010 total compensation and benefits for publicly traded Wall Street banks and securities firms hit a record of US$135B, up 5.7% from US$128B billion in combined compensation and benefits for the same companies in 2009.
-- The Labor Department reported nonfarm employment rose by 36,000 in January, as private-sector employers added 50,000 jobs. The December jobs number was revised to show an increase of 121,000 jobs from a previous estimate of 103,000. The unemployment rate, which is obtained from a separate household survey, fell to 9.0% last month. Roughly 13.86 million people who would like to work continue to look for a job.

L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- Madoff Bankruptcy trustee Irving Picard filed suit under seal on 2.December.2010, against the mega-bank JPMorgan Chase in his effort to recover assets for the victims of Bernie’s crimes. Picard seeks US$6.4B from the bank under his accusations that the bank suspected the validity of Bernie’s investment returns and chose to do nothing. I imagine the bank’s executives and lawyers are more worried about the prospect of criminal charges.

Comments and contributions from Update no.476:
“Our Top Marine is true to his word. He is a man of honor who can disagree and turn right around to make it happen. A lesson in leadership once again.
“Click on the link below and you can read the article and watch the video. Well done.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/01/30/top-marines-pledge-to-step-out-smartly-to-comply-with-dont-ask-repeal/
My reply:
I am not ashamed to say they brought tears of pride to my eyes. We knew they would lead, and so it is. I would say a perfect message and precisely the correct time. God bless ‘em on this important journey.
Postscript: I encourage everyone who reads this to visit link and listen to the video message. You will have a small glimpse of what it means to be a Marine.
Comment to the Blog:
“Please be cautious with sarcasm. Some of us only ‘get’ it when you label it.
“Re culture of cruelty: I agree with Giroux's point, although I dislike his indirect writing style. I guess I was wrong in assuming that Americans in general already knew that our nation had developed a mean streak; he and you both treat it as news. The culture of cruelty became a simple fact to me early in the Reagan administration, which had a much smoother presentation of the same policies and excuses for them. Incidentally, European and Canadian sources take the politics of cruelty in the USA for granted, although they tend to label it as corruption or lack of national good sense.
“Re filibuster rules: You might want to study the filibuster rules a bit more closely. The bottom line is that a single Senator can make decisions for the entire country. This makes it much easier to support the politics and culture of cruelty. Good luck to the country.
“Re earmarks: I believe we may safely ignore Obama's comment on earmarks. Realistically, earmarks are the currency that pays off Senators who threaten to filibuster (see above) and committee chairs in both houses that have the ability to kill legislation whether it's good, bad, or somewhere in between.
“Re State of the Union: I find it hopeful that the Tea Party gave an additional response to the State of the Union message. Apparently, the Tea Party people do not see themselves as Republicans.
“Re: the Tucson shootings. What ties Jared Loughner to the earlier political violence and rhetoric is the culture of cruelty that has been active since Reagan, not leaving out the Clinton administration. Two of the features that made Loughner's actions more likely are the cultural acceptance of violence (see the linked Giroux article) and the steady drop of funding for mental health agencies of all sorts. At this point, even an obvious case such as Loughner received no attention until he killed six people all at once and injured thirteen more. I suspect that our current American political and cultural climate simply expects such incidents to happen and prefers the police to kill the perpetrator, thus saving the expense of an investigation and trial to find out what happened.”
“PS: re our prior discussion of Goldman-Sachs’ drop in profits: I am including a link an article from The Baseline Scenario. Written by Simon Johnson, a former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund, the article discusses the US government’s approach to banks that are “too big to fail.” I suspect the risk of another spectacular crash is closer than Americans realize. Other articles on that blog discuss the mechanics of that. The boiled-down version is that the real advantage of being “too big to fail” is that lenders know that the government will provide unlimited money to those banks if they threaten to fail. Therefore, lenders will unfailingly loan to those banks regardless of risk, and at lower lending rates than to anyone else. As long as the US Treasury holds out, there is no risk in lending to “too big to fail” banks. Too bad about those tax dollars.”
My response to the Blog:
Re: sarcasm. Point noted, understood and accepted.
Re: politics of cruelty. I suspect we are now expanding Giroux’s original premise beyond its initial scope. This is a worthy topic of debate. So, let us begin with perhaps a question or two. Does an individual have a right to defend himself and his family? If so, to what extent, and how is that boundary defined? Does every human being on the planet deserve or have a right to live? If so, to what degree? Food, lodging, car, flat screen TV . . . how far do we go to make everyone equal?
Re: filibuster. Respectfully, you might want to study the rules a bit more closely. There is no filibuster that cannot be overridden. If the Majority Leader decides against calling a cloture vote, then yes, one senator can block. However, if the Majority Leader calls a cloture vote, he must have 3/5th in the affirmative to override. If a senator refuses to relinquish the floor, he must maintain it per the rules; if not, the Majority Leader can call the cloture vote. One senator can stop a vote for a period of time, as Strom Thurmond did in 1964 (83 days), but he was eventually overridden and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [PL 88-352] became law.
Re: earmarks. Yes, it is political currency, but it is not limited to the Senate; and, earmarks are not required (see above). I continue to maintain that earmarks are an expedient and effective instrument of corruption.
Re: Tea Party. Apparently not, but they caucus with the Republicans, and they use that label in their official descriptors.
Re: Loughner. I do not share your pessimistic view of the American political system. I do not agree that Loughner was a product of the so-called American culture of cruelty. In fact, I fundamentally reject Giroux’s notion flatly. To be blunt and harsh, I see Giroux’s construct of his culture of cruelty as the inverse or reflected image of communist ideology, i.e., everyone deserves everything equally – great idea, but unfortunately, it will never work . . . at least not in pure form. I do agree with your assessment of mental health support. I think there are legitimate reasons, but that does not make it correct. To me, the key is official recognition, rather than allowing neglect to force a violent reaction to garner attention as in Loughner’s case (apparently). We need some level of collective interaction that is beyond conventional social services as we know them today and law enforcement. Loughner had not broken any law, but he clearly needed help; and, the ones who should have cared for him chose not to get him the help he needed.
Re: “too big to fail.” The hard, cold reality is too big to fail negates a fundamental precept of capitalism and violates the principal self-correcting mechanism that makes a free market work. Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act [PL 51-190] in 1890 for many reasons – a few of which seem quite applicable today. Too big to fail presents a threat to society in general, as we given a glimpse two years ago. As best I can determine, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act [PL 111-203] does NOT remedy the condition whatsoever. Although the banks were the focus of this last go-around, it could easily have been the defense industry, yet we could also argue the government has been subsidizing the defense industry since WW2. I would like to see a threshold definition of too big to fail and regulations to prevent exceedances and break-up those banks above the threshold; then, once accomplished, a bank survives by the wisdom of its choices.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I was rather startled by your response to the politics of cruelty, as I had not discerned any part of that from your blog posting. Where in Giroux's article or my discussion of it did you find the idea of making everyone equal? I can only assume that you have operated from some sort of either/or assumption that totally eludes me. Don't worry, Cap, nobody is coming to take away your TV.
“We simply fail to see the wisdom of telling people to go out and get a job when we know they have no skills or outdated skills and cannot get a job that will support them. Without offering training, it's simply a way for society to blow off its responsibility. In much the same vein, making it illegal to sleep on the sidewalk does nothing to address homelessness, but does allow people with a mean streak to believe they've ‘done something about those people.’ I have slept on concrete; I assure you it’s not something one does as part of an easy life.
“Humans are a social animal, designed to live in groups. As such, we have a minimal responsibility to one another that ought to be at least as benign as the ties among a pack of wolves or a pride of lions. Acting as if we are separate is every bit as silly and unsustainable as Communism, and the USA is in the process of proving this point. I don’t seek to make everyone equal. Most of the people I know who have more possessions than me have less serenity, and I certainly would not trade places with you or the two wealthy men I know personally. I would, however, like to feel secure in the idea that I will never again have to sleep on concrete, even if I make major financial mistakes.
“If you study your own discussion of the filibuster rules, I think you will find you have made my point for me. Thanks.
“The Tea Party may caucus with the Republicans and do what is needed to maintain the official affiliation, but I'm not kidding myself about their intentions.”
. . . my follow-up response:
No need to make it personal.
The dilemma we face is helping those who truly need help and want to better their lives from those who simply want a good life to be provided for them. We have discussed this before. In these topics, general rules and simple solutions rarely address the situation of any given individual. Like most human endeavors, internal, personal, private motivation of any individual in question is the key – addiction, commitment, motivation, ambition, et cetera ad infinitum. The difficulty for us remains, how do we sort out the wheat from the chaff, and deal with the results accordingly.
Freedom means freedom. It does not mean I am free to have you provide me the life I feel I deserve. The more support, the more terms necessary for that support. We should provide support, but on our terms, not the recipients. I am not against supporting those who need support on a temporary basis to help them past a rough patch. I am not interested in providing any support to abusers, those who take advantage of our generosity or those who have no interest in contributing to society.
My notion of isolation camps addresses these issues directly. Sustenance and cover can be provided who seek to abuse, to not be productive, as long as they abide by the rules of our support. We could also provide training for entry-level jobs. There is a lot we could do, but at the end of the day, it still always boils down to the individual.
I do not want you to ever sleep on concrete again, either, my friend.
My apologies. I guess I simply do not see, comprehend or understand your point regarding the Senate’s filibuster process.
I share your assessment of the so-called Tea Party and its notional members of Congress . . . although perhaps from a different perspective. I think at the end of the day we will find they are no different from other politicians. Time shall tell the tale.

A new contribution:
“It's good to know that someone is adapting to the climate change.”
“Why Seattle Will Stay Dry When Your City Floods”
http://motherjones.com/forward/emailref?path=node/96431
My reply:
Interesting article. Nice to know some folks are thinking ahead by several generations. In this topic, I am quite conflicted. I do not believe climate change is human driven. I believe climate change has been and will forever be a part of Earth. The dynamics of weather are of far greater scale than human inhabitation has ever or probably ever will be. Regardless, I am strongly in favor of reducing all pollutants we create including CO2 and other greenhouse gases. We should be striving for zero pollutants perhaps even zero emissions. To my knowledge and understanding, I am far more worried about population growth and sustainability than I am about climate change. The climate is going to change no matter what we do, and we will adapt as we always have; but, over-population will be far more destructive . . . Yemen or Somalia being prime examples; they have produced far more people than their land can support, or put another way, they are living where the land does not welcome them, so they have significant, maybe even dramatic, social, political and economic pressures that contribute directly to instability. Unfortunately, with modern mobility, they export their unrest . . . thus al-Qaeda.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I certainly share your concern about population growth. Ever-enlarging populations draw on resources in obvious and subtle ways, and the distribution of people in deserts and other undesirable lands versus fertile lands does indeed exacerbate the issues. However, as my Environmental Science textbook (from Summer 2010 trimester) (Cunningham & Cunningham, 2008) points out, the population issue has been addressed well in advanced nations. Indeed, Japan currently faces issues due to its aging population, a result of their low birth rate. Less developed nations are beginning to reduce population growth as well; the growth rate tends to drop as various other social issues are resolved.
“Climate change is indeed a natural and cyclical event. However, as a strong consensus of scientists agrees, human activities have dramatically increased the rate of change. ‘We will adapt as we always have’ no longer applies because humans have not faced this rate of change before. You are right that change is inevitable, because the atmosphere is such an enormous system that any change in input only results in output much later. All the same, you and I have grandchildren whose lives will be drastically affected by the decisions that political leaders worldwide make within the next few years. My highest environmental priority, therefore, is climate change.
“This is a field that fascinates me; I would be very happy to continue the discussion.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
I see your reasoning as sound and compelling. However, as I stated earlier, I believe over-population regionally, nationally and internationally will be far more dramatic and immediate in its trauma upon mankind than climate change. Also, as I said, I do not need a linkage between human produced pollutants and climate change to convince me all pollution is bad and should be stopped in the most expeditious and effective manner.

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