28 March 2011

Update no.484

Update from the Heartland
No.484
21.3.11 – 27.3.11
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Unfortunately, the tragedy of the Tohoku earthquake [482/3] has been vastly overshadowed and dominated by the crisis at the Fukushima power plant. Every piece of encouraging news seems to be followed by three steps back. I suspect the recovery from the tsunami will be well underway by the time the Fukushima situation is stabilized and under control.
More before & after satellite images of the tsunami destruction in Japan:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/110316-zoom-satellite-pictures-japan-tsunami-earthquake-world-before-after/
and
http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/japan-quake-2011/beforeafter.htm

“Is it America’s duty to intervene wherever regime change is needed?”
by George F. Will
Washington Post
Published: Monday, March 21, 2011; 2:39 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/regime-change-in-libya-isnt-americas-duty/2011/03/21/ABhDlj7_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
As much as I respect George Will’s writing style, I find myself disagreeing with him more often than not; here is yet one more example. If he switched Bush for Obama and Iraq for Libya eight years ago, I might have agreed with him just a little bit more. This incessant, mindless, irrational drivel that the other side can absolutely, categorically, unequivocally, never ever do anything correctly. We endured this foolish mindset during the last administration and we must continue to endure the flip-flop version for this administration. To answer George’s title question, NO! Yet, the administration opens itself to this type of criticism when we intervene in Libya but not Yemen, or Dubai, or Syria, et al. As I wrote last week [483], I think the United States was a reluctant partner with our European allies. I would have no problem with the United States providing support to the French and British, or NATO, with aerial refueling, AWACS and such, but injecting this country in another civil war in a Muslim country is not what we need. Nonetheless, we are in it, so let’s get ‘er done.

Aslan Soobzokov sent his official reply submittal to the government’s motion to dismiss [479] his petition for a Writ of Mandamus [474]. The next step should be a hearing before U.S. Senior District Judge Dickinson Richards Debevoise of New Jersey. Once again, I laud Aslan’s passionate and vigorous effort to seek justice from the assassination of his father in 1985. The court shall determine the merits of his petition under the law. Aslan alleges the government closed his father’s murder case for political reasons, contrary to established criminal law. He also claims the government has sufficient evidence to identify, extradite and try the perpetrators of his father’s murder. Above the legal arguments, I am struck repeatedly by the government’s misconduct in this case all stemming from the original, baseless accusations that Tscherim Soobzokov was a Nazi war criminal. I have seen no evidence in any government document or otherwise that even remotely suggests Tscherim engaged in any criminal conduct. At worst, he might be guilty by association . . . an association for survival rather than persecution of anyone. He admittedly supported the Germans in Circassia as they were against the Soviet communist occupiers of his homeland. We may be suspicious of anyone who associated with the Waffen-SS during World War II, but that is a very long way from any criminal conduct. Tscherim Soobzokov was illuminated by the U.S. Government, which in turn inflamed radical, militant, Jewish, revenge groups to take justice into their hands. Terrorism is wrong for any reason. Good luck, Aslan.

“The mind-set that survived the Triangle Shirtwaist fire”
by Harold Meyerson
Washington Post
Published: Tuesday, March 22, 2011; 7:06 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-mind-set-that-survived-the-triangle-shirtwaist-fire/2011/03/22/ABh20rEB_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
OK, enough already! I acknowledge, understand and appreciate that unions, i.e., organized labor, collective bargaining units, are really angry over the strong-arm tactics utilized by Governor Walker of Wisconsin [482] and the state’s legislature to seriously curtail the collective bargaining privileges of state employee unions. But, comparing the current public / political debate on state employee unions to the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York City (25.March.1911) . . . really?!?
A century ago, union organizing can be argued as an essential action in the development of fair labor practices, workplace safety, and respect for the common laborer. I use the word “essential” with purpose, intention and directness. Labor practices utilized by the owners and operators of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory were at best barbaric in virtually every aspect of modern workplace expectations – sweat shops in the worst context. Those abusive labor practices led directly to the deaths of 146 women and men. The event became the catalyst and rallying point for the union movement. There is no debate that the union movement was an important, necessary, essential element in the evolution of this Grand Republic. The process brought bloody, hard-fought respect for the common laborer and even skilled workers. Unions began in a staunchly adversarial role and simply never matured as business did. As with any system, stability depends upon balance. This recession and especially the Wisconsin labor crisis brightly illuminated the imbalance in the American labor movement. Unions in companies with a profit motive are one thing; unions with a government that has no profit motive is all together another issue. Instead of helping governments balance their budgets or companies remain profitable, unions persist in the me-me-me mentality that has gotten us to this situation. Hopefully, the Wisconsin experience will help unions transform themselves into becoming part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Comments and contributions from Update no.483:
Comment to the Blog:
“I note that you support the continuation of both nuclear power generation and deepwater fossil fuel extraction, but you do not state whether you support the well-being of the public, the planet, and the corporations concerned. Particular methods of drilling wells and specific nuclear waste containment methods have failed dramatically; other operations continue using the same methods. Specifically, should we allow conditions that have proven to be horribly dangerous to continue during the time it takes to ‘learn from mistakes and accidents’?
“So now we have a third military front, but we still have no quantifiable goal in any of them. I support the idea of winning or staying out, but we still need to define winning clearly and decide what price is too high.
“I rejoice that Egypt has held elections. Whether the Muslim Brotherhood prospers and the results if they do prosper remain to be seen. I find it difficult to believe that Hosni Mubarak's party will do well regardless of its organizational abilities.”
My response to the Blog:
I acknowledge the seriousness of your first statement, but I must confess the suffering of a modest chuckle. If we did not know each other so well, I might think your picture me as the heartless, curmudgeon troll from under the bridge. You know quite well my compassion for mankind, concern and care for the planet, and my inherent suspicion of the corporate profit motive. As with all human endeavors, progress is often borne on the sacrifice of a hapless few – bridges, buildings, railroads, ships, airplanes, mining, industrialization, ad infinitum. History is replete with mistakes. The reality is, we learn far more from the mistakes than we do from the successes; this is NOT rationalization for any loss of life or injury at the altar of progress – quite the contrary. The learning process from the Macondo Well disaster continues; I firmly believe we will be better for the event. Likewise, we shall learn and become smarter from the Fukushima disaster. I’ve been amazed (so far) that the contamination from Fukushima has been so low considering the magnitude and breadth of what apparently happened to cause the event. Nuclear power generation remains the cleanest, least offensive source of large scale electricity generation. Even hydroelectric systems compromise large tracts of land . . . with the exception of those few that utilize natural waterfalls. When properly stored, spent fuel rods are safe and can be maintained so for generations . . . until we figure out how we might reuse them. The storage pools as used at Fukushima were intended to be temporary, transient capacity, not virtually permanent sites because of the NIMBY syndrome. We want and need electric power, but we do NOT want the facilities that generate that power – what a dichotomy that is.
Re: Libya. I suspect in this instance the United States was a reluctant partner. My compassion sympathizes with the protesters trying to rid themselves of a tyrannical dictator; however, definition of the national interests of the United States in Libya would be tortuous at best. The definition of “winning” is not clear to me either. While the Libyan action may seem humanitarian, these events have a consistent way of experiencing scope-creep, no matter the noble contrary intentions. My opinion about the employment of military half-measures is well-documented and clear; my opinion has not changed. This was a bad idea, but the trigger was pulled and we’re all-in now.
You may well be correct on the Egyptian political terrain. I certainly hope not. As always, we shall see soon enough, and there is a very real potential that Egypt could be another “be careful what you wish for” episode like Iran was in 1979.
. . . round two:
“Indeed it is. The question is how we go about learning. If we continue to operate in the same way that brought us those mistakes, we will get the same results. Put more simply, if you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got. It seems to me that we ought to refrain from taking the same risks; we already know the results. We should resume such operations only when we have different equipment or methods that offer a reasonable expectation of safer operation.
“Despite the incredible scope of the Macondo/Deepwater Horizon disaster, spent fuel rods may pose more of a threat in the long run, depending on how many of them are created. The fact that nobody wants something that dangerous located near them ought to be a clue to the planners who would gladly risk someone else's well-being on what they claim is a low risk. NIMBY exists for good reasons. That nuclear-power idea has sold better in Japan than here, and we see the results. Nuclear power will only be the ‘cleanest, least offensive’ source of electricity after this issue is resolved.
“As far as Libya, I certainly agree that the trigger has been pulled, but I don't see how that obliges us to continue. What American interests do we risk by pulling out? I understand that part of NATO wants us to do the job for them, but other parts do not. We were not obligated to take this on. We have done so anyhow, and Obama and the military claim that we will hand off leadership in ‘days, not weeks,’ but nobody else has volunteered for the job. If we're suckers enough to take the losses, why would they?”
. . . my response to round two:
In the aviation biz, we have always walked a very fine line seeking balance between safety, performance, cost, productivity, and even aesthetics. For decades, we have employed processes to continuously and rigorously assess system safety. Our objective is zero accidents. Yet, as we continue to witness accidents (e.g., AF447, QF32, BA38, et al), we continue to learn more. Case in point, we are flying higher and longer than a generation ago; we are learning of an atmospheric phenomenon commonly called ice crystal impaction, which describes a series of peculiar events; the atmosphere hasn’t changed, but our interaction has changed. We try to eliminate / minimize all the known risks, but unknown-unknowns present surprises.
You are of course quite correct. Oil components deteriorate fairly rapidly. Nuclear fuel rods do not. Yet, they can and are stored safely in a proper facility. A temporary holding pool is NOT a proper facility. The Yucca Mountain facility is a proper site, but folks do not want containers transported through their city, despite the fact that the containers a nuclear-hardened. Yes, there is risk with nuclear energy; however, the public reaction is highly emotional, rather than rational. We accept the risks of driving an automobile or flying in an airplane, but we turn freaky when someone mentions nuclear or radiation. Frankly, I am fairly comfortable with nuclear stuff; it is the chemical & biological agents that scare the hell outta me. We shall respectfully disagree it seems . . . I believe nuclear has been, is, and will remain the “cleanest, least offensive” source of electricity generation for a long time. Let’s improve it, rather than discard it.
As the Press continues to dig, it appears the Fukushima facility violated more than a few existing safety regulations, which in turn suggests government oversight was lax, complacent, or perhaps even complicit. In a feeble attempt to keep things in perspective, if the Fukushima reactors had been typical Soviet types like at Chernobyl, rather than Western (albeit older GE designs), we would have a far more serious situation.
Re: Libya. You make good and valid points. I share your concerns. I am not sure this is yet a NATO operation. I believe France, UK, U.S., and others are acting by coalition under UNSC Res.1973, rather than as NATO or some other entity. I hope the President is correct when he says “days, not weeks,” but I trust he will forgive me for being skeptical. I found it refreshing that France made the first manned strike . . . at least by what has been made public so far. The reality is, the President was going to be hammered no matter what he did, even if he did nothing. This is the first time he has pulled the trigger on a major operation . . . rather than carry on the fight of his predecessor.
. . . round three:
“As I'm sure you know, the aviation industry accepts close attention from government regulators. If need be, a particular model of plane can be grounded pending replacement of a defective part. Were it appropriate, I imagine a particular brand of aircraft or company fleet could be stopped until some issue had been resolved. That does not apply to any part of the energy industry or to very many others.
“You note that the public response to nuclear transportation and storage is ‘highly emotional rather than rational.’ So is the engineers' reaction to NIMBY. Engineers forget that their work is based on assumptions. Thus, they assume that safety systems on deepwater drilling rigs will not be ignored or shut down, as most were on the Deepwater Horizon. See Disaster on the Horizon, by Bob Cavnar (ISBN 9781603583169) for a good book-length discussion of the influence of attitudes in real-world results. He discusses only the petroleum industry, but his experience and research could extend to pretty much anything operated by humans. In the case of nuclear waste, designers and engineers assume that each person involved in handling it will exercise the same caution and insight that they believe they themselves would use. The public knows better, based on experience including but not limited to the Deepwater Horizon incident. We also know that the long-term results of a Yucca Flats storage facility cannot be accurately predicted. Time and again, new information catches scientists and engineers by surprise.
“On top of that, if the bright and capable terrorists envisioned by the Department of Homeland Insecurity really exist, they will find a way to hijack a shipment or two and hold the country hostage or whatever else they would do with such a weapon.
“Yes, we do take risks such as driving or flying. Those risks are considered, voluntary, and bring specific benefits that, by and large, we cannot achieve effectively by other means. Energy needs can be met by other means. Even coal looks good in the light of Fukushima.”
. . . my response to round three:
First, Re: regulation. Indeed, and well stated! The reason for that acceptance of regulation is the passenger – innocent, passive, human beings at the mercy of the machine, its operators and the environment.
Second, “Engineers forget that their work is based on assumptions.” I shall fundamentally and categorically disagree. I neither know nor am I aware of any engineer, in any country, in any sector, who forgets or ignores assumptions. Engineering is a process that begins with assumptions, is constructed to replace assumptions with the best facts available, and assesses and mitigates the risks associated with those assumptions that remain. Engineering is not and never will be a perfect process. As noted earlier, from that reality, we learn from failures based on a myriad of root cause factors.
Third, you are quite correct in your observations of the aviation industry. We have strict configuration management processes that define, record and exercise control over the design of every licensed aircraft. Aviation also has a rigorous process of system safety assessment that applies redundancy, greater margins, or other protections against failure; so does the nuclear power industry as well. Engineering also strives to ensure human operators have the best information available for the safe operation of any machine, especially where passengers are involved.
I have read more than a few accident reports, mostly aircraft, but also notably the assessment of the Chernobyl accident and recently the Macondo Well accident (among many others). Focusing on the latter, I read both the company and government reports in their entirety. I was struck by a phenomenon common to the operation of any machine – situation awareness.
As computer-processing technology expanded and became practical for application to operating machines in the 1970’s, engineers utilized computer processing and advanced display technology to give operators better situational awareness and predictive information. Such technology was applied to the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. As graphically illuminated in the company report, the information displayed to the operators that day/night was not integrated or predictive; that was left to the human operators. As the blowout began, there were signs, but those signs were confusing and not clear (un-integrated). As the event progressed, events accelerated rapidly to the point of no return. Yet, as I read both main reports, one singular grievous mistake stood out – the failure to divert the riser contents to the overboard vent before the oil & gas reached the surface.
We have yet to see even a preliminary technical assessment of the Fukushima accident. Based on the available Press and public information, my hypothesis is the facility withstood the earthquake with little to no damage, but the tsunami overwhelmed all protections, took out the electrical controls of the primary and both alternate coolant systems, which in turn sent the operating reactors into thermal overload. In addition to struggling with the thermal situation, they have been trying to restore electrical power to one or more of the coolant systems.
There is no such thing as a perfect system – never has been, never will be. There is the best system we can design, build and operate with the knowledge we have. Such recognized uncertainty should never stop us from making the effort. Airplanes today are far safer than airplanes built 50 years ago; so it is with virtually every machine including nuclear reactors; but, that does not make 50yo reactors unsafe either.
Re: Yucca Flats (or equivalent). The site and facility are orders of magnitude better than any reactor facility holding pond; I believe is it the best such facility on Earth. The future of the Earth cannot be accurately predicted. So, what standard level of predictability are we going to hold ourselves? Are we asking for vastly greater accuracy and assurance than we can achieve for any other safety / security system? If so, is that reasonable?
Likewise, there is no such thing as perfect security. In the special ops world, an axiom of operations remains, where there’s a will, there’s a way. There are reasonably safe methods for transportation of high-value materials like spent fuel. Could the scenario you describe happen? Yes, absolutely. I trust the government to properly prepare for and execute such transport plans, and I truly hope and expect those plans and processes to be highly classified, under a strict, confined, need to know.
Shutting down nuclear power facilities is NOT the answer. Nuclear power, electricity generation brings enormous benefit at relatively low risk and cost. Nonetheless, let us assume we shutdown every single nuclear reactor in the world. What could replace that lost capacity? Coal? Then, the global-warming environmentalists scream bloody murder; they want to shutdown existing coal plants. Wind? Classic NIMBY . . . don’t want to see those huge windmills; plus, takes a lot of wind turbines and constant wind to replace just one reactor. Solar? Vast tracts of land needed to collect equivalent power. What then?
I recognize there are no easy answers. I would prefer an electricity generation source that is renewable, clean, without risk, easily camouflaged, and presents no environmental stress. Unfortunately, that technology does not yet exist. Until then, I see nuclear energy as the best solution.
. . . round four:
“Your response reinforces my point about engineers responding from emotion. Of course engineers remember the assumptions. I never said they didn't. My point was that engineering assumptions may not match reality, especially assumptions about people's behavior. History at least back to the sinking of the Titanic supports that statement.
“I am not engineer enough to understand the technical reports on the incident, nor would I find them as interesting as you would. What I do know is that the bulk of the safety systems on the Deepwater Horizon were turned off or ignored. That is what I mean by assumptions not matching reality. The people who designed and built that rig assumed that the safety systems would be used as the engineers believed they themselves would use the systems. They designed the systems and procedures according to that assumption, but it did not work in reality. Designers and engineers know much about mechanical topics, but little about human beings. For example, more than one of my business courses describe scrupulous following of every procedure as a form of worker sabotage. That appears to have been the managers' opinion on the Deepwater Horizon. Studies of the Three Mile Island incident include that as a factor also. Study human disasters as far back as records go. In nearly all of them, the systems would have functioned but for the humans failing to use them or using them poorly. When I discuss ‘human factors,’ I mean a great deal more than the organization of readouts.
“The aviation industry differs from most others in that regulators have immediate access to the entire industry. Other industries do not have that level of regulation.
“No assessment of the Fukushima incident, technical or otherwise, is yet available. My point comes back again to the assumptions. The assumption that spent fuel could be stored in ponds until some other method of storage could be found has failed dramatically. Should governments allow that same assumption to be used elsewhere?
“Given the seriousness of failures, why would we not have extremely high requirements for nuclear material storage? If we add terrorism to the other risks of transportation, why would we allow that? You are certainly right in saying that there is no perfect security. Imperfect security is too risky if it's my country we're talking about. I have no idea how you can state that nuclear power generation carries a low risk. Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island illustrate the problem with that statement. The results of failures make any risk whatever very important.”
. . . my response to round four:
My oh my, your words suggest a very low opinion of engineers. We are not as bad as you make us appear . . . as rather limited intellectually and not particularly contributive citizens. Nonetheless . . .
Re: “My point was that engineering assumptions may not match reality, especially assumptions about people's behavior.” What can I say? Again, I know of no engineer on the planet who does not seek reconciliation of every single assumption. We do the best we can within boundaries of human perception. We can always do better. How good is good enough?
Perhaps we are confusing the words “assumptions” and “requirements.” The former is an unknown; the latter is a known. Requirements are established during the preliminary design process. The engineering process designs a facility to withstand at 9.0 earthquake – that is a design requirement, not an assumption. Engineering uses the best available data regarding what is involved in a 9.0 earthquake to design the structure. Further, such a design is expected to withstand a 9.0 earthquake with no structural damage. Structural loads are defined by those requirements. Engineers invariably apply margins based on the uncertainty of the applied loads, thus structures can withstand loads above the design loads. We can design structures to withstand any load, but then the question is should we? Structural design loads must be balanced with cost, risk, consequences, and many other factors. We cannot afford to build to infinite loads. It is all about balance.
Re: “Designers and engineers know much about mechanical topics, but little about human beings.” Yes, engineers can calculate stress and strength of materials, kinematics, et cetera. However, again, I must respectfully disagree. Human Factors Engineering has been an established and important discipline for 40 years. Providing human operators essential information to control a machine safely and properly is a fundamental requirement. No matter how much we study and how hard we try, nothing is ever perfect, nor will it ever be.
Procedures only work so far, but they are the intended process for operating any machine. Systems are designed for normal as well as several levels of emergency operations. Once an event is beyond those procedures and processes, human operators must adapt to what they perceive of the situation they face. The operators of Fukushima are well beyond the design-operating environment, and I’m sure they are doing their best to regain control.
Re: “The assumption that spent fuel could be stored in ponds until some other method of storage could be found has failed dramatically.” I do not know with certainty, but I’ll bet that long-term storage of spent fuel rods in temporary on-site pools was NEVER an assumption – not in Japan, not in the United States, not anywhere. My understanding is spent fuel in those pools is a de facto reality imposed by the inability of government’s to agree upon a proper permanent storage facility, e.g., Yucca Mountain. Various governments including the United States and apparently Japan have not fulfilled their responsibility of providing secure, long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel rods.
Re: “high requirements.” I believe you will find the nuclear industry requirements are the highest on the planet. In my humble opinion, the weakness is the failure of the government to provide a secure, permanent, storage facility. The electric power generation industry is doing the best they can within the constraints imposed upon them by government regulatory agencies. The situation in Fukushima is not as simple as it may seem.

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

21 March 2011

Update no.483

Update from the Heartland
No.483
14.3.11 – 20.3.11
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Now designated the Tohoku Earthquake [481], scientists updated the magnitude to 9.1 – now tied for third largest in recorded history. Unfortunately for the Japanese, they have disaster upon disaster as the Fukushima nuclear tragedy overshadowed the gargantuan human trauma of the tsunami. Japan and the planet face far greater danger from the accumulated spent fuel rods than the active reactor fuel for a host of reasons not least of which is minimal versus substantial containment structures. The spent material can quickly deteriorate once the storage ponds are compromised, spreading contamination by the winds much like a dirty bomb where the minimal explosive is simply a spreading agent not a destructive explosive device. The New York Times offered some extraordinary satellite, adjustable, before & after images of the destruction in Japan, especially the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/13/world/asia/satellite-photos-japan-before-and-after-tsunami.html?ex=1315886400&en=6eebb115a4b972be&ei=5087&WT.mc_id=%20NYT-E-I-NYT-E-AT-0316-L9
Lastly, my opinion, the Fukushima disaster should no more stop the use of nuclear energy for electrical power generation than the Deepwater Horizon / Macondo Well disaster should stop deepwater oil & gas exploration and production. We learn from mistakes and accidents.
-- As Qadhafi’s military forces advanced eastward toward Benghazi and the heart of the rebel territory in Libya, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed Resolution 1973 (2011) [Vote: 10-0-5 (abstentions: Russia, PRC, Germany, Brazil, India)] on Thursday, 17.March.2011. The measure authorized the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya and recalled its Resolution 1970 (2011) of 26.February.2011 [Vote: 15-0-0] that condemned the Qadhafi regime’s use of lethal force in suppressing the protests. The UNSC action came within days of the Arab League request and endorsement of action against Qadhafi [481]. A no-fly zone is just another half measure that seems like a good idea, but rarely if ever serves its intended purpose. As noted earlier [481], I agree with Secretary of Defense Bob Gates regarding the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya. Op-Ed Columnist Roger Cohen added his voice, and in this instance, I concur with his opinion.
“Be Ruthless or Stay Out”
by Roger Cohen
New York Times
Published: March 17, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/opinion/18iht-edcohen18.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212
Cohen appropriately referenced an historic example of the unintended consequences often common to the use of half-measures – the UNSC Resolution 781 (1992) adopted on 9.October.1992 to protect Bosnian Muslims from Serbian military power. Unfortunately, nearly three years later (13/22.July.1995), the Serbians carried out a horrendous ethnic cleansing massacre at Srebrenica, Bosnia, despite allied “protections.” This Libyan action has absolutely nothing to do with the War on Islamic Fascism . . . as yet; however, instability in the Islamic world attracts the insanity of al-Qaeda, which is turn will focus more Allied attention. Since we pulled the trigger on this one, I’m with Roger Cohen; we are now all-in there, and we should be ruthless in eradicating Qadhafi’s tyrannical regime. At least on this occasion, the French and British lead the action with the United States in support. Coalition military operations to eliminate the Libyan air defense system began on Saturday. Le Armée de l’Air carried out the first airstrikes against Qadhafi’s forces, including some armored units outside Benghazi. Several news reports indicated the Egyptians are supplying small arms and ammunition to the rebels in Eastern Libya.
-- A Pakistani court ordered the immediate release of Raymond Allen Davis, 36, the security contractor for the CIA in Pakistan and a former Army Special Forces soldier arrested for shooting and killing two Pakistani assailants [480]. Punjab law minister Rana Sanaullah confirmed that a US$2.34M "blood money" payment has been paid to the victims' families on behalf of Davis, and he has been handed over to the U.S. Consul General.
-- On Friday, President Obama signed into law the second funding extension for the Federal government until 8.April.2011 – Additional Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011 [PL 112-006; H.J.RES.48; Senate: 87-13-0-0(0); House: 271-158-0-3(3)] – after the first version, the Further Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011 [PL 112-004; H.J.RES.44; Senate: 91-9-0-0(0); House: 335-91-0-6(3)]. [481] I suspect Congress will run out of qualifier adjectives before they reach the end of FY2011 and have to begin deliberations on the FY2012 appropriations legislation.
-- On 18.March.2011, Dane County [Wisconsin] Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi issued a temporary restraining order blocking the state's contentious collective bargaining law 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 [482] – from taking effect; so the tortuous journey continues and Wisconsin is thrown into greater fiscal uncertainty.
-- On Saturday, 19.March, five weeks after the departure of the former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak [478], the Egyptian People voted in a constitutional referendum and approved a package of amendments – 41% of 45 million eligible voters cast ballots (77.2% in favor, 22.8% opposed). The changes eliminate restrictions on political rights and open the way for parliamentary and presidential elections within months. Opponents argued that the changes allowed too little time for political parties to organize, which will tend to favor the organized political entities like the Muslim Brotherhood and the former ruling party.

News from the economic front:
-- The Federal Reserve maintained its easy-money policies as they noted the pressure on consumer prices from a strong rise in international commodity prices. They made no direct mention of developments in Japan. They also said they expected the effects of higher oil prices to be transitory.
-- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) filed suit against three former executives of the failed Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu), along with the wives of two of the executives. The FDIC is seeking US$900M in damages for alleged gross negligence and other failures by the former executives as direct contributors to WaMu’s collapse in September 2008 – the largest-ever U.S. banking failure.
-- The Group of Seven (G-7) finance ministers and central bank governors responded to a request of the Japanese government and pledged solidarity with Japan, as they will jointly intervene in the foreign exchange market to ensure orderly markets. The financial markets reacted favorably.

No comments or contributions from Update no.482.

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

14 March 2011

Update no.482

Update from the Heartland
No.482
7.3.11 – 13.3.11
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- On 22.January.2009, freshly inaugurated President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13492, titled: “Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities.” [371] The order established an objective of closing the facility by 22.January.2010 [one (1) year hence]. On Monday, 7.March.2011, the President issued an order approving the resumption of military trials for detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, which means the detention facility will not be closing anytime soon. Isn’t it amazing how things change when you have the responsibility rather than just bombastic political rhetoric to get elected? It took two years, but at least the President arrived at the proper position. The detainees at Guantánamo are illegal battlefield combatants who do not belong in the civilian criminal justice system.
-- On Saturday, the Arab League upped the ante and petitioned the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya [481]. The publicly available information (perhaps just idle speculation by the talking heads) indicates Russia and China oppose UN intervention in the Libyan civil war, which means the UN will likely remain impotent. The Arab League action put significant pressure on the U.S. and Europe to respond to the rebel’s request for support. Clearly, Colonel Moammar Muhammad al-Gadhafi, his sons and regime are not high on anyone's hit parade. I imagine the members of the Arab League do NOT want Gadhafi’s thugs to be successful reasserting their oppressive control – a process that appears to have begun.

On 11.March.2011; 14:46 [I] JST {05:46 [Z] GMT, or 10.March.2011; 23:46 [S] CST}, an 8.9 magnitude earthquake (the 5th largest in recorded history and the largest in Japanese history) struck with an epicenter 80 miles offshore, near Sendai, Japan, and 15 miles below the surface, followed by more than 300 aftershocks so far, many of them of more than magnitude 6.0, one as high as 7.4. A tsunami warning was issued for virtually the entire Pacific Basin. A reported 23-foot (7-meter) tsunami struck Sendai 20 minutes later. Japanese police say 200 to 300 bodies have been discovered so far in a northeastern coastal area around Sendai. The reports of devastation continue to pour in: 9,500 missing in Minamisanriku, Miyagi Prefecture; a turbine room fire at the Onagawa nuclear power plant; a massive fire and explosion at the natural gas facility in the Chiba prefecture, near Tokyo; and the most broadly threatening being the serious coolant problems at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, near the town of Okuma. The video of the explosion at Fukushima on Saturday was not a good sign. An estimated 20,000 people were evacuated from 20-kilometer radius around the Fukushima plant, and tested for radiation poisoning. Prime Minister Naoto Kan declared the earthquake and tsunami were the greatest disaster in Japan since World War II, and will most likely vastly overshadow the world’s costliest earthquake – the 7.2 magnitude earthquake in Kobe, Japan (17.January.1995). The world has mobilized to assist the Japanese in stabilization and recovery. One important positive in this disaster is the unprecedented documentation of the aftermath of the event and significantly the arrival and destruction of the resultant tsunami.

An opinion that triggered my rumination . . . and perchance yours:
“Why Monogamy Matters”
by Ross Douthat
New York Times
Published: March 6, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/opinion/07douthat.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212
Numerous collateral aspects of the Douthat opinion percolated to the public fringe. First, Douthat makes valid and appropriate points. Strict monogamy ensures healthy procreation and for those so inclined the least risky sexual pleasure. Traditional, Victorian mores confine all sex to adult (i.e., >18yo), heterosexual, bilateral marriage, and even then virtually for procreation only; the popular notion of virginal purity being raised to paramount importance and expectation – anything else is labeled hedonistic. In those days, the doctrine of coverture dictated that married women and subsequent children were virtually the legal property of the husband / father; they had no legal standing beyond the husband /father. Legislators of the day translated those conservative, traditional attitudes into common law . . . passing laws to criminalize polygamy, prostitution, non-heterosexual conduct, any sex involving minors (<18yo), pornography, et cetera ad infinitum. Zealous prosecutors enthusiastically enforced the moral laws on private conduct when they find access to such deviant behavior. Violators of those social dicta have been branded for life with a large, bright, scarlet “A” – sex offender; or, at a minimum, labeled a deviant, a pervert, a violator of social norms . . . ostracized forever. The success of the Victorian era legislators remains with us a century later. I respectfully submit to a contemplative and discerning audience that the notion of the American Dream, at least as reflected in our attitudes toward marital relations, have caused far more destruction than they ever helped solidify the narrow concept of normal. The oppressive laws associated with “proper” moral conduct in predominately private relationships have made us afraid of our own bodies, fearful of even mentioning sex around our children, and apprehensive to say the least about discussing any aspects of human sexuality with anyone. Even worse, we shake in mortal fear of even raising the topic of sex in public debate. We giggle and snicker with uncomfortable unease when someone bolder than us mentions sex. As a consequence, our children are relegated to learning about their sex by happenstance and at the mercy of fumbling peers and fortuitous events. So, Ross Douthat reportedly on what appears to be a positive turn, but unfortunately in the context of our sexually repressed society, I see the news in more ominous terms . . . that social conservatives are re-asserting their moral values on everyone else and restricting the unalienable right of every citizen to seek his path in pursuit of Happiness. Sex is a natural, normal, necessary part of life. Each of us has a fundamental right to privacy, and as such, to make our choices (as long as no one else is injured) with a clear expectation of no interference from society. Now, before the social conservatives get all fired up, We, the People, do have a responsibility, an obligation, to define acceptable public conduct, but we must step back a few paces from dictating private conduct as our penchant has been for more than a century. Let us move into a more enlightened era and return the freedom the Founders fought so hard to secure for us . . . and our kin. Neither We, the People, nor the State belongs in the private affairs of marriages, families or citizens . . . other than as that private conduct intersects with the public domain.

The following thread between a long-term friend and colleague, and me covers an important, relevant topic for public debate. All contributions are welcome.
“A serious issue for you:
“I am constantly being told by various folks that Bradley Manning should ‘be executed,’ shot, ‘hung,’ etc. This article puts the question where it should be: Should war crimes not be reported or exposed? If you sign an oath to support and protect the Constitution of the United States, and you see what you think is a crime, do you or do you not have the duty and responsibility to report that? Does the belief that war, undeclared by Congress, make it OK to excuse murder, and other forms of illegality, simply because ‘war is hell’? Are there no rules? Are there no morals?
“If you think something is a crime and you expose it, do you think you should be held in solitary confinement and otherwise tortured, or do you think a system of laws which respects the rights of Citizens of this country, should allow you a hearing and due process to state your case? Or should military authorities, who represent the actual system which perpetrated the alleged crimes, decide your fate? Or your son's fate? Or your nephew's fate? Or some kid you don't even know's fate?
“Some fool will probably think that I am accusing the soldiers who fired from the helicopters of war crimes, when I am not. If it is not clear that those who put those soldiers in harms way and put them in situations and circumstances where the fog of war allows us to blithely say what they did was unfortunate but, well, war is hell, are the one's responsible for the crimes, then I will say it plainly: The soldiers are not responsible. The Leadership who took us into these wars and people who supported them are responsible.
“If you do not know what I am referring to in regard to the helicopter shooting, please read the article, or go here:”
http://www.collateralmurder.com/ .
http://www.alternet.org/story/150157/bradley_manning_humiliated_and_abused%3A_why_is_exposing_a_war_crime_more_dangerous_than_committing_one/comments/
My response:
I shall endeavor to step through your queries, which I presume are not rhetorical; but, first . . .
The Constitution of the United States of America, Article III, § 3 states, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Bradley Manning reportedly violated the 2nd qualifying phrase in that definition. Please note: there is NO qualifier of “war” in that phrase. If Manning is found guilty of doing what he is accused of doing, he has committed treason. Treason is normally punished by death; 70 years ago, such an act would have been punishable by death; however, recent examples like Walker, Pollard, Ames, Hanssen, Lynd, and their ilk have failed to be properly punished for their crimes, so it is highly doubtful Manning will realize a harsher fate. That said . . . now to your queries.
1. Re: “Should war crimes not be reported or exposed?” Yes, absolutely. To my knowledge, Manning did neither. There is a defined process for reporting such crimes. To my knowledge, Manning made no attempt to activate the process.
2. Re: “If you sign an oath to support and protect the Constitution of the United States, and you see what you think is a crime, do you or do you not have the duty and responsibility to report that?” See no.1 above.
3. Re: “Does the belief that war, undeclared by Congress, make it OK to excuse murder, and other forms of illegality, simply because ‘war is hell’?” This is a troubling question on many levels. Let us set aside the declaration of war issue, since the Authorizations to use force [PL 107-040 and PL 107-243] may have been tantamount to but were not officially declarations of war. What Manning is accused of is the disclosure of massive numbers of classified military and diplomatic messages, not some discrete object or set like Ellsberg did. We can argue the legality of the USG’s action, but it will ultimately boil down to definitions, interpretations and opinions.
4. Re: “Are there no rules?” Of course there are rules; rules for traitors like Manning as well as the rest of us common folk up to and including POTUS. We may not like the decisions or actions of the USG, but to my knowledge, they followed the rules. Manning did not, and he shall suffer the consequences.
5. Re: “Are there no morals?” Here is where it really gets sporty. One man’s pornography is another man’s art. Morals are rules of private conduct. Laws define proper public conduct. When confronted with moral conflicts, our choices are adapt or resign. Manning again did neither; he chose to betray his country rather than do the proper thing – hardly an admirable trait.
6. Re: “If you think something is a crime and you expose it, do you think you should be held in solitary confinement and otherwise tortured, or do you think a system of laws which respects the rights of Citizens of this country, should allow you a hearing and due process to state your case?” I have insufficient information to form a credible opinion on Manning’s legal status. I suspect the USG is doing what they consider necessary and within the law.
7. Re: “Should military authorities, who represent the actual system which perpetrated the alleged crimes, decide your fate? Or your son's fate? Or your nephew's fate? Or some kid you don't even know's fate?” The question is moot. Manning is in the Army. History and the law gives the military jurisdiction, although any conviction can be appealed to the Supreme Court.
If Manning did what he is accused of doing, he committed treason in a time of war. Regardless of war, he should be punished for what he did. It was not some act of conscience; it was a vengeful, vindictive act because he joined the Army and then did not want to go to war. Life’s a bitch!
. . . round two:
“Good answers from the point of view of a Bush Admin apologist. A few questions:
“1. Do you think the Rules of Engagement which are put in place during an illegal occupation and invasion of a sovereign nation which was no immediate threat to the invading nation and which invasion was based on lies and fabrications, and which was never declared a ‘war’ by that nation's highest law of the land, its Constitution, and which invasion caused massive death and destruction of the invaded nation, and many deaths and obliteration of the invading nation's economy , was protection against the charge of war crimes against the perpetrators of those Rules?
“2. Did you see the video of the helicopter killings and the dialogue and attitudes of our sons, nephews, and unknown kids who were involved in executing these Rules of Engagement?
“3. Do you think the exposure of a video showing what most people would classify as war crimes was a good thing to do or bad?
“4. Do you think the release of the Pentagon Papers was treasonous?
“5. Do you think the exposure of the My Lai Massacre was a good thing, or a bad thing?
I think I know your answers to all of the above, but one more, Would you feel the same about Manning as you have stated below if he was your son, and had a fundamentally different view of this criminal war than you?
“PS: at least you took up the question with some thought- thanks
“Here is an in depth discussion of the leaked video by Wikileaks which I hope you will not discount simply because it was not on Fox News:”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zok8yMxXEwk
. . . my response to round two:
First, I am neither an apologist nor antagonist for any administration. I am only a concerned citizen. I try to focus on actions in the public domain, as best I am able. Now, to your queries . . .
1. “Do you think the Rules of Engagement which are put in place during an illegal occupation and invasion of a sovereign nation which was no immediate threat to the invading nation and which invasion was based on lies and fabrications, and which was never declared a ‘war’ by that nation's highest law of the land, its Constitution, and which invasion caused massive death and destruction of the invaded nation, and many deaths and obliteration of the invading nation's economy, was protection against the charge of war crimes against the perpetrators of those Rules?” Long, jam-packed question! A.) Congress chose to pass Authorizations rather than a formal declaration of war. I have consistently criticized that decision and failure since debate on the form began. History has not yet recorded the reasons for that failure, so we wait. B.) All international actions are based on intelligence. History is replete with examples over time of bad intelligence, i.e., the Zimmerman telegram being a prime example. I cannot subscribe to the “lies and fabrications” premise. The fact that decision-makers chose to act upon low or no corroboration is a judgment history shall make. C.) “War crimes” is a totally inappropriate legal term to be applied to the Allied decisions regarding Afghanistan and Iraq. We can disagree with the decisions, but the decisions were made in accordance with the law, thus they cannot be defined as crimes. D.) We can argue the Rules of Engagement (RoE) as you wish. I certainly have been critical of the strategy used to prosecute the Battle for Iraq on many levels; history will most likely not be kind to Rummie, W, and the others for the decisions they made to prosecute the battle, but I doubt history will condemn the President’s decision to act on the threat.
2. “Did you see the video of the helicopter killings and the dialogue and attitudes of our sons, nephews, and unknown kids who were involved in executing these Rules of Engagement?” The sterility of distant hindsight may be comforting, but it does not recognize the difficulty of combat decisions. I have been in the position of those pilots; even in peace-time training events, mistakes are made. Our training, the RoE, et cetera, give us (all warriors) the best decision-making skills possible; mistakes are a fact of life, not just war. In that light, I do not view that video as indictable; in fact, quite the contrary. They were doing the best they could and apparent innocent people got hurt.
3. “Do you think the exposure of a video showing what most people would classify as war crimes was a good thing to do or bad?” I will not stand between Freedom of the Press, the citizen’s right to know, and military combat operations. I would just add one primary, predominate caution: access is NOT knowledge. We have unprecedented access to military operations, and unless any of us have been there or can place that access into context, we should not be so quick to judge. We do NOT know the situation that led to that video. All we know is what we see, and of course the aftermath in the clarity of hindsight.
4. “Do you think the release of the Pentagon Papers was treasonous?” To be direct, yes! I did then; I do to this day. When an individual takes it upon himself to be the conscience of the government, we are steps closer to anarchy. To my thinking, there is little difference between Daniel Ellsberg and Richard Nixon – they both violated the law for reasons they believed were in the best interests of the nation; both men were dreadfully wrong.
5. “Do you think the exposure of the My Lai Massacre was a good thing, or a bad thing?” A good thing! That event was clearly a failure of the military leadership hierarchy. Unfortunately, the damage-done by mistakes in combat often vastly exceed their local impact. My Lai was an isolated event, but the impact of that event grew far beyond the crime & punishment of those involved. Warfighting, especially in today’s hyper-active digital communications world, must involve control of battlefield information to ensure we wage war successfully, and I might add as quickly as possible. That video served no purpose other than inflammation of our enemies and their supporters.
Re: “I think I know your answers to all of the above, but one more, Would you feel the same about Manning as you have stated below if he was your son, and had a fundamentally different view of this criminal war than you?” Again, short answer: yes! We taught our children to make their decisions on the best information available, and stand up to be accountable for their decisions. Regardless of our view / opinion of the War on Islamic Fascism, what Manning did (or whomever released those documents) was wrong in every possible way. I have read a number of the messages. I am glad I was able to read those messages, and I learned a lot from them, but I do not think I had a right to read them until they were properly declassified. What the discloser did (as in the Ellsberg’s case) was place himself above the entire nation. If every individual did the same thing, it would be anarchy and chaos.
You are I have been around this patch a few times, so I imagine my responses were quite predictable. Nonetheless, there you have them.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Thanks for your thoughtful but not surprising response – we see things differently, as we often do – just wish you had watched the video – I have also taught my son to do what he thinks is right; to obey the rules, do unto others etc, and if he were in the brig now being treated like manning is being treated – I hate to think what I would do.”
. . . my follow-up response:
I intend to watch it tomorrow morning [capacity permitting]. When I get it done, I will offer my opinion.
Perhaps my opinion would be different if Manning was my son. Hopefully, I would know more than I do. Figuratively speaking, my counsel to my son would be fess-up to your mistake(s) and take the consequences. If I believed he was truly innocent and erroneously accused, I would do everything in my power to exonerate him. I do not know enough to make such a judgment today. However, based on the public information, it appears to be far more the former than the latter.
. . . my postscript:
I watched the entire YouTube, WikiLeaks, al-Jazeera video titled “Collateral Murder?” and I will not waste your time. You know my opinion. I recognize and acknowledge that I am not likely to change your mind on such things. Thank you for your opinions and exchanges.

On Friday, Governor Scott Kevin Walker of Wisconsin signed into law the 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 [AKA Budget Repair Bill (SB 11)], which officially removed nearly all collective bargaining rights from the vast majority of the state's public employees. The extraordinary action in Wisconsin may well become a landmark event for all states with collective bargaining units for state employees. The trauma born out in public in Madison illuminated the imbalance that has evolved especially around collective bargaining with government entities that have no profit motive and possess the power of taxation. Unions had their place and necessity in the evolution of fair labor practice. However, I suspect we bear witness to the consequences of unchecked amplification of entitlement benefits. It is tragic that the residents of Wisconsin must suffer this trauma, but the pain is likely going to be felt elsewhere as well.

"In war, resolution; in defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity; in peace, good-will."
-- Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, KG, OM, CH, PC, MP (12.12.1905)
I thought it appropriate to begin this diatribe with a relevant quotation from a flawed man who brought considerable wisdom and insight to the political and public arena. Winnie did not just spout wise words he lived them. I imagine if we polled the American People, a goodly majority would self-assess ourselves as a beneficent and magnanimous people. We have contributed treasure and the precious blood of patriots to thwart devastating fascism several times during the last century, and then contributed substantial treasure to the reconstruction of Europe and Japan. History documents American magnanimity. With our society generosity, how is it that we are so bloody contrarian in our individual and local lives? OK, now here is my rant. Our system of crime and punishment defines punishable laws, a laborious adversarial prosecutorial system heavily weighed against the State, and broad system of incarceration and probation. The intention has been, is and should be not just punishment, and presumably prevention, as well as rehabilitation and redemption. We all make mistakes. Some of us make more serious mistakes. And, a few us happen to transgress one of the moral lines in the sand that demand we pay an enormous price. The difficulty for me is not the punishment of crime. I blast off into low earth orbit when our supposedly benevolent society ostracizes a person after he has paid his debt to society. I can somewhat understand the personal concern of a citizen or an employer . . . if a person injured someone, he might do it again; so why give the guy a chance to do it again. At a more personal level for me, if a person experimented with or were even addicted to psychotropic substances, he can never again be trusted with a position of responsibility and trust. If a citizen has no hope of redemption and the prospect of returning to trust within a society, then we are condemning him to menial or risky jobs, or more likely a return to crime. Most institutional employers, including the government at all levels, ask whether a candidate has been convicted of a felony. He has only two choices: 1.) lie, which leaves him open to fraudulent employment, or 2.) tell the truth and be denied employment. In essence, the punishment continues long after he has paid the price the law says he must pay – a terrific, incalculable price for the rest of his natural life. Perhaps we need to find a more stratified system for filtration of those convicted of felonious conduct – simple mistakes, misguided, mentally ill, repeat offenders, violent offenders, unredeemable. Somehow, we must find a way to overcome our societal tendency to perpetually punish those who have paid their debt to the community for their transgressions.

Comments and contributions from Update no.481:
Comment to the Blog:
“I very grudgingly understand the Supreme Court decision in favor of Westboro Baptist Church. My understanding does not include agreement, however. Like Justice Alito, I do not believe that preserving freedom requires allowing these sick people to intrude on funerals. Indeed, I would not allow such behavior at any funeral, military or civilian, honoring any person, honorable or otherwise.
“The idea that comes to mind in this context is one that has worked for a private business near here. Following lengthy and annoying picketing by a local fundamentalist church, employees of the sex-oriented business proceeded to picket the church. After a few weeks of strippers greeting his congregation on Sunday mornings, the minister suddenly found it in his heart to offer a much more tolerant approach to the business in question and its employees.
“Whether this would work with the Phelpses and their band of lunatics is hard to say, but certainly something other than court action is in order.”
My reply to the Blog:
I have not found one citizen [outside the Phelps coven] who supports the Westboro Baptist Church and their message of hatred, intolerance and condemnation. Yet, most folks recognize the monumental significance regarding one of our precious freedoms.
As I noted, one element in the Snyder decision [481] rests on the definition of injury in the phrase “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Alito’s threshold was lower than Roberts and the other justices.
What they did not and could not illuminate is the state’s establishment of boundaries. They purposefully did not address those constraints associated with funerals and like events. The central issue in the Snyder ruling was the imposition of monetary penalty for the Phelps’ exercise of speech and assembly.
I think some folks have tried protesting at the Westboro Baptist Church, without success as I’m aware. I think I remember that case in Ohio made the national news. The big difference between them . . . the Ohio pastor cared about what other people think of them, while the Phelps clan could care less. The Phelps clan has no concept of decency, respect or neighborliness. There is an hour-long video documentary about Fred Phelps and his spawn.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I thoroughly agree with what you have said about the Phelps group, but I wish you would not call them a ‘coven.’ I know members of several covens personally. While I do not like all of them, I would not accuse any of being the repellent type of personality that Fred Phelps attracts.”
. . . and my follow-up comment.
I stand corrected. Poor choice of word . . . from Puritan Salem Trials days. My bad word choice does serious disservice to witches. In fact, now that I think of it, perhaps the greatest denigrating insult we could conjure up would be to accuse someone of being a Westboro member. The only difference between the Phelps clan and al-Qaeda is the latter uses of violence toward their ends. Regardless, my apologies for the offense.

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

07 March 2011

Update no.481

Update from the Heartland
No.481
28.2.11 – 6.3.11
To all,
Saturday night, I did a ride-along with Deputy Sheriff Taylor Parlier. I only lasted a few hours on patrol through the county. We made two traffic stops: one for a broken brake light, and the other for bad registration (neither the plate, the automobile, the driver’s license, nor the insurance coverage matched). Yet, it was an early neighbor dispute in a rural area that instigated and amplified my sense of vulnerability – what if? As instructed, I remained in the patrol car as Taylor disappeared into the woods surrounding the barn/house and entry drive, to find the other half of the problem. My head was on a swivel, and I kept eyeing the emergency communications button and the gunlock for the shotgun. Situation handled. Most importantly, a proud father got to talk to his youngest son and observe him serving the community.

On Thursday, 24.February.2011, at 16:53:24 [R] EST (21:53:24 [Z]), the Space Shuttle Discovery launched on the STS-133 mission to the International Space Station and its last flight. SS Discovery will likely be retired to a museum or display somewhere – a sad day for me, but one we all knew was coming. While most folks do not seem to care, I must note an amazing video taken by various cameras mounted on both Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs), pointed forward and aft during the entire launch sequence from activation of the deluge system to SRB separation and splash down in the Atlantic Ocean. For those who may be interested in the majesty of engineering, the URL is:
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?collection_id=14554&media_id=68551231

“As Regimes Fall in Arab World, Al Qaeda Sees History Fly By”
by Scott Shane
New York Times
Published: February 27, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/world/middleeast/28qaeda.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha22
The public signs have affirmed this assessment, so far. I truly hope the not-so-public signs seen by the Intelligence Community (IC) also confirm the observation. If so, we may be witnessing the marginalization of the radical fundamentalist terrorist group, which in turn will lead to its demise.

“U.S. and Allies Weigh Libya No-Fly Zone”
by John M. Broder
New York Times
Published: February 27, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/world/europe/28military.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha22
While this action seems like a good idea to level the battlefield in Libya, I agree with Secretary of Defense Gates. Such an intervention would be tantamount to declaring war on Libya and would involve direct combat attacks on the country’s air defense system before a no-fly zone could be invoked and enforced. As much as I would like to help the rebels seeking freedom from an oppressive, dictatorial, corrupt regime, we cannot intercede in a civil war. Libya abandoned its weapons of mass destruction and its position on the list of state-sponsors of terrorism. In essence, Libya does not pose a threat to the United States.

Last week, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made a speech at the Military Academy, West Point, New York. The Press reported on his speech, but the content was overshadowed by events in Libya. Bob invoked the spirit of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur when he said, “Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined.” An informed perspective:
“Never Fight a Land War in Asia”
by George Friedman
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Posted: March 1, 2011 | 0947 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110228-never-fight-land-war-asia?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=110301&utm_content=readmore&elq=6efe5f8599d949f88aa1335f0b8a2eb2
While I laud and broadly support George’s assessment, I would modify the dictum. If we must fight a war in Asia, then the President must mobilize the nation to commit the proper resources to winning such a fight. Three presidents failed to do just that in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq – stalemate, defeat, open, and jury is still out. Perhaps we have forgotten how to fight a war. In that comment, I do not refer to the military’s ability to engage and defeat an enemy; I specifically point to the far more important political and economic aspects of waging war successfully. Perhaps one day we will relearn what we once knew quite well. If we do not relearn the art of nation-state warfighting, then perhaps humanity will find a way to make wars obsolete – relics of mankind’s barbaric past.

Congress passed and the President signed the two-week FY2011 appropriations extension – Further Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011 [PL 112-004; H.J.RES.44; Senate: 91-9-0-0(0); House: 335-91-0-6(3)]. I understand the point that government operations must be funded, yet I am not sure what two weeks will accomplish in passing an appropriations bill that should have been passed last summer. We shall see what Congress can do over the two weeks. Unfortunately, I have not yet discovered whether earmarks were attached – TBD.

An interesting and stimulating opinion:
“In Defense of the Defense of Marriage Act – DOMA leaves the issue of gay marriage to the states, which is exactly where it belongs”
by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey - OPINION
Wall Street Journal
Published: March 2, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704615504576172790625101046.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h
Rivkin and Casey are both lawyers who served in the Justice Department of the Reagan and Bush administrations and currently represent 26 states opposing PPACA. As they note, they are offended that the Obama administration has chosen not to defend DOMA in court. They stated, “. . . marriage is an affirmative statement of societal approval.” Indeed! Many of our laws, as in the case of marriage laws, are society’s effort to control private conduct. From the Rivkin/Casey argument, we see precisely the very essence of this debate. Two lawyers who are presumably schooled in the Constitution and common law see their societal approval, and their moral demonstration and enforcement, as far more important than the “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness’” of other citizens with whom they disapprove. The public debate over DOMA, DADT, and all those other laws that oppress a small segment of our society simply because guys like Rivkin & Casey disapprove of what they perceive those citizens may do in private hardly seems like attainment of those ideals upon which this Grand Republic was founded. So, I ask you, what is wrong with this picture?

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case of FCC v. AT&T Inc. [563 U.S. ___ (2011); no. 09-1279]. Without getting into the legal mumbo-jumbo, let it suffice to say the Supremes finally stood back from extending the rights & privileges of citizenship to corporations as it did in Citizens United v. FEC [558 U.S. ____ (2010); no. 08-205] [424]. The unanimous Court declared that corporations did NOT have a right to “personal privacy,” but chose to confine the finding to only Exemption 7(C) of 5 U.S.C. §552(b) – the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [PL 93-502] [416]. Perhaps there is hope after all.

The Supremes passed judgment {Snyder v. Phelps [563 U.S. ___ (2011); no. 09-751]} on Albert Snyder’s appeal of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against him {Snyder v. Phelps [4CCA no. 08-1026 (2009)] [430]} from the original district court decision in his civil damages suit against the Phelps clan {Snyder v. Phelps [USDC MD no. RDB-06-1389 (2007)] [308]}. Of course, the Phelps fanatics were publicly gloating and threatening to quadruple their disgusting activities to attract attention for their hateful, despicable message. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion of the nearly unanimous Court and concluded, “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and – as it did here – inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course – to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.” Associate Justice Alito was the lone dissenter as he observed, “Exploitation of a funeral for the purpose of attracting public attention ‘intrud[es] upon their ... grief,’ and may permanently stain their memories of the final moments before a loved one is laid to rest. Allowing family members to have a few hours of peace without harassment does not undermine public debate. I would therefore hold that, in this setting, the First Amendment permits a private figure to recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by speech on a matter of private concern.” Alito went on to say, “[Phelps’] outrageous conduct caused petitioner great injury, and the Court now compounds that injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered.” He concluded, “In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner. I therefore respectfully dissent.”
While I am reticent to repeat these words, I believe Margie Phelps’ gloating retort provides relevant contrast to the struggle represented in Sam Alito’s dissent. After the Court’s decision, she said, “Let me tell you what [the Westboro Baptist Church] does. Shut up all that talk about infliction of emotional distress. When y’re standin’ there with your young child . . . body bits . . . in pieces, in a coffin, you’ve been dealt some emotional distress by the Lord your God. . . . I do very much appreciate the fact that I get to be the mouth of God in this matter, so if that’s fun, we’ll call it fun.” These are the people who enjoy the fruits born of the sacrifices of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, USMC, and his brethren.
All of our freedoms have limits and boundaries, i.e., the exercise of my freedom cannot cause injury to another citizen. In this case, the Supreme Court decided that Albert Snyder’s “injury” was not serious or grievous enough to invoke or impose a limitation on Fred Phelps’ freedom of speech and assembly. We can argue the severity. Is emotional injury as significant as physical injury? If Fred Phelps had shot Albert Snyder, we would not be in this discussion. Yet, to Albert Snyder, who tried to bury and honor his combat Marine son on 10.March.2006, I imagine he felt like he had been shot . . . I know I would have, if I had been in Albert’s unfortunate position.
As Justice Alito so concisely observed, the Phelps clan uses the grief of military funerals or other finite quasi-public events to garner Press and public attention. They want to make us uncomfortable, to cause us to question our values and beliefs, and most importantly to fear them . . . that even by some sliver of chance, they might actually be correct, that God is a vengeful, intolerant, hateful entity. Nonetheless, it is my humble opinion, the best thing we could do is, ignore the Phelps clan. While the passive response does not lessen the insult for the local families involved, it would deny to the Phelps fanatics what they seek the most – publicity and public outrage. Yet, at the end of the day, the Phelps clan vitriol and mindless hatred in the name of God is yet one more example of the terrible price of freedom. In these nauseous moments of disgust, let us never forget the beauty and magnificence of all those freedoms we cherish and enjoy.

News from the economic front:
-- The Labor Department reported that the country’s employers added a net 192,000 jobs in February, and revised the January hiring number up to 63,000 from an initially reported 36,000. By a separate household survey, the unemployment rate decreased to 8.9 % from 9 %. The process of economic recovery appears to be taking a few more positive steps.

No comments or contributions from Update no.480 were received.

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