Update no.510

Update from the Heartland

No.510

19.9.11 – 25.9.11

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

To all,

This is the week that was. Two families and sets of friends gathered to celebrate the marriage of our youngest son, Taylor Warden Parlier, to his long-time girlfriend, Sherri Suzanne Stuke, and our newest grandson, Jack Dillon Stuke. We are so proud of them. Sherri and Jack have been part of our family for four years. I think we have all known this day was inevitable. Taylor took his time to arrive at the same conclusion. They are off on a nice cruise of the Bahamas next week. Jeanne and I keep looking at each other and saying, “Our youngest child is a husband; he’s married!” Do we sound like really proud parents?

The follow-up news items:
-- The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued its preliminary report on the “Galloping Ghost” accident [509] at this year’s Reno Air Races, last week. The investigators acknowledged that several memory chips have been recovered from the debris field and that some flight data had been telemetered to the ground crew during the flight, prior to the crash. It will take some time to analyze those data. The unofficial but knowledgeable supposition has focused on the left (fixed) elevator trim tab and mechanical failure as the root cause of the tragic accident. In 1998, a similar event occurred to another modified P-51D racer named “Voodoo.” In the earlier event, the left trim tab broke and departed the aircraft, causing an abrupt 10+ g pitch up. The pilot suffered G-induced Lost Of Consciousness (G-LOC) and fortunately regained control as the aircraft was climbing through 9,000 feet. “Galloping Ghost” appears to have suffered the same fate, however the aircraft did not continue its climb but rather rolled inverted and dove for the ground at high speed. I believe the NTSB will ultimately sort this out. My worry, beyond the most unfortunate loss of life [11 dead so far, 64 injured, eight remain hospitalized], remains the Press clamoring for an end to such events.

Former Afghan President (deposed by the Taliban in 1996) and leader of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council Burhanuddin Rabbani was assassinated in his Kabul home by a man who concealed a bomb imbedded in his headdress and apparently embraced Rabbini, then detonated the device. The assassin was reportedly a high-level, Taliban emissary who arrived for a scheduled, peace negotiation meeting, and was not subjected to normal security procedures out of respect for his position. Strangely, some Muslims wonder why we see the radicals and Islamo-fascists as uncivilized.

In the shadow of the Rabbani assassination (above) and recent attacks in Kabul, the administration apparently reached its limit. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen publicly accused the Pakistani military’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency of providing planning and operational support for the Pakistan-based al-Haqqani network, which in turn sponsored the Taliban operatives who died in the recent terrorist attacks. This is a huge escalation in tension between Pakistan and the United States. ISI culpability has been whispered for decades but largely tolerated in view of the larger picture. While I do not think direct combat operations against Pakistan are pending, I suspect this diplomatic move is part of setting the stage for more unilateral action to reduce the safe-haven of the Pakistani Tribal Region, relative to continuing combat operations in Afghanistan.

It appears we are back in it again. The two chambers of Congress have started passing and rejecting government funding, continuing resolutions to buy some time for them to make more political statements [481, 483, 487]. This process . . . although I am reticent to call it an actual process, as it is more like chaos . . . anyway, this process is really getting old, like watching adolescents bickering on the playground over who “owns” the ball.

“‘Stingray’ Phone Tracker Fuels Constitutional Clash”
by Jennifer Valentino-Devries
Wall Street Journal
Posted: September 22, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904194604576583112723197574.html - ixzz1Yog5FuUB
We can read such news articles with a sense of relief. Thank goodness the State had access to that technology to catch and arrest a cyber-criminal and cyber-saboteur. Yet, I see it with considerable dread. We read this news as say they collared the bastard. A very fine line exists between using the technology against criminals, and using it against political dissent, the outspoken antagonists, or those whose morals we disapprove of in our society. No, I am definitely not comfortable with the prospect of the State probing even deeper into our fundamental right to privacy. We have but to remember the “private files” maintained by then FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover for political purposes, to place this news article in proper perspective. Hoover used FBI manpower to gather potentially harmful information on citizens he deemed adversarial, unworthy, or just because he did not like them. The thought of an agent of the State like Hoover having this class of technology should be an exceptionally chilly prospect for every citizen, even though most of us are just simple, law-abiding, peaceful individuals.

After reading the above article and writing the associated paragraph, I read this article:
“Wyden ties Section 215 to ‘secret law,’ taking swing at Justice Dept. transparency”
by Ellen Nakashima,
Washington Post
Published: September 23, 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/wyden-takes-swing-at-justice-departments-transparency-on-intel-collection/2011/09/21/gIQAJJFLrK_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines
Senator Ronald Lee “Ron” Wyden of Oregon illuminated not so much the law but rather the interpreted execution of Section 215 – Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [115 Stat. 287] within Title II – Enhanced Surveillance Procedures, USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 [PL 107-056; 115 Stat. 272]. Unfortunately, we are far more interested in what was not said. However, the action by a U.S. senator reflects the mounting concern regarding the abridgment of our most precious rights and freedoms.

News from the economic front:
-- In an interesting twist, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued subpoenas to hedge funds, specialized trading shops and other firms as they probe possible insider trading before Standard & Poor's downgraded the U.S. government's long-term credit rating last month [503].
-- The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) of the Federal Reserve Board cited “serious downside risks” to the economy, as they announced a shift of US$400B from short-term bonds to longer-term holdings. The move is intended to bolster a foundering economy by reducing longer-term interest rates, such as for home mortgages.

L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- The SEC Inspector General referred his investigation of former SEC General Counsel David M. Becker to the Justice Department for possible prosecution. Becker was involved in recommendations as to how Bernie Madoff’s victims would be compensated, despite his family’s US$2M inheritance from a Madoff account. The hits just keep coming.

Comments and contributions from Update no.509:
Comment to the Blog:
“I wish you well finding a non-economic measure of poverty. Any way you measure it, more of us are there. After thirty years of lowering taxes and worshiping market forces, the economy continues failing. What will it take to awaken Congress?
“I find the figure of 49.9 million uninsured particularly interesting. The implications of this include (a) the health care system has failed very many Americans, (b) financial problems in health care are very likely dragging down the entire economy, and (c) neither Obama’s plan nor anyone else’s is having an actual positive result. Of course, most of Obama’s plan is scheduled for 2014, by which time it will be thoroughly dismantled.
“I hope you will continue investigating the fate of the unaccounted-for nuclear materials. Until someone can find this stuff, it’s very much worth worrying about.
“The future of our civil rights continues unclear and scary. Please keep following these issues.”
My reply to the Blog:
If poverty statistics are just numbers to tickle our curiosity or feed our social intercourse, then I suppose my concern is irrelevant. However, if we intend doing something with the numbers, then we must be more differentiating. I acknowledge up front that there are citizens who have a bona fide need and want help. There are others who do not. I add the additional qualification of contributing to their community. I really struggle with freeloaders who just expect the State to provide for them. We have discussed this before.
I understand the popular notion regarding American health care, but frankly, I am not seeing evidence. I know the PPACA is intended to help all Americans with health care; I am not sure it will perform as intended. Likewise, the status quo ante is not acceptable.
Re: unaccounted for nuclear material. Agreed. I continue to be surprised by how little Press play the GAO report has attracted.
Rest assured. I continue to watch with great interest. Our Liberty is too bloody important.
. . . round two:
“You'll have to give me a more concrete explanation of how to ‘be more differentiating’ before we can have a real discussion of poverty measurement. If you're just trying to sort out the "deserving poor," that's already been tried extensively. It turned out to be one more excuse for hurting all poor people. In any case, we have yet to learn how to read minds. What stuns me about this whole discussion (not just with you) is the assumption that any person not mentally ill would choose to live as I live rather than work. That's just simply silly.
“I cannot recall what the initials PPACA mean, but the context suggests Obamacare. Forget Obamacare; it will be dismantled. That was a political gesture. You need to explain why you cannot see a problem about healthcare when 49.9 million of us have no access to any healthcare and when the USA, despite spending the most in the world on that is consistently ranked 39th or so in studies of world healthcare.”
. . . my reply to round two:
I do not seek to or advocate for “reading minds.” I think actions are quite adequate for communicating intent. All citizens with income below the established threshold are not the same. Poverty threshold income in New York City is not the same as Columbus, Ohio, or Winfield, Kansas. How can a farmer who raises his food, pumps his water with wind, and needs no money for goods & services be poverty-stricken? Surely you will acknowledge there are people who are content having the government take care of them in perpetuity. Like our long discussion about addicts and minimizing collateral damage, a similar argument exists for recognizing and separating the various categories of poor, and treating them accordingly. I am not saying that we are now or ever have treated the poor appropriately. Just as I have tried to find a way to deal with habitual, intoxicating, substance users, so to I seek to find a way to deal with habitual welfare consumers who have shown no interest in supporting themselves or contributing to their community. We need to see appropriate stratification so that we can respond appropriately.
PPACA = Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) [PL 111-148; 124 Stat. 119] [432]; I refuse to call it Obamacare. It may well be dismantled by the courts, but we are a long way from that point. I believe it was more than a political gesture; I think it was a sincere, bona fide attempt to address the issue of uninsured, under-insured citizens. PPACA is far from perfect, but it was a real attempt. I have not seen any proposal to do better. The status quo ante is not acceptable. We were on a dead end path. At least the Government tried to find a better path. If the PPACA path is not the correct path, then let’s change it, improve it, but dismantling it to return to the status quo ante is just flat wrong and otherwise not acceptable.
Thank you for your continuing contributions to the public debate.
. . . round three:
“Some of the functional distinctions you suggest already exist. For example, some states supplement the amounts that SSI pays as a minimum. It's a shame that this depends on state resources rather than true need, but that's the system we have and it probably won't change soon.
“No, in fact I do not acknowledge that anyone who can realistically be called sane is ‘content having the government take care of them in perpetuity,’ if the level of care is what I and others I know experience. There are many reasons that most do not find a way out of poverty, but contentment is not one of them. If nothing else, most poor people live in places where there lives are in danger, and they know it. I suggest you study actual poor people (not Reagan's imaginary ones) in much more detail before you make such a statement.
“I didn't say that PPACA was a bad idea; I said it would be dismantled before most of the provisions take effect. In the absence of a dramatic change in our political climate, I stand by that statement.”
. . . my reply to round three:
I concede to your experience, although I suspect you are being a little too generous. We shall not argue that point.
I hope you are wrong re: PPACA. We shall watch the courts. Perhaps Congress can improve the law if the court seeks to dismantle it.
. . . round four:
“I don't think the courts will dismantle PPACA. That's a job for the Congress we have now, aided and abetted by the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and everyone else who makes money on the current system.”
. . . my reply to round four:
Again, I hope you are wrong on PPACA, but I do understand your pessimism given our contemporary political climate in Washington. DC.

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

Update no.509

Update from the Heartland

No.509

12.9.11 – 18.9.11

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

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- To extend the public debate regarding the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) [126, 313, 388, et al], we add this article:
“Interview with Former FBI Agent Ali Soufan – ‘We Did Exactly What Al-Qaida Wanted Us to Do’”
Interview conducted by Britta Sandberg.
Der Spiegel
Published: 11.Sep.2011
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,785558,00.html#ref=nlint
Former FBI agent Ali H. Soufan [387, 403], a Lebanese-born, naturalized American citizen, has remained the principal voice against the use of EIT. I wonder how the debate internal to the Intelligence Community (IC) and the Government is progressing; and, as much as I would like to know the conclusions, I hope they remain secret as long as the War on Islamic Fascism continues.

On Thursday, on behalf of a grateful nation, President Obama awarded the Medal of Honor to Sergeant Dakota L. Meyer, USMC, for extraordinary bravery on 8.September.2009, during the Battle of Ganjgal Valley, Kunar Province, Afghanistan. Meyer was a member of Embedded Training Team 2-8 – a joint Afghan / American combat unit – on a mission for a scheduled meeting with an elder of Ganjgal village, only to find themselves in a classic U-ambush. They called for reinforcements, for close air support, and for artillery support – all denied. Meyer repeatedly defied orders from superior officers and non-commissioned officers, to rescue his living and dead comrades from the kill zone, despite being wounded. The battle lasted six long hours. He became the first living Marine in 41 years to receive the Medal of Honor. Two other Marines received the Navy Cross for conspicuous gallantry in combat that day. May God bless them all for their service to this Grand Republic.

The Census Bureau reported the number of Americans in poverty increased from 43.6 million (14.3% in 2009) to 46.2 million citizens (15.1% in 2010) – the highest level since 1993. The number of citizens lacking health insurance increased to 49.9 million, a new high, largely due to high unemployment and the loss of employer-provided insurance in the weak economy. The numbers reflect the struggle we are having with recovery from the Great Recession. The poverty threshold continues to be defined by income, which is more relevant to city-fied citizens who are more dependent on money for goods and services. If we expect to do anything with gross numbers like these, then we need a more differentiating criterion than income.

At 16:30 [U] PDT (23:30 [Z]), Friday, the clipped-wing, modified, P-51D Mustang “Galloping Ghost,” flown by Jimmy Leeward, 74, crashed into a box seat area in front of the main grandstand at the Reno Air Races, during a qualifying heat of the unlimited class airplanes. Early reports indicated 75 injured; by Sunday, the toll was 9 killed, scores injured. Initially, I thought pilot incapacitation. Then, a planform image taken as the aircraft rolled into its final dive showed the left, elevator, trim tab missing, which suggests mechanical failure. There was no post-crash fire, which will make the NTSB’s investigation a little easier.

One of the myriad news networks to which I subscribe posted this little snippet:
“Missing: Tons of US-Supplied Nuclear Weapons Material”
by Adam Weinstein
Mother Jones
Posted: Tue Sep. 13, 2011 6:53 AM PDT
http://motherjones.com/transition/inter.php?dest=http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/09/usa-lost-tons-nuclear-weapon-uranium
My curiosity peaked. The article grew from a General Accounting Office (GAO) press release for the agency’s report:
“Nuclear Nonproliferation: U.S. Agencies Have Limited Ability to Account for, Monitor, and Evaluate the Security of U.S. Nuclear Material Overseas,” report no. GAO-11-920; dated: September 8, 2011. One sentence of the announcement, extracted from the report, seems to have caught some attention. “U.S. agencies, in a 1993 report produced in response to the [congressional] mandate, were able to verify the location of 1,160 kilograms out of 17,500 kilograms of U.S. HEU [Highly Enriched Uranium] estimated to have been exported.” The mandate referred to in the previous sentence was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush (41) – Energy Policy Act of 1992 [PL 102-486; HR.776; 106 Stat. 2776; 42 USC §13201]; actually, Title IX, §903 [106 Stat. 2944] that amended Chapter 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA) [PL 83-703; 68 Stat. 919], allowing the commission [NRC] to issue “license[s] for the export of highly enriched uranium to be used as a fuel or target in a nuclear research or test reactor only . . .” The government moved out smartly, allowing other countries to use U.S. nuclear material. The GAO also noted, “DOE and NRC do not have a comprehensive, detailed, current inventory of U.S. nuclear material overseas that would enable the United States to identify material subject to U.S. nuclear cooperation agreement terms.” And, “DOE, NRC, and State have not pursued annual inventory reconciliations of nuclear material subject to U.S. nuclear cooperation agreement terms with all partners that would provide the U.S. government with better information about where such material is held overseas.” I am not sure why the GAO report has not attracted more Press attention. Regardless, the report is more than a little disturbing. While I do not believe the unaccounted for material is just lying around the countryside or moving through the black market underworld, since this type of material cannot be handled like hardware on the street . . . well, it can be, but it is a one-way, very short street. But, still . . .

This coming fall, the Supremes will hear oral arguments in the case of United States v. Jones [no. 08-3034] – a critical 4th Amendment “search and seizure” challenge in this age of technology – and an appeal by the government of United States v. Maynard [CCA DC no. 1:05-cr-00386-ESH-10 (2010)]. The legal aspects are a bit convoluted, so I shall bypass the background despite the fact that it is essential to understanding the DC Circuit’s decisions. On 24.October.2005, Antoine Jones and Lawrence Maynard were arrested for and charged with “conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846.” Judge Douglas Howard Ginsburg of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit wrote the opinion on behalf of the three-judge panel, as they affirmed Maynard’s and reversed Jones’s convictions in their joint trial. The issue in Jones’s portion of the case was the use of a warrantless, GPS tracker attached to his automobile for more than a month. As Judge Ginsburg observed, “[P]rolonged GPS monitoring reveals an intimate picture of the subject‘s life that he expects no one to have — short perhaps of his spouse.” The police in this instance were not in exigent circumstances and had ample time to request a proper, judicial warrant for employment of the GPS tracker. They chose not to do so. The Supreme Court justices that decided the thermal imaging case of Kyllo v. United States [533 U.S. 27 (2001); no. 99-8508] [313] are not the same. Predicting the outcome of the Jones appeal is far from certain. The best I can say is, I hope the Supremes add Jones to the list of 4th Amendment jurisprudence that applies constraints to the use of modern technology by all State policing functionaries for intrusive probing into our private lives and affairs.
As a relevant postscript: the Jones case is one more line on a long list of examples of how the insanity of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) [Title II, PL 91-513; 84 Stat. 1236, 1242] has so deeply compromised our Liberty, freedom of choice, and fundamental right to privacy. When will we regain our sanity?

News from the economic front:
-- Moody's downgraded the long-term debt rating of French banks Société Générale, SA, and Crédit Agricole, citing the former’s funding and liquidity problems, and the latter’s
exposure to Greek debt.
-- Interesting twist, French banking giant BNP Paribas launched a plan to refocus its business on “strategic activities,” which will enable the bank to reduce the dollar liquidity needs of its corporate and investment bank by US$22B in the first half of the year.
-- Metropolitan Police in London arrested Kweku Adoboli, 31, UBS director of exchange traded funds and Delta 1 trading products. Adoboli has been charged with fraud, after the Swiss bank uncovered up to US$2B in unauthorized trades. As a consequence, UBS warned it is likely to post a 3Q2011 net loss due to the unauthorized trading. The bank claimed no client positions were affected. The public evidence indicates Adoboli is quite likely to join Nick Leeson, who lost £827M in derivatives trading that led to the failure of Barings, PLC {26.2.1995}[353], and French short trader Jérôme Kerviel, who lost €4.9B that nearly collapsed Société Générale, SA {21.1.2008} [353, 460].
-- The European Central Bank, in conjunction with the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and the Swiss National Bank, will conduct three U.S. dollar liquidity-providing operations with a maturity of approximately three months. Shares of French banks soared, with BNP Paribas rising 16%, Crédit Agricole 10%, and Société Générale 9.3%. U.S. stock futures also rose, and the euro rallied against major currencies.

Comments and contributions from Update no.508:
Comment to the Blog:
“I read your linked article by Jonathan Chait, ‘What the Left Doesn’t Understand About Obama.’ Nonsense. The article is really what Chait doesn’t understand about either the Left or about Obama. Let’s face it; Obama would rather not fight for anything. Obama did indeed get a larger stimulus than the Democrats had originally asked, but he gave far too much of it to Wall Street, creating bonuses for the people who crashed the economy, not jobs for their victims. Liberals did indeed call Pelosi timid; what you see is what you get, and you don’t see much. And I’ll support the statement that the Bush 2 administration got things done by bulldozing Congress. Obama could indeed have let the Bush tax cuts expire. Contrary to far-right dogma, taxation has not harmed the economy in the past. Check out the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations for details. Democrats are a majority in the Senate, and the Republican majority in the House depends on a number of Republicans who never wanted to go along with the Teabagger crazies. Obama has not made use of them. Now he comes up with a jobs bill that is still another tax cut deal. Too little, too late, and it still leaves government starving. Someone has made an entire cable TV series about the crumbling infrastructure of this country. How ‘bout we put some people to work fixing that stuff?
“I decided a long time ago that history going back 3500 years (since the Canaanites came back from Egypt) offers no hope of peace in the Middle East. On top of that, the typical American assumption that others want nothing more than democratic government is merely an assumption, persisting despite repeated failed US interventions around the world.
“Your Watergate piece was an interesting bit of legal history. I could have used a more familiar date format in the chart, though.”
My reply to the Blog:
As always, thank you so much for taking the time to contribute your opinions to this forum.
I appreciate that the Left wants President Obama to be their man in the White House just as the Right pushed Bush 43 to be their man. Bush 43 had a distinct advantage in that his political party (Republican) controlled both Houses of Congress – not one veto in six years with all those bloody earmark-laden spending bills. Obama has neither. The small Democratic majority in the Senate is insufficient to override a Republican filibuster – the threat of which they use with regularity. Thus, he has no choice but to seek compromise with Congress. Unfortunately, the Republicans have performed well with their intransigence. Let it suffice to say, I think congressional Republicans are far more interested in not agreeing with or being seen as supporting President Obama than they are in finding good, moderate, compromise solutions to the very real problems of this Grand Republic. So, I suppose we shall respectfully disagree regarding President Obama’s performance. He gets credit in my book for attempting civilized compromise with a recalcitrant opposition.
Re: democracy. You are not alone in that opinion. As the Founders so eloquently observed, “Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.” The balancing act in international relations is never easy, and We are certainly not without blame.
I am sure this is not the first you have noticed my usage of day-month-year notation, or my insistence on a 24-hour clock. The entire rest of the world marks time in logical order, so I subscribe. Hopefully, my peculiar idiosyncrasies do not adversely distract from the content utility.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I guess we must disagree on Obama, but I will persist one sentence more. The threat of a filibuster is a bluff, which can be called repeatedly until the other side gives up.
“I somewhat agree with using the logical order in dates, but I would prefer one that's easier for me to process; for example 21 Nov 2012 would work much more easily for me than 21-11-2012. The clock time is a minor point; as a writer, I use whatever is easier for my audience.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
Threat or not, sufficient votes to end debate and call the vote on the measure becomes a de facto filibuster regardless of pronouncements or lack of same.
Thank you for voicing your preferences . . . always important.

Another contribution:
“Regarding your first item, it is NOT 'Big Brotherism' - this is France we are talking about!”
My response:
Indeed! Good point . . . but still . . .

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

Update no.508

Update from the Heartland

No.508

5.9.11 – 11.9.11

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

To all,

As if we needed another example of Big Brother intruding upon private matters . . .
“Frenchman ordered to pay wife damages for lack of sex – A Frenchman has been ordered to pay his ex-wife £8,500 in damages for failing to have enough sex with her during their marriage.
By Our Foreign Staff
The Telegraph [of London]
Posted: 12:41PM BST 05 Sep 2011
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8741895/Frenchman-ordered-to-pay-wife-damages-for-lack-of-sex.html

As much as the Right and the Left are whining about President Obama’s performance, I suspect his moderation is probably just about right. He is trying to find the middle ground between widely disparate political camps.
“What the Left Doesn’t Understand About Obama”
by Jonathan Chait
New York Times
Published: September 2, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/magazine/what-the-left-doesnt-understand-about-obama.html?_r=1

Thursday night, President Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress and the American People. He introduced proposed legislation for a US$447B American Jobs Act, to further stimulate the faltering economy. The President also indicated he would launch a new debt-busting initiative within a couple of weeks, which comes as the 12-member congressional super-committee began working to find US$1.2T in deficit savings by Thanksgiving. I want to be proven wrong, as I suspect we are about to witness more political theater for next year’s election rather than sincere, bona fide solutions to very real national issues.

We bear witness to events that darken the future. I say this not to be ominous or bleak, but rather as a historian immersed in those events. A few days ago, the Government announced the existence of a “specific, credible, but unconfirmed” threat to the United States that might include a “dirty bomb,” as our leaders and the Press recounted the tragic events of ten years ago. The reality cannot be avoided. We are all reminded of that morning. Lost amid the media blitz are others “signs.” The relationship between Israel and Turkey deteriorated to the extent that the Turks have indicated they intend to dispatch ships of the Turkish Navy to escort a convoy of relief ships to Gaza in direct confrontation with the Israeli blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza. Relations between Egypt and Israel also degenerated as Sinai border control vanished, and attacks occurred on a major natural gas pipeline between Egypt and Israel along with a coordinated terrorist attack on the Israeli port city of Eilat; and then, Egyptian “radicals” stormed and pillaged the Israeli embassy in Cairo. The so-called Arab Spring deposed several despotic dictators, replacing those regimes with supposedly more democratic governance, but also allowing the Islamic fundamentalist forces to rise up and exert far more influence on events. Among those fundamentalist elements will be Islamo-fascists who are dedicated to the principles espoused by al-Qa’ida – domination of radical, fundamentalist, Islamic ideology and eradication of Western-style freedom. They do not possess the military prowess or strength to confront Western democracies directly, but they can irritate and provoke us. More ominous from my perspective are the looming confrontations with Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu has not assisted the peace process; in fact, his policies have had quite the opposite effect. I fear the window for peace in Palestine has closed. I also fear we have much more bumpy road ahead with our Islamic brothers.

I enjoy reading judicial renderings as much for the history as I do the law. So it is with my most recent endeavor. In the wake of the Watergate debacle, Richard Milhous Nixon, AKA “Tricky Dick,” sought to keep his presidential papers from public scrutiny. The Supreme Court disagreed – Nixon v. Administrator of General Services [433 U.S. 425 (1977); no. 75-1605]. To understand the significance of the ruling and place the decision in the context of historic events, a brief recounting of surrounding history becomes exceptionally important. For those of my generation who lived these events, please pardon the redundancy; for others, the following chronological table should be helpful.

17.6.1972												burglary of Democratic National Committee (DNC) offices in the Watergate complex; five men discovered and arrested; sanctioned by White House staff; actually 2nd break-in
7.11.1972												Nixon re-elected POTUS, defeated George McGovern
17.5.1973												Senate Watergate Committee (SWC) opened televised hearings
13.6.1973												SWC confirmed existence of Oval Office audio recording system
20.10.1973												Saturday Night Massacre = Nixon fired Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox, Jr., accepted the resignation of Attorney General Elliot Lee Richardson, and fired Deputy Attorney General William Doyle Ruckelshaus
23.10.1973												22 bills of impeachment against Richard Nixon were introduced
8.11.1973												President’s secretary Rose Mary Woods testified that 18 minutes of recording were missing – the subject recording happened to be on Tape 342, dated 20.6.1972 (3 days after arrest of DNC burglars)
27.6.1974												SWC issued its seven-volume, 1,250-page report entitled Report on Presidential Campaign Activities
27.7.1974												House Judiciary Committee voted 27-11 to recommend Nixon’s impeachment for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress [H. R. Rep. No. 93-1305 (1974)]
9.8.1974												Nixon resigned as POTUS
8.9.1974												President Ford granted Nixon a general pardon for all offenses against the United States that he might have committed in his term of office
8.9.1974												Nixon and the Administrator of General Services, Arthur F. Sampson, signed a depository agreement – Nixon-Sampson agreement
18.9.1974												13 senators introduced S.4016
19.12.1974												President Ford signed into law the Presidential Recordings Preservation Act (PRPA) [PL 93-526; S.4016; 88 Stat. 1695]
20.12.1974												Nixon filed action challenging constitutional validity of PRPA
28.6.1977												SCOTUS decided Nixon v. Administrator of General Services [433 U.S. 425 (1977); no. 75-1605]; PRPA constitutionally valid

The principle issue before the Court was Title I (PRMPA) of the Presidential Recordings Preservation Act [PL 93-526; S.4016; 88 Stat. 1695] that directed the General Services Administration (GSA) to take possession of:
“. . . all original tape recordings of conversations which were recorded or caused to be recorded by any officer or employee of the Federal Government and which –
“(1) involve former President Richard M. Nixon or other individuals who, at the time of the conversation, were employed by the Federal Government;
“(2) were recorded in the White House or in the office of the President in the Executive Office Buildings located in Washington, District of Columbia; Camp David, Maryland; Key Biscayne, Florida; or San Clemente, California; and
“(3) were recorded during the period beginning January 20, 1969, and ending August 9, 1974.”
“Tricky Dick” Nixon argued that he was being singled out among all former Presidents for unique, punitive treatment, which he contended was a Bill of Attainder and thus a constitutional violation of Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 – “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Given the unprecedented and extraordinary misconduct of Nixon, his direct staff, cabinet officers, and many others inside and outside the Federal government, I am absolutely amazed Congress was as restrained as they were. The Supremes affirmed the law as appropriate for a “class of one.” Only Chief Justice Burger and then Associate Justice Rehnquist dissented predominately on the basis of separation of powers. El Jefe added more objections on privacy, and First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments grounds. Not that it really matters, but I disagree with the Chief Justice. The PRMPA does not intrude upon the Office of the President, but rather focuses solely on the one culprit who demonstrated repeatedly that he could not be trusted. Nixon sought to hide his felonious activities behind the cloak of dignity proffered all of his predecessors. Congress so carefully crafted the extent of PRMPA, at the risk of intense scrutiny for a violation of Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, to expressly avoid broader application to the Executive. They had to solve one very real, immediate, and vital problem. I repeatedly found myself contrasting the 4th Amendment protections for a common citizen versus the 4th Amendment Chief Justice Burger suggested to protect POTUS, who in fact commands all of the law enforcement apparatus. What is wrong with that picture? Further, I ask, are presidential papers like those working papers for an employer? Who does the President work for? Who owns those official papers? According to Chief Justice Burger, presidential papers belong solely and privately to the man alone, thus he implies that Nixon should have been free to destroy those papers and recordings as he alone chose. An important provision of the Nixon-Sampson Agreement was the destruction of the tape recordings upon Nixon’s death, which could have occurred at any moment. While the PRMPA applied only to “Tricky Dick” Nixon and his cronies, this ruling says POTUS cannot hide his criminal conduct behind the history and precedent of the White House or the Office of the President.
BTW, there is no doubt in my little pea-brain that someone [probably one of the Plumbers] intentionally, and with malice of forethought, erased the 18 minutes on Nixon Tape no.342, and left Rose Mary Woods holding the bag.

Comments and contributions from Update no.507:
Comment to the Blog:
“I thank you very much for the link to the ‘Purists Gone Wild’ article by Timothy Egan. While I have long been aware of the criminal and alcoholic aspects of Prohibition, I had not realized the political background. This article is downright scary in its parallels to our current political situation. If other readers of your blog skipped that article, I recommend they go back and read it. We may extend that comparison a bit as well. During Prohibition, Wall Street ran up a risky market until it crashed, which is our current situation. Perhaps our distractions with other people's morals had something to do with that. Prohibition ended in intense national pain over the pervasive corruption and the loss of many lives. What will it take to end this insane drive to cripple government until Grover Norquist’s followers can ‘drown it in the bathtub?’
“On top of everything else, this parallel can extend into the moral prohibition of prostitution in the USA, because one moral crusade is very like another. We can certainly discuss what level of regulation is appropriate to prevent or lessen damage from prostitution (I agree with you), but at least Germany and the Netherlands have ended their denial and begun trying to deal with the issues realistically. The license dispensers that the linked article discusses are an attempt to collect taxes on prostitution. Here in the USA we have no legitimate means of doing that because of our prohibition on prostitution, which is proven ineffective 24/7 in my neighborhood. Germany’s solution is imperfect, but at least Germany is making progress. So long as moral crusaders can make decisions for the USA, we will not make progress dealing with these issues or in reclaiming our personal freedoms.”
My reply to the Blog:
Well said, all the way around. My point precisely! I have faith that one day we will mature as a freedom-loving society and recognize that freedom belongs to all of us or none of us. I think you struck resonance with your observation. The lessons of Prohibition apply to all those moral projectionist condemnations – prostitution, gambling, drugs, death with dignity, alcohol, abortion, non-heterosexual marriage, et cetera ad infinitum. We have SO MUCH yet to learn about Liberty. We need to let people lead the lives they chose to live in their “pursuit of Happiness.”

Another contribution:
“Just read Issue No. 507. Thanks for the interesting updates on Aslan Soobzokov's continuing quest for justice for his Father.
“I was wondering if he would appeal the District Court's decision?
“Looks like he's going all the way. Best of luck to him on the appeal and the defamation law suit!
“Thanks for your informative Blog and keep up the good work.”
My response:
Yes, Aslan is appealing the district court decision in Soobzokov v. Holder [USDC NJ case 2:10-cv-06260-DRD (2011)] [496]. As noted in 507, he has also initiated a defamation case against The Record of North New Jersey (his local newspaper) that published terrible, unsubstantiated, false accusations. Aslan and the Soobzokov family can use all the support they can get.

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

Update no.507

Update from the Heartland

No.507

29.8.11 – 4.9.11

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

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The gift that just keeps giving . . . conservative Kansas politicians versus a woman’s freedom of choice – SB36 [498], an act concerning abortion, relating to licensure of abortion clinics.
“Kansas To Pursue Strict Abortion Licensing Regulations Despite Court Injunction”
by Igor Volsky - Associated Press
Wichita Eagle
Posted: July 5, 2011 at 9:01 am
U.S. District Judge Carlos Murguia of Kansas issued a preliminary injunction against the State of Kansas to block the enforcement of SB36, while it is under judicial review. Of course, Governor Sam Brownback is not about to be dissuaded in his morale crusade. He directed the state to withhold disbursement of Federal funds for Planned Parenthood; then, U.S. District Judge Thomas Marten of Kansas ordered the state to reinstate payments.
“Planned Parenthood funds in Kansas restored by federal judge”
by Brad Cooper - The Kansas City Star
Wichita Eagle
Posted on Wed, Aug. 31, 2011
http://www.kansas.com/2011/08/31/1995877/planned-parenthood-funds-in-kansas.html
My letter to the editor of the Wichita Eagle:
Politicians like Sam Brownback are flabbergasted and dumbfounded by citizen accusations that they are untrustworthy, deceitful, verging on felonious, and they wonder in utter ignorance why people do not trust government. Phill Kline has the audacity and arrogance to claim before his state supreme court chartered ethics hearing that deceptions and falsehoods are acceptable in the pursuit of his political agenda and jaundiced interpretation of the law. When politicians like Brownback and Kline allow their personal, political ideology to consume and cloud their reasoning, the rest of us must inevitably endure the obscene abuse of power. They demonstrate considerable comfort in subverting well-intentioned law to impose their moral values and judgment on all citizens. Moral-projectionist politicians invariably claim divine encouragement, support and obligation to use whatever means possible to carry out their crusade. Conversely, they suggest that for them to not act as they do would be tantamount to liberals imposing their deviant values on them. What they consistently fail to recognize or acknowledge are the founding principles of this Grand Republic that freedom of choice along with a fundamental right to privacy are essential elements to our individual and collective Liberty. This Grand Republic has never been based on majority rule and the domination of one active group over others. Freedom belongs to all of us, or ultimately none of us will have it. Let us all respect the freedom every citizen of this Grand Republic should enjoy.
-- In last week’s Update [506], I surmised the blame-game regarding the Air France Flight 447 (AF447) [391, 493] accident was contained. Au contraire, mon ami. After the BEA released its 3rd interim report [502], the speculation regarding cause factors has taken on unfortunate and ridiculous dimensions, and one article appears to have triggered the burgeoning accusations.
“Pilots' addiction to automation a danger”
by Joan Lowy - Associated Press
Wichita Eagle
Posted on Wed, Aug. 31, 2011
http://www.kansas.com/2011/08/31/1995625/pilots-addiction-to-automation.html
That was followed by more speculation within the aviation community.
“Should Airline Pilots Fly More -- Or Less?”
by Mary Grady
AvWeb – (self-professed) World’s Premier Independent Aviation News Resource
Posted: August 31, 2011
http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/ShouldAirlinePilotsFlyMoreOrLess_205308-1.html
On the same day, news outlets of all media released similar stories virtually accusing pilots of forgetting how to fly. The involvement of automation, or rather failure modes, as a contributing factor in the AF447 accident remains a significant unknown. It is easy for folks, including some professed experts, to point their accusatory fingers at the pilots. I urge anyone who will listen to not be so reckless or quick to judge. Let us wait until we see the BEA’s final report and can review the data that substantiates their findings before we make such rash indictments. I offer as corroborating evidence the near cataclysmic debate in the late 1970’s, early 1980’s, when a substantial number of airline pilots screamed bloody murder at the notion of taking away their conventional “steam gauges” for integrated, digital displays. The convulsions rose with intensity when automated flight controls were added to the mix. Clearly, there are still pilots to this day who believe the only thing they can trust is steam gauges and control cables linking them directly to the control surfaces. While I have already raised a deficiency in modern, integrated, situation awareness, display technology – namely the lack of continuous, primary, angle of attack indication – the failure of a primary data source (total pressure, i.e., airspeed) began a cascade of events that led to impact. I am not ready to indict contemporary pilot training, just yet either. The contribution of automated flight control systems to the AF447 outcome must be resolved first. Concomitantly, pointing at the pilots with essential information still not public is verging on irresponsible, even if some experienced pilots are willing to make such accusations to the Press. Every pilot is taught from the get-go to FLY THE AIRPLANE FIRST, then sort out whatever the problem(s) may be plaguing a particular aircraft or flight. Aviation history is replete with examples of pilots who violated that most basic axiom of flight. Continental Express Flight 3407 [374] on approach to Buffalo (12.February.2009) being a recent example. The AF447 pilots may go into that infamous bucket eventually, but it is premature and wrong to go there at this juncture.

Aslan Soobzokov sent the following update in his continuing efforts to find justice for his father – Tscherim Soobzokov.
“Please recall that a horrible article appeared in The Record newspaper [of Northern New Jersey] about my father in November 2011. They refused to discuss a retraction and were quite arrogant. Attached is the result. Today is my father's birthday.
“Kindly feel welcome to comment.
“Peace to you and your family, my brother.”
Attached: Soobzokov v. The Record, date-stamped by the court clerk on 24.August.2010, in Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County – a defamation claim against the newspaper and those associated with the paper or article.
My reply:
I have no experience or knowledge of cases such as yours. I noted your complaint was filed a year ago. Has there been any progress with the case?
I remember reading a British case that has some similarities to your case, and may offer some supportive arguments.
Mosley v. News Group {[2008] EWHC 1777 (QB); Case No: HQ08X01303} [346]
It seems to me that such complaints against the Press have a rather high threshold for success. However, as you noted, the Press cannot defame citizens without substance, which the newspaper has not offered or provided. It is unreasonable and unfair that the Press forces you to defend your family.
Please keep us informed as your case progresses. Good luck.
Aslan’s follow-up comment:
“May peace be with you and your family, as with you the members of your listserv.
“The complaint was just filed on August 24, 2011. The story was printed in November 2010. There is a one-year statute of limitations in New Jersey. August 24 just happens to be my father's birthday.
“The appeal to the federal case is ongoing however. I am waiting for a briefing schedule from the third circuit court of appeals and thereafter I will file a brief in support of the appeal.
“Are you getting confused on me brother...?
“May almighty God be with you and your family brother.”
. . . and my reply to Aslan’s follow-up:
Thank you for your kind words.
The county court clerk needs to check his date stamp; he stamped your complaint with the received and filed date as AUG 24 2010.
What is the basis of your appeal to the 3rd Circuit?
No confusion; just trying to keep up with you.

“Sex Tax Machine Introduced for Bonn Prostitutes”
Der Spiegel
Published: 30.August.2011
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,783438,00.html#ref=nlint
Prostitution has been legal in Germany since 2002 (unbeknownst to me, I might add); it was tolerated in the Netherlands for decades and legalized in 2000. I do not know sufficient details of the Dutch or German laws to form a strong opinion; however, what I have been able to learn suggests their laws are much closer to the laissez-faire legalization end of the spectrum rather than the regulated end. The Dutch have had problems with “other criminal activity” attaching itself with the legitimate business. As noted in the Der Spiegel article, several German cities have struggled with control of streetwalkers or freelancers. Most folks who are even remotely familiar with the business of prostitution know the plethora of associated criminal activity that comes with prostitution, e.g., illicit drugs, extortion, human trafficking, assault and battery, venereal disease, et cetera. Like most “sinful” pursuits in our moral-projectionist society, prohibition is the root cause of more serious criminal activity simply because it forces the “attractive” element underground, out-of-sight, where organized crime can flourish. The Dutch are beginning to retrench, closing some of the looser establishments and practices, which will undoubtedly be interpreted as a failure of legalization. In isolation, such an indictment would be true prima facie. However, I respectfully submit, neither the Dutch nor the Germans have gone far enough to regulate the sex trade. First and foremost, our laws must protect the health, security, safety and freedom of customers as well as practitioners. The process is usually executed with licensing, standards and inspections, so that traceable records are maintained, privacy protected, and history developed. Sex workers should be licensed and covered under the law for their health, safety and prosperity as well as their customers. Even with legalization AND regulation, like other emotionally inflammatory activities like abortion or drugs, some citizens will see condemnation and de facto prohibition as their moral crusade rather than acknowledge and accept that not every citizen agreed with their particular freedom of choice. The long & short of it is, as long as no one is injured (the objective of regulation), if you do not like something, don’t do it, but leave other citizens who do not agree with you alone to enjoy their particular freedom of choice.
{NOTE: The BUFAS organization noted in the article is actually the Bündnis der Fachberatungsstellen für Sexarbeiterinnen und Sexarbeiter (BUFAS eV) [Alliance of Professional Counseling Services for Sex Workers] – a national advocacy group for sex workers of all types.}

I note this review for your notation and critical inquiry.
“Purists Gone Wild”
by Timothy Egan
New York Times
Posted: September 1, 2011, 8:30 pm
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/01/purists-gone-wild/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1
Ken Burns’ latest documentary series “Prohibition” premieres 2/3/4.October.2011, at 20:00 on your local PBS station.

On Friday, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator Cass R. Sunstein sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson suspending an important change to the air quality requirements. The issue immediately at hand is the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone that became a Federal regulation on Thursday, 27.March.2008, as delineated in the Federal Register, vol. 73, no. 60, pp. 16436-16514. The 1st paragraph of the Sunstein letter reads, “On July 11, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted a draft final rule, “Reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” for review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) under Executive Orders 13563 and 12866. The President has instructed me to return this rule to you for reconsideration. He has made it clear that he does not support finalizing the rule at the time.” The letter has caused quite a disturbance in the Force as noted below. Being President of the United States of America never has been, is not, and never will be an easy job. While the President’s action is disappointing, it is certainly understandable in the context of contemporary economic and political circumstances.

Our youngest son, the deputy sheriff, and I have engaged in a long running discussion / debate regarding the nuances of the 4th Amendment, protecting citizens from unreasonable search and seizure of their person and/or property by any agent of the State. One of the historic Supreme Court cases that define the constitutional rights of citizens was Weeks v. United States [232 U.S. 383 (1914); no. 461]. So the story goes, on 21.December.1911, a police officer arrested Fremont Weeks, a U.S. citizen and resident of Missouri, in Union Station, Kansas City, Missouri, his place of employment, working for an express company. At the same time, other police officers went to Weeks’ house. After being told by a neighbor where the spare key was kept, they entered his house, searched his room, and took possession of various papers and articles found there, which were afterwards turned over to the United States marshal. Later the same day, expecting to find additional evidence, police officers returned to Weeks’ house, were admitted by someone in the house, probably a boarder, and seized additional personal property. Weeks petitioned the court for return and exclusion of his private property as a violation of his constitutional rights under the 4th and 5th Amendments. The trial and appeals courts denied his petition. What was the heinous crime Fremont Weeks was charged with, you ask, that justified the aggressive State enforcement measures? The Federal government charged Weeks with and convicted him of violating §213, 1909 [Federal] Criminal Code [PL 60-321; 35 Stat. 1129], to wit, “the use of the mails for the purpose of transporting certain coupons or tickets representing chances or shares in a lottery or gift enterprise.” This was the Victorian era, dominated by Anthony Comstock, after all. Let us get the State out of our private lives and refocused on public safety and conduct, so that every citizen can enjoy the freedom of choice regarding their “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.”

News from the economic front:
-- The Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve debated options available to them beyond the potential third round of Quantitative Easing (QE3), reportedly to include extending the average duration of the Fed's existing portfolio by selling bonds with short maturities and buying those with longer maturities, which could have a similar effect as buying new securities outright.
-- The Federal Housing Finance Agency – the organization that oversees the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – filed lawsuits against 17 of the nation's largest banks, accusing them of misrepresenting the quality of mortgage securities they assembled and sold at the height of the housing bubble. The government seeks billions of dollars in compensation for losses from the failed investments. Among the banks are Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, and General Electric.
-- The Labor Department reported non-farm payrolls were unchanged last month as the private sector added only 17,000 jobs and the government sector continued to shed jobs – the worst result since a small decline in September 2010. The unemployment rate also remained unchanged at 9.1% – another sign economic growth is stagnating.

Comments and contributions from Update no.506:
Comment to the Blog:
“Charlie Rose does a fine job of venting his ire with Congress, and does it in a way that will stir many readers. I dislike the results of the current Congress as much as anyone I know, and I never expected to defend its members. Mr. Rose, however, fails to deal with reality. Congress is not a unit and may not be expected to act as one. It is two houses, made up of two parties plus a few independents from each of the states and each of 445 Congressional districts. This gives Congress a wide variety of “the people” to whom they are legitimately obligated. We give each of them the condition of raising enormous amounts of money every election cycle from whatever sources are available. Even without that condition, the job entails dealing with advisors, lobbyists and outside experts (who have human biases) on almost every conceivable subject. These 545 people, however, are not expected to be experts in anything except getting elected and re-elected. Just for more fun, let’s put the President back into the equation. Regardless of his statutory duties, he is highly visible and influential; he can often personally decide whether a given Representative or Senator is elected or re-elected. In addition, he has a major say in his party’s allocation of election funds. Rather than blame “Congress” as if it were an errant child, Mr. Rose needs to work on changing the system, particularly the election financing system.”
My reply to the Blog:
As much as I hate to say it, we have but to look at the majority’s opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [424] to see the enormous obstacles common citizens face in gaining the attention of their representatives in Congress. Election financing is certainly a major contributor to the moral corruption in Congress, but that is only the beginning. Political commitment is not about rigidity to a particular ideology, but rather to use their bias as a tool to achieve compromise in mutually acceptable solutions to real problems. And, if the next set has learned how to negotiate, compromise, and find mutually acceptable solutions, then we will just need to keep searching for good representatives until we find them.

Another contribution:
“Totally, totally, totally agree with that article by Charlie Reese. Sometimes, I think they want these problems to continue because they can snow people into thinking it's the other party's fault and they can keep their jobs for a long, long time.”
My response:
I am convinced they all know precisely what they are doing . . . creating the crisis, the conflict, the tension, the complication . . . all to justify our dependence on them as the experts we so desperately hope will solve the problems . . . but they never do. They simply create more complex problems, so they can blame the other guys, to gain points on the political scale.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“You don't sound wrong to me. Can't see anything you wrote I can argue with.”

Another contribution:
“Here's another example of why progressives regret voting for Obama.”
URL: http://us.greenpeace.org/site/R?i=mw79RFTtaKOJ9309fDyPqw
My reply:
Let us cut the man some slack and keep things in perspective. He is trying to lead us through a minefield. The economy is teetering on the brink of a second, potentially deeper recession, if not outright depression. He must balance dramatically divergent forces. The reality is, the economy is the engine that drives everything. We must get back to stability and growth in order to afford to do the things that must be done. The President is not rejecting the EPA enforcement rules, only the timing.
. . . and a follow-up comment:
“We need not cut Obama some slack. He's been cutting himself some slack ever since he got elected. Cutting back on clean air regulations is just one more example of the misguided idea that increasing corporate profits will somehow put people back to work. As we have seen ever since the Reagan administration, that is not what happens in real life. It's just another excuse based on Ayn Rand and other insane "thinkers" to promote the interests of corporations and the very wealthy, even when the wealthy people themselves, such as Warren Buffet and Richard Block, disagree. I don't really care anymore whether Obama is corrupt merely spineless. He's not doing what we elected him to do and, in this case, is giving up before he's even attacked.”
. . . and my follow-up reply:
The President has a duty and obligation to serve all the People as best he can, not just his political constituency. One group vilified the last President no matter what he did. A different group does exactly the same thing with this President. As long as we continue to insist upon strict adherence to one political ideology or another, we will never achieve moderation and mutually acceptable compromise, and we will continue to perpetuate the divisive, polarized, intransigent, political environment we have endured for the last 40 years. If we continue to do what we have always done, we will get what we’ve always gotten. So, I guess that means we shall respectfully disagree. I think President Obama is doing what has to be done; his priority must be on economic recovery, as that will increase revenue and create capacity to absorb the burden of cultural adjustments necessary to implement the proposed “Reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards.”
Let us not forget that the Obama administration is implementing the so-called Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) [Federal Register vol. 76, no. 152, pp. 48208-48483, dated: Monday, August 8, 2011; effective on October 7, 2011].

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