Update from the Heartland

Update no.527

2012-01-23T06:33:00.002-06:00

No.527

16.1.12 – 22.1.12

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

To all,

The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. officials have discovered an effort by the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) to help Syria hide its oil exports and evade an American and European embargo. The IRI operation is designed to quietly ship Syrian crude oil to Iran, where it can be sold on the international market, with revenue going back to Damascus. Transit records suggest this process may have moved more than 91,000 metric tons of crude in just the last month. The IRI campaign to bolster Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his regime would be in direct conflict with the actions of the Arab League and the International Community. Adding more gravity to the situation in Damascus, the U.S. has issued orders to the embassy staff and American citizens still in the country to prepare to evacuate with short notice as conditions on the ground in Syria continue to deteriorate. None of these are positive signs. We must watch.

I suspect most of us noticed numerous website blackouts on Wednesday, 18.January.2012, as an Internet protest of two proposed laws intended to punish those who are purveyors of pirated, copyrighted material, e.g., videos, music, books, and other merchandise -- S. 968, PROTECT IP Act of 2011 (PIPA); and H.R. 3261, Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) – came to a head as PIPA approached a floor vote. PIPA was withdrawn from the Senate agenda; future unknown. SOPA was referred to several other committees to slow it down. These actions may kill the proposed legislation, but they are not dead yet. Wikipedia completely blacked out its site for 24 hrs. Google blacked out their header logo. Other sites redacted portions of their content as symbolic censorship as most Internet savvy folks believe would be inevitable with passage of either PIPA or SOPA. This legislation is not just about government intrusion upon a free and open forum as the web protest demonstration would suggest. As Bill Maher recently said, “People just want to steal.” I think he is correct. Far too many people around the World want to see the latest or their favorite movies, or listen to their favorite music without paying for the right to do so. It is stealing from the copyright holders, plain and simple. There is also prevalent piracy of movies, music, books, and other material that pirates turn around and sell undercutting legitimate sources. The issue of copyright piracy is real, tangible and destructive. I do not want my work stolen. Nonetheless, PIPA and SOPA are not the proper way to accomplish piracy eradication. We managed to deal with the music-sharing site Napster, but that was a U.S. based company. Many piracy sites are foreign and largely beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement. PIPA and SOPA did accomplish one thing; they raised public awareness of a very real international problem.

In the wake of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 [PL 107-056; 115 Stat. 272; 26.October.2001] and the continuing War on Islamic Fascism, I remain sharply focused on the Fourth Amendment, and warrantless search and seizure. The latest from my reading folder was Katz v. United States [389 U.S. 347 (1967)]. The case involved the FBI warrantless recording of a telephone booth conversation. The Supreme Court, in a 6-1 decision, determined the FBI’s actions were an unconstitutional violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights and overturned the durable precedent of Olmstead v. United States [277 U.S. 438 (1928)] [296]. Associate Justice Hugo Lafayette Black offered the sole dissent, “A conversation overheard by eavesdropping, whether by plain snooping or wiretapping, is not tangible and, under the normally accepted meanings of the words, can neither be searched nor seized. Rather than using language in a completely artificial way, I must conclude that the Fourth Amendment simply does not apply to eavesdropping.” The differentiation between eavesdropping as a public nuisance and the warrantless recorded surveillance by law enforcement proved too stimulating to my inherent curiosity. When the Fourth Amendment was passed (1791), there were no electronics, and no means for the state to intrude upon the privacy of a citizens activities. Black referred to the law against eavesdropping as noted in Blackstone Commentaries, Book IV, Chapter 13, page 169 [1769], which in turn identifies the original law as 9 & 10 W. III. c. 7 (a law from the 9th & 10th year in the reign of King William III (1689–1702), chapter 7). [NOTE: I tried to find the British law with no joy.] If we look at the principle involved in the Fourth Amendment, it is to protect the citizen against governmental intrusion. Modern technology has enabled unprecedented, more powerful tools for intrusion. This is precisely the fallacy of Black’s reasoning. He is stuck on the literal words rather than the meaning of the words. I thought the Olmstead ruling was wrong even for 1928. Fortunately, the Katz decision reversed the trend. What Justice Black seems to have missed is the issue is not eavesdropping, but rather the requirement for a warrant and independent judicial acceptance of probable cause for the USG to use the power of the State to listen in on what would otherwise be considered a private conversation by a citizen. The Court has continued to build upon restricting the government’s use of technical means to invade the privacy of citizens in cases like Kyllo v. United States [533 U.S. 27 (2001)] [313] and Davis v. United States [564 U.S. ___ (2011)] [500].

News from the economic front:
-- Adding insult to injury, Standard and Poor's Rating Service downgraded its credit rating on Europe's rescue fund – European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) -- to AA+ from AAA. S&P also stated it could cut the rating further, if member states' creditworthiness is further eroded amid the euro zone's prolonged crisis. The two other large ratings firms, Moody's and Fitch, still rate the EFSF at AAA.
-- The People’s Republic of China (PRC) National Bureau of Statistics reported the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose to 8.9% in the fourth quarter of 2011, from a year earlier, but it was slower than the 9.1% expansion in the third quarter.
-- Before dawn on Wednesday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) tried to arrest former hedge-fund executive Anthony Chiasson at his Manhattan home. Chiasson was not home when FBI agents entered his apartment building. His lawyer did not immediately comment. Chiasson was co-founder of the hedge-fund firm Level Global Investors, one of several firms raided in November 2010, in a rapidly expanding federal insider-trading investigation. Could it be we have our first fugitive from justice in the aftermath of the 2008 banking crisis?
-- These events are always sad, but they are part of a normal process. Eastman Kodak filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after the 131-year-old, pioneer, film company failed to raise fresh cash to fund a long-sputtering turnaround. The company struggled for decades to cope with the rise of digital imaging technology. The final straw -- an attempt to transform itself into a company selling printers -- proved too costly amid declining film sales and expensive obligations to its retirees.

Comments and contributions from Update no.526:
“My understanding of your Montana v. SCOTUS (which I found difficult enough) was compounded by my lap-top closing down for an unannounced 'update'! Why does Mr Gates do that? He is a countryman of yours so thought you might have the answer...
“As for your Marines, I, or any of my colleagues both male and ladies of the female persuasion were either shocked or surprised by their actions. Indeed war is a dirty game. Who knows what disgusting acts the Taliban might enjoy over the bodies of our dead boys and girls? Like you though, I fear they will be sacrificed in the name of political awareness by the very people who sent them into battle and should therefore be supporting our brave soldiers no matter what. If that can't be done them bring them home.”
My reply:
I understand the difficulties with these court cases, especially in my rather limited space – hard to do them justice, but I try. While this whole Citizens United fiasco created by SCOTUS is uniquely American, I believe such court pronouncements bear upon all freedom-loving peoples. Corporations as citizens should be anathema to all of us.
Re: Marines. “Surprised,” perhaps; “shocked,” we shouldn’t be. Far worse things go on in ground combat. I respectfully submit that urinating on enemy corpses is an error in judgment, not a war crime, as so many have alleged. I urge perspective, resilience and loyalty, as well as strong resistance to the forces of political correctness. Combat is not about Roberts’ Rules of Order, or the Marquess of Queensberry etiquette. It is about killing our enemies. Those Marines made a dreadful mistake; they deserve a yellow card, not a red card.
I agree precisely. If we do not have the stomach to support our warriors properly, then withdraw them now! We need not expose our patriot-citizens to further rigors of combat with a merciless enemy.
Sorry for my stronger than usual language; I get fired up sometimes.
. . . a follow-up contribution:
“Good to see you 'fired up' buddy. We need that attribute from time to time. 'The truth is out'.
“PS: We were looking at a cruise this summer...the ship in the news this week is quite well known to us as we used to see her regularly sailing out of Venice. The accident is beyond comprehension, my car Sat. Nav. can put me within a yard of my front door, surely these vessels have a great more sophistication in their navigation equipment than my £90 GPS. It certainly looks like gross misconduct by the bridge crew. We shall see.” . . . my follow-up reply:
Well, OK then, so long as you are not offended by my strong words.
I don’t remember ever seeing MS Costa Concordia, but I do remember numerous cruise ships undergoing renovations in Genova. I cannot imagine a ship of that class not having sophisticated SatNav (GPS). Many military air vehicles (manned & unmanned) have electronic 3D terrain maps to correlate with GPS for rather accurate spatial positioning. I do not know if ships have 3D sub-surface data to correlate with GPS. They may be relying on accurate geographic location and human interpretation of conventional nautical charts for their depth clearance. If so, I suspect more than one person made a series of tragic errors. Further, I cannot imagine why a ship that size was so close to the coastline. They may have had an on-shore wind involved. Who knows? I suspect the investigators will make quick work of the navigation failure; I just hope they tell us.

Comment to the Blog:
“You and I agree on the wrongness of the Citizens United ruling. The ability of individual citizens to multiply their vote by creating corporations is a new thought to me. It seems at present to be a minor point, but remember that some attorneys can create corporations easily and quickly, so the one-man-one-vote facet of the issue could become important quickly. Let us not forget the Presidential election of 2000. The more important issue today is the ‘money as speech’ assumption that includes the potential for foreign corporations to vote with their wallets. The plaintiff Western Tradition apparently embodies both of these. We shall see whether the Supreme Court applies the Supremacy Clause or takes some other tack, as we shall also see in the Arizona and other immigration laws. Certainly Citizens United matters more to me than any immigration law to date. Of course, the purity of the Supreme Court is again in question with Justice Thomas’s issues, and that may be an influence on any corporate ‘rights’ issue. It seems to me that protecting the powerful from the weak stands the Constitution on its head, but nobody is bound by my opinion.
“As a practical matter, technology has made the keeping of secrets has become almost impossible. Every so often in recent years, the public gets a glimpse of what war really involves. That will become more frequent regardless of orders. Now we get to view soldiers urinating on corpses. Soon some other reality will surface. That is the nature of this century.
“The radical clergy who claim gay marriage will do them harm deliberately distort the nature of marriage. Marriage is a legal contract and may be solemnized by clergy at their discretion or by civil or military officials. The central false premise in this particular article is that these people (the forty clergy people who signed this open letter) will be obligated “to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct.” Note the distortion of the issue; if same-sex marriages become legal their sexual conduct will in fact be marital, and most of these people also disagree with a great deal of marital sexual conduct. However, their attitudes will certainly drive same-sex couples far away from their congregations or counseling practices. Beyond that, their claim is nonsense. To make a truly obvious comparison, drinking alcohol in any amount and smoking cigarettes are legal behaviors in most of the United States, but neither I nor anyone else has an obligation to treat drinking or smoking as appropriate behavior. The fact that these forty people would rather not have their bigotry pointed out to them means nothing. I would rather not have my short stature, excess weight, or balding scalp pointed out to me, but they are just as real as these people’s bigotry and will be pointed out. They could change their bigotry if they wished, in much the same way that I could lose weight if that was a higher priority with me. So what? Please note that not all clergy habitually lie or support bigotry; I am clergy.
“Several editions back, I discussed the inappropriateness of Standard & Poor’s rating system to sovereign debt and the fact that their involvement in the economic crash aggravates that. I have not changed my mind. I find it truly sad that Angela Merkel seeks to obey them without question.
“We may hope that Mr. Stanford receives his just desserts. Unfortunately, his offenses are not a part of the central corruption of Wall Street.
“In re the comment thread on death with dignity and several others: I encourage you to study the concept of ‘scientific proof’ for this and many other reasons. Science has a higher standard of proof than law. That seems very appropriate in life-and-death issues. Also, you may want to study prognosis versus actual results in medicine generally and in particular in relation to the pronouncement of terminal conditions.”
My reply to the Blog:
Re: Citizens United. Agreed . . . turning the Constitution on its head . . . spot on!
Re: Western Tradition. As I read the ruling, I was torn, and found affinity for Justice Nelson’s argument. SCOTUS will undoubtedly negate Western Tradition as incompatible with Citizens United by the Supremacy Clause. I cannot imagine the Supremes overturning Citizens United so soon after their decision, but they most assuredly should do so.
Re: technology & combat. A valid point . . . we are placing webcams in the sausage factory, and then, howling our disgust with how sausage is made. If we don’t like the images of war, don’t send our warriors into harm’s way.
Re: radical clerics & same-sex marriage. Well said and agreed! Unfortunately, social conservatives appear to be so fragile in their beliefs that they must validate those beliefs by imposition & enforcement upon everyone else. We saw this exact same behavior in the run-up to Prohibition and endured the devastating social consequences of attempting to prohibit predominately private conduct in a free society. The tragedy of that mindset continues to this very day across a myriad of issues. Worse, we bear witness to their persistence in the Republican primaries as the social issues seem to be dominating the debates and selection criteria. The clerics are entitled to their bigotry, no matter how irrational, but they are not entitled to impose their beliefs on other citizens. If a citizen or any group of citizens freely chooses to adopt and adhere to the dicta of their clergy, then likewise, that is their choice to make entirely. I also agree that not all clergy are bigoted; some actually understand and embrace the requirement for separation between church and State. Unfortunately, it is the theocrats who usually howl the loudest and attract the most attention, e.g., that cleric letter.
Re: debt rating services. I understand and appreciate the conflict and dilemma associated with the rating services. The weakness and flaws in their processes were graphically demonstrated by the mortgage and banking crisis. Yet, we need an accurate view of risk, and for better or worse, they attempt to provide that view.
Re: Stanford. No, he was not a Wall Street robber baron. He is just a sophisticated common swindler. In a bygone era, he would have swiftly felt the rope before the drop. I expect him to join his buddy Bernie. I am just offended by the duplicity of his direct government enabler. Barasch took an oath to enforce SEC regulations; no only did he choose not to abide his oath, he helped Stanford avoid the law. An accomplice to murder is just as guilty. Barasch deserves the same punishment as Stanford.
Re: “scientific proof.” I understand the reasoning. Yet, the refinement or accuracy of the medical profession is irrelevant to my argument for Death with Dignity. The issue is not medical “proof,” only the individual’s free will. Your grandmother had a unique will to live; undoubtedly, she would not have chosen to exercise her right until perhaps the last round. Please remember, if an individual is incapable of making a free choice for any reason, then he does not qualify. Even if the doctors are wrong in their diagnosis, I certainly would not exercise my right to Death with Dignity until I have other validating signs – the risk is always passing the threshold of mental competence and ability to communicate. No one else can make that decision – only the individual; it cannot be delegated by medical power-of-attorney, living will, or any other instrument (legal or otherwise). The reality is, we are all terminal; the only question is when. Let me now to pass with dignity rather than the lingering uncertainty my Mom had to suffer & endure.

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

Update no.526

2012-01-16T06:06:00.002-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.526

9.1.12 – 15.1.12

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

To all,

Every so often, a rare event occurs that might escape public or Press attention. With little acknowledgment, the Montana Supreme Court directly confronted the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The underlying case at issue in this instance was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [558 U.S. ____ (2010); 21.January.2010] [424]. On 5.November.1912, the voters of Montana passed a citizen created initiative, §25 of which became known as the Corrupt Practices Act (CPA), part of which survives as Montana Code Annotated §13-35- 227. As a consequence of Citizens United, two Montana corporations, and a rather misty group incorporated in Colorado in 2008 and registered to do business in Montana, filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the CPA based on Citizens United and a corporation’s First Amendment freedom of speech. The district court declared the CPA unconstitutional, citing Citizens United as the basis for his ruling. On 30.December.2011, in a 5-2 decision, the Montana Supreme Court overturned the district court in Western Tradition v. Montana [MT SC 2012 MT 328; DA 11-0081 (2011)] and thus directly challenged SCOTUS. Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court Michael “Mike” McGrath wrote for the court. He recounted the history behind the CPA law, and tried to differentiate between their decision and Citizens United. McGrath illuminated the historic as well as the potential impact of unrestrained corporate spending in affecting elections and the political legislative process. His argument seems to boil down to one sentence, “While corporations have first amendment rights in political speech, they do not have the vote.” Associate Justice James C. Nelson wrote a blistering dissent. He noted early in his dissenting opinion, “I thoroughly disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. I agree, rather, with the eloquent and, in my view, better-reasoned dissent of Justice Stevens. As a result, I find myself in the distasteful position of having to defend the applicability of a controlling precedent with which I profoundly disagree.” Nelson carefully parsed and differentiated the rights of an individual citizen and that same citizen as an incorporated entity, as if they were two entirely separate units. Citizens United gave corporations essentially equivalent rights as a citizen; thus, when the Court gets around to it, corporations will be able to vote, which in turn will give a singular human being more than one vote, verging on infinite since there is no limit to how many different ways an individual may incorporate himself. Why the Supremes cannot see the absurdity of granting corporations the rights of citizenship is simply beyond my comprehension. Anyway, while Nelson defended the Supreme’s binding precedent of Citizens United, he amplified his disgust with the position in which he was placed. “Corporations are artificial creatures of law.” He noted, “Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creations of government,” and concluded, “Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.” Therein lies my strong objection to Citizens United. From Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court in Citizens United, “The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule.” We . . . well, actually, it is only the Supremes who seem to confuse money with speech, i.e., actual words of presentation or argument. As we have seen all too often, money has an extraordinarily high potential for corruption of anyone’s moral values. It is the anonymity or duality of corporate money that continues to bother me, especially after reading Citizens United, meaning corporations are NOT alive; they are comprised of human beings, usually citizens who have the right to vote. In essence, Citizens United vastly amplifies the political leanings of the leaders, owners, boards of corporations by giving them access to massive resources with virtually no consequences. To illustrate that point, one of the plaintiffs in Western Tradition was Champion Painting, Inc., “a single proprietor painting and drywall business with no employees or members, and its sole shareholder is Kenneth Champion.” The title corporation, Western Tradition Partnership, Inc., “claims to be a foreign corporation but it is not a business corporation. Its purpose, according to un-rebutted evidence submitted to the District Court by the State, is to solicit and anonymously spend the funds of other corporations, individuals and entities to influence the outcome of Montana elections.” Reading Western Tradition, I think every citizen can and would appreciate the stand the Montana Supreme Court has taken, but . . . . The Supremacy Clause remains the law of the land. Nonetheless, just as we needed laws to bring order to the Wild Wild West, we need some order to the political money. When I know a corporation has chosen to malign one political ideology and support a competing agenda, I can put that corporation’s actions in perspective and decide to avoid that corporation’s products. The problem is hidden or camouflaged, massive expenditures by anonymous citizens (and foreign entities, including nation-states), operating through façade corporations. I am absolutely convinced the Founders / Framers would be convulsing in stupefied incredulity at the insanity the Supremes have unleashed within this Grand Republic.

Another perspective of the infamous Supreme Court case:
“This Is Citizens United
by Andrew Rosenthal
New York Times
Published: January 10, 2012, 11:12 am
http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/this-is-citizens-united/?nl=opinion&emc=tyb1

In addition to the controversial authorization for unlimited detention of battlefield combatants during the War on Islamic Fascism, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 [PL 112-081; 31.Dec.2011] elevates the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to full membership on the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). General Craig Richard McKinley, USAF, is the current Chief and now newest member of JCS. The National Guard pegs its founding to 13.Dec.1636, when the Massachusetts Bay Colony ordered the organization of three regiments of militia for the protection of the community; thus, the Guard is the longest serving military branch. The state militias were formed into the National Guard by the Militia Act of 1903 [PL 57-196; 32 Stat. 775; 21.Jan.1903] as a consequence of the Spanish-American War. The National Guard Bureau, which unified command of the Army National Guard and Air National Guard, came into existence by §904, Title IX, of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 [PL 103-337; 108 Stat. 2663, 2824; 5.Oct.1994]. Considering the extraordinary contributions and sacrifices of the National Guard throughout the War on Islamic Fascism, the elevation of the Guard is quite appropriate. We are most grateful for their extended augmentation of the thin regular forces over the long haul in this war and their continued contributions to this day.

As a retire Marine officer and concerned citizen, I am far more disturbed by the Press coverage and yammering of the talking heads about the images and video clip of four Marine in Afghanistan urinating on two dead Taliban fighters. The articles, essays, opinions and other drivel are far too numerous to acknowledge or list. I shall offer only two:
“The Real Tale Of The Tapes”
New York Post
Published: January 13, 2012; pg. 24
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/the_real_tale_of_the_tapes_Om6PzDobxyhc7cYEJWJiqK
and
“Reprehensible Behavior Is A Risk Of Combat, Experts Say”
by James Dao
New York Times
Published: January 14, 2012; pg. 8
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/world/reprehensible-behavior-is-a-risk-of-combat-experts-say.html
First, the conduct illustrated in the video and captured still images is unacceptable. The only purpose it served for those Marines was a little tension relief; the consequences serve the Taliban and Islamo-fascists to a far great extent. Thus, the relevant question is, why? Nonetheless, let us all keep things in perspective. This is equivalent to an unnecessary roughness penalty in American football – regrettable, but hardly a reason to pull the offending player. I imagine but I do not know every combat commander must have issued orders that cell phones, digital cameras or any other visual or audio recording device is prohibited during operations. If so, the idiot who took that video and the even-bigger-idiot who disclosed that video should be court-martialed for intentional, purposeful disobedience of a direct order. Yes, those four Marines deserve an appropriate penalty; I would suggest an informal letter of reprimand. Lastly, I urge all citizens to avoid watching the sausage being made. War is an ugly, nasty business. That particular video is a gnat in a hailstorm. Unfortunately, the rampant political correctness of the warm, cushy, armchair quarterbacks of the politicos will overwhelm the wisdom of the professional generals and those good Marines will be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness. I (I cannot say we) can only hope the Commandant will stand up to the political pressure and save those good Marines. God bless them for their service to this Grand Republic. I can only hope that We, the People, will put our sanctimonious indignation aside and find the courage to stand-up for these Marines.

“Religious leaders: Gay marriage a ‘peril’ to liberty – Religious coalition says legalization forces changing of thousands of laws”
by Cheryl Wetzstein
The Washington Times
Published: Thursday, January 12, 2012
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/12/religious-leaders-gay-marriage-a-peril-to-liberty/
The opening statement: “Nearly 40 religious leaders, including Catholic, evangelical, Jewish and Mormon figures, issued an open letter Thursday that argues that the battle against same-sex marriage is a fight on behalf of religious freedom.” OK, I understand the emotions. What I do not understand is the logic and rhetoric. Clerics seek power and control, to dictate the private choices and conduct of all citizens. These clerics apparently do not understand or appreciate the significance and importance of “unalienable rights” and “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.” The implication of this clerical statement is that individuals who make private choices relevant only to themselves will somehow be turned around or coalesced into imposition upon the religious beliefs and choices of the clerics and other believers. I stand for and will defend the right of these clerics to their homophobia and even to their dicta to their believers. They get crosswise with me, and presumably with every freedom-loving citizen, when they stoke the fires of religious emotion in an overt effort to impose their will upon all citizens. I object! Regardless, once again, I ask anyone to help me understand why these clerics are so convinced that oppressed people will turn to deny the very freedom they seek for all citizens? Their supposition simply does not make sense to me, so perhaps it is because I am not perceptive enough to appreciate their worries. Help me!

News from the economic front:
-- Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services passed judgment on the unsolicited long-term sovereign credit ratings of 16 euro-zone countries, after downgrading U.S. sovereign debt from AAA to AA+ (5.August.2011) [503]. Among the countries touched in this round:
Germany: affirmed its AAA rating, with a stable outlook.
France: downgraded to AA+ from AAA.
Italy: downgraded two notches to BBB+ from A.
Austria: downgraded to AA+ from AAA.
Spain: downgraded two notches to A from AA-.
Portugal: downgraded by two notches to BB from BBB- (junk status).
Slovakia: downgraded to A from A+.
Slovenia: downgraded to A+ from AA-.
Cyprus: downgraded two notches to BB+ from BBB (junk status).
Malta: downgraded to A- from A.
Ireland: affirmed its BBB+ rating.
Greece: previously downgraded to B from BB- (junk status).

The Stanford Fraud [375]:
-- Robert Allen Stanford, the founder of Stanford Financial, is scheduled to go on trial on 23.January in Houston, three years after he was arrested. He is charged with 21 federal criminal counts of defrauding investors, and stands accused of encouraging investors to buy certificates of deposit at a Stanford bank in Antigua. Instead of being invested, Stanford allegedly used much of the money to maintain his lavish lifestyle. As with most events, timing is everything. On Friday, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas announced a “deal” with Spencer C. Barasch, who served as the enforcement director for the SEC’s Fort Worth regional office from 1998 to 2005, to pay a civil settlement, US$50,000 fine – the maximum fine for a violation of federal conflict-of-interest rules. Barasch allegedly shielded Stanford from government investigations until the bottom fell out. I sure as hell expect the government extracted a commitment to cooperate in the prosecution of Stanford; if not, then I will scream FOUL!

Comments and contributions from Update no.525:
Comment to the Blog:
“First, I want to apologize for not following up your last reply last week. The combination of illness, graduation, and work pretty much overwhelmed all else. I do, however, remember pointing out more politely in an earlier reply that “scientific proof” is an oxymoron, not a possibility, due to the nature of science.
“I will agree that the case you mentioned should be renamed SEC + Citigroup v US District Court. That combination of arrogance and audacity comes back to the concept of willful blindness. It matters very little whether they consciously know what they do; they should be held accountable either way.
“I read those two articles on the ‘right to die.’ After all is said and done, I don’t see that as viable in its current form. I simply do not trust heirs, particularly where substantial money or property bends people’s opinions. Ending someone’s presumed suffering becomes a much more important motivation when one’s subconscious or conscious mind knows that the bills are mounting or when envy and all the rest set in. Even beyond that, doctors have not learned to pronounce people terminal with any degree of reliability. There is a legend in my family that my grandmother was pronounced terminal eight times and outlived seven of the doctors who so pronounced her. Even if it was only two or three of the doctors, you get my point. If Sir Terry Pratchett wishes to commit suicide while he remains capable of doing so and has a clear head, he has that option in the UK. If he chooses to wait until he cannot, so what?”
My response to the Blog:
First, I do not agree that “scientific proof” is an oxymoron. Second, I just sought to understand cause & effect within an important, relevant example.
Willful blindness certainly is a major factor in the banking crisis. I absolutely agree regarding accountability. First, I do not think those bankers were ignorant of the law. Second, even if they were, ignorance of the law is no defense. Third, based on the SEC’s performance in Citigroup and others, the USG does not seek accountability, only the image, the façade, of accountability. US$285M to Citigroup is a parking ticket. We can only hope Judge Rakoff’s message gets through to the USG.
Re: “Death with Dignity.” Your concern is valid, appropriate and worthy of our calm, careful contemplation. I share your concern. The key is mental competency of the individual. Using Oregon’s law as a worthy example, Death with Dignity can only be available when two independent medical professionals can assert: 1.) the mental competency of the individual, 2.) the terminal phase of the individual’s illness or condition, and 3.) the independent free choice of the individual devoid of undue influence. It sounds like your grandmother would not have sought that capability, which of course was her choice entirely. On the other side, my mother sought that ability, but it was denied her, and she had to endure a long, lingering death. If we truly believe in those unalienable rights, then we must respect every individual’s freedom of choice to that last decision. As with all sensitive topics & decisions, let us seek and find a reasonable, contemporary compromise to protect the individual and his/her freedom of choice.
. . . with a follow-up comment:
“Scientific proof is not finally possible, although mathematical proof is in theory. Scientific disproof is possible, but not proof. (That is learning from one of my recent courses.) However weighty scientific evidence becomes, new evidence always remains a possibility.
“Insofar as Citibank and the SEC defying the law, I remain hopeful that Judge Rakoff will succeed in rebuffing them and perhaps be joined by other honest judges.
“I will leave the ‘death with dignity’ debate alone beyond reiterating my opinion that doctors cannot reliably predict the future of a given patient.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Ahso, the philosophical view of “scientific proof.” Yes. Agreed. New data refines the scientific view. Just a few decades ago, the Moon was just a large nighttime orb and Mars was a distant red dot. We have learned more since then. We will continue to learn more as we go. The “scientific proof” is only as good as the data available. When it comes to human traits, interactions, and experiences, the best we can do is observations and opinions. Thus, my questions about your friend & her daughter; I would like to learn more.
Re: Rakoff. Agreed. We can only hope there are more judges that demand proof. I am currently reading a ruling by the Montana Supreme Court that attempts to constrain Citizens United. There is hope.
Re: Death with Dignity. The issue is not the doctor’s ability to predict the future for a given patient, but rather the individual’s un-coerced freedom of choice. This is not about the science of medicine. It is entirely about respecting an individual citizen’s unalienable right to “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.” The involvement of the doctors is to have independent attestation to the individual’s free choice and the terminal phase of his life.

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

Update no.525

2012-01-09T05:33:00.003-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.525

2.1.12 – 8.1.12

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

To all,
I was late to work on the first day after the holiday break. Why is that news, you ask? We attended an early morning ceremony before the Butler County Commission. Our youngest son, Deputy Sheriff Taylor Parlier, received a meritorious award for leading a high-speed chase across two counties that led to the capture of two 19-year-olds (a male and female), who killed the boy’s grandmother for drug money . . . allegedly, I’m obligated to add. Congratulations, Son. God bless you for your service to the community.

[file: Taylor award 120103A.JPG]

Taylor receiving award from Butler County Sheriff Kelly Herzet

The follow-up news items:
-- On Sunday last (1.Jan.2012), Hawaii and Delaware joined the list of states allowing same-sex marriage [110 & sub], according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
States that issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples:
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and the District of Columbia.
States that recognize civil unions for same-sex couples:
Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and now Hawaii and Delaware.
California’s PropH8 same-sex marriage law is still working its way through the Judiciary.
-- Arrogance and audacity . . . an onerous combination. As we recall, Judge Rakoff rejected a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), US$258M deal with Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., to avoid trial – SEC v. Citigroup [USDC NY SD case 1:11-cv-07387-JSR (2011)] [520] (28.Nov.2011). On 15.December, the SEC filed a petition to stay Judge Rakoff’s ruling, pending appeal to the 2nd Circuit; followed 4 days later, by virtually the same petition for a stay filed by Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. In the latest rendition, Judge Rakoff concluded, “[G]iven the Court’s conclusion that the purported statutory basis for the instant appeals is patently defective, and given the absence of any obligation to consider a stay on the basis of the SEC’s putative intention to seek mandamus, there is no occasion for the Court to address the merits of the parties’ request for a stay. Accordingly, the motion for a stay is hereby denied.” To say the least, I was gobsmacked. The case really should be renamed SEC + Citigroup v. U.S. District Court. This case is getting curious’er and curious’er.

Two relevant articles in the continuing Death with Dignity debate [215 & sub]:
“Two men with money and influence are trying to change the law to make dying easier. It's scary”
by Cristina Odone
The Telegraph [of London]
Last updated: January 5th, 2012
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100127407/two-men-with-money-and-influence-are-trying-to-change-the-law-to-make-dying-easier-its-scary/
and
“Allow assisted suicide for those with less than a year to live – Doctors should be allowed to help terminally ill patients kill themselves – but only if they have less than a year to live, under proposals published in a major report today.”
by Martin Beckford
The Telegraph [of London]
Published: 05 Jan 2012; 7:30AM GMT
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8992593/Allow-assisted-suicide-for-those-with-less-than-a-year-to-live.html
At least the British People have two outspoken national advocates for a citizen’s freedom of choice – Sir Terence David John “Terry” Pratchett, OBE, a successful author; and Lord Falconer [AKA Charles Leslie Falconer, Baron Falconer of Thoroton, PC], a Labour peer. Where are the American advocates for our individual freedom of choice and the defenders of our “unalienable rights [to] Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”?

News from the economic front:
-- The Labor Department reported non-farm payrolls rose by 200,000 last month – private companies added 212,000 jobs, while federal, state and local governments reduced by 12,000. The unemployment rate declined to 8.5% in December, from the revised rate of 8.7% in November – the lowest level since February 2009.

Comments and contributions from Update no.524:
Comment to the Blog:
“I applaud your recovery from the surgery, and I envy your riding weather. I ride my bicycle for transportation, but I get less pleasure from our temperatures here, which run 15 to 20 degrees lower.
“I rejoice that New York prosecutors are using informants and other law enforcement processes to pursue another collection of crooked bankers. That ought to happen in every instance where evidence exists worthy of pursuit, but we both know that it has yet to happen in many cases.
“The Roman Catholic bishops’ suit seeking to enforce their church’s prejudice against homosexual parents is frivolous. If we set aside the nonsense and doubletalk, the fact is that the Catholic Church has voluntarily contracted with the US Government to provide a service under specific conditions. If they did not wish to meet the conditions, they ought not to have signed the contract. If they agreed initially but have changed their minds, they may end the contract according to whatever conditions are given in that contract, which may be expensive but is their choice. That concludes the functional part of the discussion. The fact that they entered into an enterprise which has a facet offensive to their beliefs is an internal conflict, not something that taxpayers should be obliged to resolve. At no time were they coerced to do anything against their beliefs; they freely chose to accept that agreement. My personal parallel for this issue is a temporary assignment that I accepted knowing that the client company made a product with which I felt uncomfortable. I became less and less willing to participate in that particular assignment. Despite it being a good assignment otherwise with prospects of becoming permanent at a good pay rate, I found another job, gave the proper notice, etc. Neither the client nor the temporary service had any obligation based on my discomfort. By that same logic, the US Government has no obligation to the Catholic bishops because of the Church’s unwillingness to treat homosexual foster parents the same way they treat heterosexual foster parents. The aim of the Bush-era law was to make it easier for faith-based organizations to provide a service, not to change the nature of the service.
“Carrying on from the comment section:
“Your technical description of the situation regarding the molesters who had a child confuses me. I will tell you that the molesting began at birth and ended at age 6. The person (daughter) I know has severe developmental delays and equally serious mental health issues, none of which are among those with known genetic causes. No other causes have been found either and no other members of her family share any of those issues. As you may be aware, there is no such thing as ‘scientific proof,’ only evidence. The evidence against the molester here carries a great deal of weight. As far as the legalities of Children Services taking away the molester’s subsequent child, I have little knowledge of the legal side of that. Obviously, my friend and her daughter have no contact with the molester. That the child was removed my friend knows through reliable, sympathetic sources who were involved in this situation. We may assume that the law is not a “cut and dried” thing; in this instance someone apparently found a way to apply the law in the interest of the child.
“A law requiring counseling prior to marriage would have to keep the basis for counseling separate from religion while allowing for people to examine religious issues along with their other attitudes. People tend to forget that marriage is not only a religious ritual. The legal contract of marriage can be and often is solemnized by judges, mayors, and ship captains as well as clergy. Writing the specifics for general use would be its own project. My personal approach tends to begin from known issues (prior marriages, events in the relationship, a discussion of both parties’ expectations) and go on from there. In my case, religion plays little to no part in this; I am available to anyone and not limited to or by my own religion.”
My reply to the Blog:
The riding weather appears to be ending, but never say die. I’ll ride when the opportunity presents. I do enjoy it.
Re: crooked bankers. Spot on! However, let us not forget, there are good bankers out there as well.
Re: Catholic bishops. We need the judge to declare it frivolous. I suspect he may want to push the constitutional question – it is rather unusual. Just to be clear, the non-heterosexual, non-discrimination requirement did not come until after the Bush 43, faith-based initiative, so to be fair, it was a post-contract provision. Nonetheless, like you, I think their argument is extraordinarily weak. Yet, when 62% (US$2.9B) of their annual revenue comes from the public Treasury, it should be no surprise they would take a stretch to preserve the revenue stream.
Re: molesters. If you are confused, imagine how confused I am. I was just trying to understand the relationships. I do not understand the cause & effect with them, other than by implication. There is certainly not much to their story other than has been presented so far. Unfortunately, laws are created by flawed men, enforced by flawed men, and interpreted by flawed men. The origin of this topic was an attempt to separate injurious from non-injurious conduct. Although we do not have more than anecdotal evidence the “abuse” led to the dysfunction, unless otherwise stated, we must assume it was the direct cause; as such, that conduct would be clearly injurious. Cases like your friend cannot be the lowest common denominator, i.e., because she suffered, all physical contact is therefore wrong and felonious. Again, we must separate injurious from non-injurious behavior. One size does not fit all.
Re: pre-marriage counseling. I understand your intentions, and I laud your objectives. However, the specter of imposing religious beliefs upon others causes me considerable pause. You are but one counselor. Others might fall victim to their particular biases, beliefs and idiosyncrasies. I know there are many things that should have been worked out before marriage, i.e., money management; children & child rearing; anger management; religion; sexual orientation, attitudes & preferences; problem resolution; habits; et cetera. We tend to jump into marriages for all the wrong reasons without any understanding of the right reasons. Certainly, professional counseling would help resolve that aspect, but only if it could be done from a neutral, non-judgmental basis.
A follow-up contribution:
“I am sure that bankers with real integrity live and work in America. They were and are unwelcome at the ‘too big to fail’ banks. They have been and perhaps still are subject to being less successful than others in banking in general due to the lure of derivatives, which leads to a powerful incentive for any banker with less than rock-solid ethics to sell mortgages regardless of risk in order to create derivative packages that are much more profitable than simply selling sound mortgages. Ordinary human beings have a difficult time keeping their integrity when a situation like that continues for several years. The run-up to this banking crisis lasted from about 1990 to 2008, with roots going back to before the Reagan Administration.
“I do not understand how I confused you with my story about the molester, my friend’s ex-husband. He molested his first daughter from birth to age six, at which point the discovery of his molesting was involved with his being charged with a variety of offenses, for which he served prison time. That first daughter will never have an independent life due to his actions. Once the molester was released from prison, he found a female molester and had a child with her. The child of the two molesters was taken away at birth by Children Services. I’m not confused by any of that. What baffled me was your attempt to analyze all of this by assigning abbreviations and other terminology to it all and further complicating it in ways I did not comprehend.
“I will note that laws are created and enforced differentially in part because no two people are exactly alike and therefore no two situations are identical. While I know nothing of the second (female) molester, the male molester had done a great deal of damage to his first child, and that surely influenced the action of Children Services in removing the child he had with the female molester. I did not state or intend to imply that all people charged with sexual behavior toward children resemble him or each other. In the case I described, the molesting began at birth and did a great deal of harm. Other cases may vary dramatically.
“Mandatory premarital counseling would indeed be difficult to do well, but not as difficult as the idea that precipitated the suggestion, which was to license childbearing (parenting).”
My follow-up reply:
I use a similar, more personal, analogy . . . I’ve long said that you did not need to be an a$$hole to be successful in business. While I still believe that basic premise to be true, I’ve not been particularly successful, so perhaps my premise is wrong.
Re: mortgage thus banking crisis. I used to give the initiating credit to Jimmy Carter; but I have since learned, actually, the true credit for letting slip the dogs of foolish mortgage credit (that culminated in the meltdown on September 2008) must be given to Gerald Ford [or perhaps Dick Nixon, since the law originated in the Congress of his administration, prior to his resignation] – Equal Credit Opportunity Act [PL 93-495; 88 Stat. 1500, 1521; 28.October.1974]. Virtually every administration since has contributed to the mess we still suffer to this day, with the worst of it coming in the Clinton and Bush (43) administrations. Of course, Congress denies any culpability, yet it is those foolish laws and congressional pressure that enabled greedy bankers to make Pollyanna mortgages that were destined to fail; it was only a matter of when. Then, as you so accurately note, other bankers decided to gamble our money on derivatives, and derivatives of derivatives. The bankers will undoubtedly argue that buying a share of common stock is a gamble. In the strictest sense, they are correct. We invest in stocks “betting” that a company will continue to grow, be profitable, and the value of our common stock will increase commensurately, to be traded at some future point for a profit to us. Yet, there is technically a physical asset attached to that share of common stock, just as there is to a mortgage. With derivatives, there is no asset; there is no value, other than what some other gambler wishes to attach to it. Then, like the bastards at Citigroup, the gambler sought ways to pass their gambling losses off to insurance companies and duped investors. The global economy being what it is, those bad, greedy decisions rippled across the entire planet. The consequences of “too big to fail” are simply not tolerable; and, I will go farther to say that the cross-functional connections between financial institutions are not acceptable either. In many ways, we allowed banks to lower or remove water-tight bulkheads with the same RMS Titanic result. We need compartmentalization within the financial system to avoid these disastrous cascading events that did and will again bring entire sovereign nations to their knees.
Re: molesters. I offer my most humble apologies for my lame attempt to de-personalize the scenario.
Re: premarital counseling. Touché! Spot on! Counseling is probably workable from a practical perspective, if we devoted enough thought and effort to the task. Procreation licensing will never enter the practical domain in a free society; it is only an attractive dream to deal with the bad parents among us. I will say, my notional concept of social police might bridge that gap and reinforce the need for neutral premarital counseling as a prerequisite to state-sanctioning a marriage, or at least help in that filtration process.

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

Update no.524

2012-01-02T06:48:00.002-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.524

26.12.11 – 1.1.12

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

To all,

On Wednesday, I had my latest appointment with our urologist and received the results of my first post-op blood test. PSA = 0.00. The results suggest the surgeon did extract all the bad tissue. I still have a long way to reach the “cured” state (generally, five years), but this is a very positive next step. Now, I have a long, slow, but hopefully steady process ahead with my recovery from toddlerhood. The doctor said things were “rearranged” during surgery, and it will take a while to get everything working again. Patience! Easy to say, not so easy to practice. Nonetheless, he cleared me for throttle up. So, what would you expect . . . I took a couple of celebratory rides on the Harley – 61º F (16º C) on New Year’s Eve, a great day for a ride. A good ending to a rather rough year for us. Happy New Year to everyone. May 2012 be better than 2011 for all of us

The Wall Street Journal reported that an informant, a senior Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM) executive nicknamed “Rambo,” provided prosecutors a rare inside peek into the bank’s action as it tried to contain the fallout from a fast-growing state fraud investigation into whether the bank overcharged clients to execute their currency trades, and urged traders not to tell clients how much money they made on trading.

“Bishops Say Rules on Gay Parents Limit Freedom of Religion”
by Laurie Goodstein
New York Times
Published: December 28, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/us/for-bishops-a-battle-over-whose-rights-prevail.html?_r=1
Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois apparently reached their threshold of tolerance as they filed suit against the government, alleging religious persecution for opposing the requirement to accept same-sex couples for foster care and as adoptive parents. The Catholic Charities affiliates received a total of nearly US$2.9B from the government in 2010, about 62 percent of its US$4.7B annual revenue. This is an interesting legal argument that perhaps inevitably grew from President Bush’s (43) Executive Order 13199, titled: “Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives” (29.January.2001) and associated legislation that got religious charities dependent upon government funding. When religious charities gained access to the public Treasury, there was no conditional requirement regarding discrimination against non-heterosexual parents. Now, there is. The bishops rejected the condition, which is their right to do. The twist here is, they are claiming the imposition of the same-sex condition over their religious beliefs that non-heterosexual parents are not appropriate parents or parental models is tantamount to a direct violation of their First Amendment rights – speech and religion. The real losers in this legal tussle are the children that might otherwise be helped by the Catholic Charities. Regardless, children cannot be used as a shield for discrimination based on the social factors. The bishops are apparently quite comfortable arguing for their constitutional guaranteed access to the public Treasury, while they trample on the rights of non-heterosexual couples to equal protection under the law. This legal challenge has potential implications far beyond the prima facie case of religious rights.

Comments and contributions from Update no.523:
Comment to the Blog:
“North Korea continues its effort to win the position of Most Bizarre Nation of All Time. (I have no idea who would give that award, but North Korea is certainly in the playoffs.) Apparently, Kim Jong Un is not the dictator his father and grandfather were. He will be sharing power with the military, and I have already seen a story somewhere that his uncle by marriage, whose name I cannot recall at the moment, will be the ‘power behind the throne.’
“The malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance on the part of the SEC continue without any interest from the Department of Justice. Your idea of taking away the SEC’s authority to make civil settlements in suits against Wall Street’s worst strikes me as sound. At this point, Americans as a whole owe an apology and a warning to investors and taxpayers worldwide who stand to lose large amounts of money because Wall Street’s criminals have yet to be jailed. Angelo Mozillo is an example of our failure with these offenders. I wish he was the kind of example that would discourage others, but that has yet to happen. At least some of the players in the Madoff drama are doing time. That’s better than nothing, I guess.
“If I go by the story you linked to alleging that a Panama City, Florida, mother offered her 8-year-old for prostitution, this is a sensational story with less than the usual support from evidence. The story states that a man told the police Ms. Mims approached him in a mall and offered her daughter’s sexual services, but it does not say that law enforcement has found anything else at all to support his statement. Not even scraps of corroborating evidence appear in this story. Apparently the Panama City PD did not see fit to set up a sting or use some other method to gather evidence, and we do not know whether the man making the allegation has some ulterior motive. The story does not state whether Ms. Mims has any criminal record. Certainly Ms. Mims looks awful in the picture, but that’s a mug shot. Most people are not at their best when being booked into jail. What the man has alleged is certainly serious, but only time and investigation will reveal whether it actually happened. In this particular allegation, the little girl herself does not appear to have been involved in the event, so unless the police can dig up other offenses the penalty is likely to disappoint the community even if Ms. Mims can be convicted.
“Licensing parents would involve controlling people’s sex lives unless society can somehow sterilize small children and then reverse the procedure upon their licensing as parents.
“I understand that incest is an explosive issue, and I disagree that it’s “all over prime time” as that headline states. “All over prime time” would involve non-pay channels for me. All the same, I suspect that we have seen a harbinger of discussions for a future time.”
My response to the Blog:
Re: DPRK. Spot on! Kim Jong Un’s uncle (by marriage to Kim Jong Il’s younger sister) is Chang Song-taek, Vice-Chairman of the National Defense Commission. Interesting things often happen when flawed men have a taste of power. The next few years have the potential to be uncertain and unstable in that diminutive country. As with most power struggles at the top of any organization, there are likely to be casualties and blood spilt, but it is the collateral damage that I worry about the most.
Re: Mozillo et al. Spot on! He paid US$40M of a US$60M fine for his misconduct, and he only has US$560M left. For him, he gambled in the worst possible way, with the lives of millions of people, just like Citigroup did, betting against the very people they were convincing to buy their contaminated mortgage securities. Mozillo is just as guilty as Madoff and all the others; he is just not man enough to admit his wrong-doing. We can only hope justice will come to him and all the other criminals. I like your idea. Part of their punishment should be standing before the world and apologizing for the damage, pain, uncertainty, and distrust they have caused by their greed . . . then, commit seppuku for their dishonor.
Re: Mims. Of course, you are quite correct. We do not know all the relevant details. It is just the Mims story reminds me of too many similar tales of bad parents, and all the rest of us must pay the price for these freakin’ bad people. Mims may not be one of those bad people, but there sure is a lot of smoke around her.
Re: “licensing parents.” You are again quite correct. Managing private sex lives is certainly not consistent with my belief in keeping government out of our private lives. My bad . . . a sign of my frustration. Regardless, I do advocate for parents paying the price for the conduct of their children. In the Mims case, if she truly did try to prostitute her 8yo daughter, then she should forfeit her custodial rights and be prevented from having any other children unless she gets her life under control. If she did get pregnant again, then her infant should be removed at birth.
Re: “incest.” I think that was the point of the article. I just don’t know how to discuss the topic.
. . . Round Two:
“I share your concern about collateral damage in the North Korea situation. Whether or not Kim Jung Un et al. destroy each other concerns me very little; whether they damage or kill Koreans north and south, attack the rest of East Asia, or potentially trigger another World War worries me. Unfortunately, we as a nation can do very little about that. Our current and past attempts at intervention have gone wrong; one of those created the current Korea situation, with the assistance of the UN and the Koreans themselves.
“I have expressed my disgust with Wall Street and the SEC at some length already. Citizen actions to change the balance of power have not yet produced results, but hope springs eternal. That balance was changed for the better after the Great Depression and we may be able to change it again.
“My doubts about whether Ms. Mimms is guilty derive from the lack of corroborating evidence in the story and from a small-town childhood. I noticed early on that almost everything in small places is driven by individual and personal feelings. Politics, religion, and law enforcement are far more personal than in a big city where more money and larger numbers of people can change the equation.
“While I cannot find a way to license parenting, I am aware of a male child molester who found a female child molester and had a baby with her. (I have no doubt about the harm he did; I know the child in the prior case.) The baby was removed immediately at birth by Children Services.
"Perhaps it would help to tighten the requirements for marriage. As clergy, I take a responsibility for counseling people before I agree to marry them. That is not required by law, but I think that would be a good idea. I don't do many marriages, but maybe I prevent some ill-considered unions."
. . . my response to Round Two:
Re: DPRK succession. We share the same concern. We seem to suffer a paucity of meaningful or actionable intelligence. The inaccessibility of the isolationist regime does not make it any easier. Whatever external spillover action may emanate from the power struggle that appears to be setting up.
Yes, hope does spring eternal. We can only hope the message gets through and we see less deals with more punishment.
Re: Mims. Your point was well-stated. As with so much of any morality discussion, the definitions are critical. As you suggest, the Panama City Police may have knee-jerked emotionally to the simple accusation, rather than hard evidence. If that happens to be true, then I was clearly wrong to use her as such a negative example. Nonetheless, I still see a lot of smoke around her. I hope the police eliminated the emotion of the situation. Good observation regarding big city vs. small town, especially regarding the emotional morality issues. The Prohibition experience of our grandparents is a perfect example.
Re: molesters. Two molesters producing a child . . . I think Children Services did what had to be done. There should be more of that. What child “in the prior case”? Licensing procreation is not practical, even if the urge to impose that control is strong. My favorite example being the NYC, crack-addicted, prostitute who had 8 children by 8 different sperm donors, collecting welfare for the kids but to support her habit; three kids removed by the state so far, and she’s still having more children despite court orders against producing more. We’ve discussed the concept of social police. Somehow, we must find a way to filter and focus on the real abusers . . . not punish children learning sex, etc.
Re: marriage counseling. Nice that you take the time to help folks understand the importance and commitment of marriage. Like so many similar topics, the balance between proper public regulation and individual freedom. Any intervention for ill-conceived unions is good for society. The burdens of family fragmentation is bad enough; any help is good.
. . . Round Three:
“The DPRK has been a loose cannon basically since World War II. No effort to contain it has succeeded so far.
“The child in the ‘prior’ case (of the male molester) is his daughter with a woman I know. That child, now 22 years old, will never be able to function on her own; this is a really severe case. Her father, once he was released from prison, found another woman with similar tendencies to his (to molest babies) and the two of them bred a child. Even though he had been convicted on charges other than the child molesting, the new baby was taken from them immediately. My assumption is that either (a) the woman had been convicted of prior child molesting, (b) the judge or someone in the system had specified that the father could not be around children due to investigations of the case I know about, or (c) both.
“The premarital counseling thus far has been easier than it sounds. Those who know their engagement will not survive a close examination tend to find another person to solemnize their mistake. That is why it occurs to me that a law might help society in this situation. Most likely such a law would reduce the marriage rate, much to the annoyance of some folks, but I suspect it would reduce the number of dysfunctional marriages and make it easier to leave a dysfunctional relationship if responsible clergy had refused to solemnize such a creature. Such a relationship would not have the financial, legal, emotional or religious burdens of a marriage. That would still be imperfect, but I think it would be an improvement over the status quo.
. . . my response to Round Three:
Re: DPRK. Well, as always, it all depends upon how we define “contain.” The late Grand Dear Leader Umpa-Lumpa wanted desperately to be a major player in the nuclear club. They are not and I doubt they ever will be. They remain marginal at best . . . dangerous yes, but still marginal.
Re: molester. Let me see if I have this correct. Male Abuser (MA) produced a Daughter (D) with Mother (M). You know both M & D. After prison for an unspecified crime, MA met up with Female Abuser (FA). MA & FA produced another child, who was immediately taken into custodial protection and removed from their care. Children Protective Services in most states has the authority to temporarily remove a child(ren), but permanent removal takes a judge and court order. As you admonished me in the Mims case, I have not yet heard the evidence. Were FA’s & MA’s “abuse” truly forced or injurious abuse, or just classified as abuse by socially conservative prosecutors? You mentioned D cannot function on her own; that sounds like far more than physical abuse. Were their other factors? Nonetheless, you are suggesting D’s “problems” are the direct result of MA’s sexual abuse of D; is that correct? If so, MA & FA could become the new poster-children for parental sexual abuse. Parents are in mortal fear of some zealous prosecutor who decides their approach to teaching their children is felonious.
Re: counseling. How would you envision a law requiring premarital counseling? How would it be religiously neutral? I want to solve the disgraceful decline of stable, productive marriages. From my perspective, I think one of the primary culprits is the unreasonable expectations created by the notional American Dream pitched by virtually every segment of society. People feel compelled to get married . . . to legitimize the enjoyment of sex, which of course does not turn out quite the way we expect. We need to get more realistic about marriage with more realistic expectations.

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

Update no.523

2011-12-26T06:29:00.002-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.523

19.12.11 – 25.12.11

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

To all,
I trust everyone enjoyed a very Merry Christmas, or is continuing to celebrate a most Happy Chanukah, or rejoiced an illuminating Winter Solstice, or otherwise had a bountifully Happy Holiday season with their families.

The follow-up news items:
-- Grand Dear Leader Umpa-Lumpa [239 & sub] proved to be mortal after all. What a surprise! Now, we have the Great Successor Kim Jong Un, the 29-year-old son of Kim Jong Il and grandson of the original DPRK dictator Kim Il Sung. And so it goes!

On Wednesday, the sad saga continued almost unabated, except for the courage of Judge Jed Rakoff [520]. The Justice Department announced a US$335M deal with Bank of America to settle allegations that its Countrywide Financial unit discriminated against black and Hispanic borrowers during the housing boom. The proposed deal is reportedly the largest residential fair-lending settlement in history. The remnants of Countrywide agreed in June 2010 to pay US$108M to settle federal charges that the company charged highly inflated sums to customers struggling to hang on to their homes, and in August 2010, they agreed to pay US$600M to settle shareholder lawsuits over its mortgage losses. Regardless, Angelo R. Mozilo – former Countrywide CEO and no.4 on CNN’s Culprits of the Collapse list [358] – is still a free, rich man, despite the 15.October.2010 settlement with the SEC for a US$67.5M fine of which the company paid US$20M. Mozilo and his cronies belong in prison with forfeiture of all their ill-gotten gain assets. These damnable deals are becoming as disgusting as earmarks – another form of corruption and criminal conduct that escapes punishment.

I am disappointed in myself. I had an opportunity last week to offer a broader, more consistent and insightful opinion, but I backed away probably in deference to the sensitivity of the topic at hand – child pornography and sexual abuse. Fortunately, this week, as I was knocking off a couple more, older rulings by the Supremes from my Reading List folder – Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas [390 U.S. 676 (1968)] and New York v. Ferber [458 U.S. 747 (1982)] – I had cause to re-examine my rather narrow opinion regarding child sexting last week [522]. I will not bore you with the details. For a modicum of perspective, let it suffice to say, Interstate Circuit dealt with local classification of the motion picture “Viva Maria” [1965] as “not suitable for young persons,” and Ferber involved the sale of two films “devoted almost exclusively to depicting young boys masturbating.” I agree with Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan’s concurring opinion in Interstate Circuit, “I would limit federal control of obscene materials to those which all would recognize as what has been called ‘hard core pornography,’ and would withhold the federal judicial hand from interfering with state determinations except in instances where the state action clearly appears to be but the product of prudish overzealousness” – not quite far enough but at least a step in the correct direction. Yet, it was one word in one single sentence that brought an otherwise foggy, fuzzy perspective into brilliant, sharp focus. The opinion of Associate Justice William Joseph Brennan, Jr., concurring in the Ferber judgment, reiterated, “[T]he State has a special interest in protecting the well-being of its youth.” Brennan’s use of the third person, possessive pronoun struck me like a lightning bolt. Through all of these cases and related discussion topics, I continue to struggle mightily with one incessant, recurring question – where are the parents? In virtually every one of these morality cases, I do not recall one mention of parental responsibility or accountability; it is the State imposing its standards, its morality, its punishment to protect its children. WHERE ARE THE PARENTS? For more than a century, we have allowed the Federal government to carve away slivers and chunks of our freedom – our divine right to “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness” – in the name of “protecting” our moral values, of “protecting” our children from life, and of “making the correct choices” in our lives. From my perspective, the Federal government should withdraw from the private morality business, except where genuine interstate or international transportation / transmission is involved at specific state request, or in a supervisory role to ensure the states do not violate the individual rights and freedoms of their residents. We must stop punishing everyone else for the failings of a few complacent, irresponsible or injurious parents.

In the wake of the admonition above, we have this news item:
“Florida Community Rallies in Support of 8 year old Girl Allegedly Forced into Prostitution”
Huffington Post
First Posted: 12/22/11 06:52 PM ET; Updated: 12/23/11 07:57 AM ET
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/22/sue-ellen-mims-florida-emerald-coast_n_1165975.html
We can always find grotesquely negative events to justify draconian laws that punish hundreds of innocent citizens to find one bad mother or father. We need a license to drive a car, to operate a beauty parlor, to fly any aircraft, or to perform as a doctor, a dentist or pharmacist. Sue Ellen Mims offers the perfect example of why some folks are not qualified to procreate and should be denied a license to do so, if there was such a thing.

“Why Is Incest All Over Prime Time? – From "Dexter" to "Game of Thrones," incest resonates -- not because a taboo has been broken, but because it endures.”
by Tracy Clark-Flory
Salon
Published: December 21, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/sex/153523
OK. There are some topics I am just not brave enough to tackle in this forum.

News from the economic front:
-- The European Central Bank (ECB) allotted €489.19B (US$639.96B) in the first of two anticipated three-year refinancing operations, in a sign that banks expect other sources of funding to remain tight through 2012. The ECB indicated they allotted the three-year loans to 523 banks. The amount is reportedly the largest for a longer-term refinancing operation and the longest maturity ever offered by the central bank.

L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- The former controller of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, Enrica Cotellessa-Pitz, 53, pleaded guilty to conspiracy, falsifying records, and making false filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission. She faces up to 50 years in prison, and joins another confessed Madoff accomplice, 66-year-old David L. Kugel.

Comments and contributions from Update no.522:
Comment to the Blog:
“I will admit that the whole ‘sexting’ uproar horrifies me. Not the act, which apparently is not especially common anyhow. What horrifies me is the notion that teenagers can be convicted of a crime and labeled sex offenders simply because they are sexual beings. When a person takes and sends pictures of herself (or himself) to a sexual partner, how is that ‘exploitation’? If I took such a picture of a young girl and sold it or misused it somehow, that would be exploitation. If she takes it and sends it to someone about whom she cares, that’s part of her relationship. Claiming she has exploited someone is utter nonsense and can be safely ignored. Sexting is indeed naïve, at least in some cases; some boys (it’s usually boys) will show pictures of their nude girlfriend(s) to their dimwit buddies, whether the pictures appear on a phone, on the Internet, or on paper. A very few of those receiving pictures will find ways to sell them, which can cause real harm to the person pictured. Ever since the invention of cameras, some girls have suffered from the abuse of their pictures. These sexting laws do not punish the abusers; they punish the naïve. The fact is those laws punish young people for admitting to having a sexual life. Certainly, the punishment far exceeds the ‘crime.’ The label of ‘sex offender’ damages the person for more than the abuse of the picture and again these laws punish the victim, not the offender.
“I share your view of the Victorian-era model of marriage as outmoded. My views in this are colored by having survived as a child in my parents’ ‘’til death do us part’ marriage. Nobody who witnessed it can explain to me why they did not divorce or simply leave, and I came to believe that marriage should be considered much more carefully than is usually the case.
“I see no way to believe that the public will ever have accurate knowledge about the downing of the US drone in Iran. I will not speculate on that.
“Perhaps the Justice Department could divert some funds from the pursuit of next year’s pot crop to use for an investigation of Wall Street et al. We can find room in Federal prisons for at least a few hundred bankers, brokers and politicians. I do not share your pessimism about convicting Members of Congress. Residents of Louisiana and Illinois know very well that Governors can be made to do time. US Representatives and Senators can be prosecuted just as well and can also live out the Beretta theme, “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.”
“Apparently the SEC has dropped the ball on another settlement. Here’s an opportunity for another judge to serve the cause of justice by disallowing this crime.”
My response to the Blog:
Re: “sexting.” Very well said. I see little difference between a betrayal of confidence regardless of the medium. The “injury” to the naïve as you say is the expectation society creates that 1.) children (<18yo) cannot be sexual, and 2.) nudity is shameful. These are holdover notions from the Victorian-era morality. Punishing a minor for being sexual is tantamount to punishing a child for being human.
Re: “marriage.” We share the same view. Looking at unhappy marriages inevitably brings me to question the unreasonable, societal expectation of marriage as though it is some magical domain of happily ever after. Marriage is not particularly difference from a business contract, and yet we rely upon “love” for the decision rather than due diligence.
Re: “drone.” True, we may never know what happened . . . at least for the next 20-50 years, until the information is declassified.
Re: “prosecution of bankers.” Very well said again. Truth be told, the damage done by “flexible underwriting standards,” sub-prime mortgage lending, bundled mortgage-based securities and their associated derivatives, et al ad infinitum ad nauseum, did orders of magnitude more damage to the American economy, the World economy, and countless numbers of citizens than psychotropic substance consumption will ever do; but, we throw the pot-head in prison and let the bankers walk away with their millions & billions of ill-gotten gains. It just ain’t right!
Re: “SEC settlement.” Unfortunately, we simply do not have enough judges like Jed Rakoff. The alternative would be a law that specifically prohibits out of court settlements in financial malfeasance cases.

Another contribution:
“Allegedly our Lost UAV in IRAN had RTB and it didn't work, looking at the picture of what the Iranians had does not look as big as other pictures I have seen of the 170, don't suppose we sent them a Trojan horse to give them some more Stuxnet in other computer systems and Data Bases. Interesting to see what comes out of this.”
My reply:
The Return-To-Base (RTB) program we tested extensively in the simulator and on the AV05 ADFCS demonstrator was integral to the system. You would have to precisely hack a closed, redundant, digital system to circumvent it. The intent of the RTB mode was recovery of a single pilot LHX in the event of pilot incapacitation – part of the whole single seat objective. It was impressive and that was 1986.
Re: Trojan Horse. Oh my! I had not considered that actually. Great scenario though. Give ‘em something that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but is actually a carrier of the real weapon – Stuxnet II, or Super Stuxnet. They tap the software and off it goes. Nice. Nonetheless, we may not know for several decades what really happened.

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

Update no.522

2011-12-19T06:27:00.002-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.522

12.12.11 – 18.12.11

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

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- At 13:15 [C] {04:15 [S] CST}, Thursday, 15.December.2011, General Lloyd James Austin III, U.S. Army, Commanding General United States Forces – Iraq, cased the colors at a ceremony in Baghdad, Iraq, as United States officially ended Operation NEW DAWN [455] and the Battle for Iraq. After the sanctions of both the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [PL 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498] and UN Resolution 1441, the battle began on 19.March.2003, with Operation IRAQI FREEDOM [069], which in turn closed and transitioned on 31.August.2010. {8 years, 8 months, 23 days; 4,487 KIA; 32,326 WIA; US$832B in treasure}

Child pornography and sexual abuse are extraordinarily sensitive, volatile and explosive issues, as rightly they should be. Unfortunately, sometimes our emotions short-circuit our reasoning and cloud our judgment. A friend and long-time contributor to this humble forum sent along the link to this article that re-opened the question. I presume there was foreknowledge that it would trigger my curiosity; so it did.
“Sex-Crazed Maniacs or Innocents? On the Media's Hysterical Reaction to Teen Sexuality – Another media panic about teen sex has been contradicted by an actual study”
by Tracy Clark-Flory
Salon
Published: December 7, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/sex/153353
The article provided links to two different articles and led into a recent study of teen sexting – the practice of sending text or images with sexual content via electronic media. The study at issue was:
“The True Prevalence of ‘Sexting’”
by Kaitlin Lounsbury, Kimberly J. Mitchell & David Finkelhor
Crimes against Children Research Center
University of New Hampshire
Published: April 2011
http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/Sexting Fact Sheet 4_29_11.pdf
The Lounsbury assessment reviewed and summarized the five other known studies related to the question of sexting among minor children. They concluded and advised, “[T]here are no consistent and reliable findings at this time to estimate the true prevalence of the problem [i.e., minor child sexting].” The caution applies not just to the Press, but to all legislators (federal to local) tempted to pass more laws “to defend our children.” We have too many intrusive laws as it is; we do not need more. My reviews of both higher court rulings in the case against Michael Williams remain valid and applicable in this topic [Update number in trailing brackets, if you wish to review].
United States v. Williams [11CCA no. 04-15128 (2006)] [308]
United States v. Williams [553 U.S. ___ (2008)] [338]
The 11th Circuit got it right; the Supremes did not. Nonetheless, my collateral reading sought to put the Lounsbury study in some form of perspective and took me into the law. Like most well-intentioned, noble causes, the first law specifically prohibiting child pornography – Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977 [PL 95-225; 92 Stat. 7 (6.February.1978)] – began with interstate transportation or transmission of sexually explicit material involving children (<18 years old). A progression of laws ensued and expanded the reach of the Federal government, and culminated in the law at issue in Williams – Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act) [PL 108-021; 117 Stat. 650 (30.April.2003)]. It was buried in the Finding section of the PROTECT Act that got me fired up. Title V, Subtitle A, §501 – Findings [117 Stat. 650, 676], item (12) states, “ Child pornography results from the abuse of real children by sex offenders; the production of child pornography is a byproduct of, and not the primary reason for, the sexual abuse of children.” Then, in §502 – Improvements To Prohibition on Virtual Child Pornography [117 Stat. 650, 678], based on the Findings, Congress expanded the law to make sexting punishable as child pornography, and prosecutors have not hesitated to use the law. This is where I use the Italian admonition – Basta! I appreciate the motives of Congress and their noble purpose of protecting our children, but the government cannot and should not supersede the responsibility and accountability of parents, and carving away more and more of our precious freedom, even in the name of such a noble purpose is simply not acceptable and otherwise intolerable. It is long past the time we must shed the Victorian-era morality that is the basis of laws like the PROTECT Act. The times they are a-changin’. Beyond the obvious, this perhaps peripheral issue probably does not affect us. Well, as is so often the case, oppression comes from obtuse directions and myriad disguises. Permanently branding a 12-year-old child as a sex offender or worse a sexual predator simply because they send a sexually suggestive text message or digital image to another 12-year-old is excessive, and just flat wrong. Sexting is not a crime. If anything, it is a failure of parenting. We must get the government out of our private lives.

Finally, we have a definitive inside view of the corruption and obscene hypocrisy that has plagued Congress for several decades.
“McCaskill-led earmark probe finds $834 million in requests”
by Kimberly Kindy
Washington Post
Published: December 10, 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mccaskill-led-earmark-probe-finds-834-million-in-requests/2011/12/08/gIQAl0MrlO_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines
The McCaskill study dealt with only one piece of legislation – H.R.1540, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. They identified 115 earmarks, totaling US$834M million in unrequested, new spending. The study offered numerous specific examples, most of which were cleverly masqueraded in implied helpful words. This is just one bill, but it reflects on how mutated, compromised and contaminated our political process has become.

“Married couples at a record low”
by Carol Morello
Washington Post
Published: December 13, 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/married-couples-at-a-record-low/2011/12/13/gIQAnJyYsO_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines
A definition of insanity is continuing to do what we have always done and expecting a different outcome. The Victorian-era notion of marriage has prevailed within the United States for more than a century. We can discuss and argue the basis for those expectations, standards and guidelines. Let it suffice to say, the environment that produced those expectations no longer has any relevance to contemporary life. As I have said more than a few times, over a wide variety of social issues, we need to grow up. Just because something was appropriate for our great grand parents does not inherently mean it is appropriate for us. We must rationally adjust to the world in which we live rather than carry on some lame desire to preserve what was done more than a hundred years ago. So it is here.

First, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) claimed to have shot down an American RQ-170 drone. Then, they decided, no they did not shoot it down, rather their superior electronic technology took control of a CIA-operated, RQ-170 Sentinel spy drone and forced it to make a belly landing in the eastern Iranian desert. As expected, the U.S. government has said very little publicly other than to acknowledge the loss of a drone along the Afghan-Iranian border. The IRI Revolutionary Guard displayed what they claimed was the highly classified, flying wing, stealth drone. I doubt the IRI claims. I am also disappointed that such sensitive machines do not have autonomous return to base flight guidance systems (that were demonstrated 25 years ago) or self-destruct systems to prevent compromise of advanced technology. Oh well, let’s just give this technology to Russia and China, and avoid all this in-between nonsense.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed civil suit (the SEC has no authority to file criminal charges) against six former Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae executives over false disclosures they made about subprime loans. Named in the legal action were: Freddie Mac former CEO Richard Syron, former executive vice president Patricia Cook, and former senior vice president Donald Bisenius; and, Fannie Mae former CEO Daniel Mudd, former chief risk officer Enrico Dallavecchia, and former executive vice president Thomas Lund. The SEC complaint states, “This action arises out of a series of materially false and misleading public disclosures.” The agency seeks unspecified damages against the defendants. The Justice Department is reportedly still considering criminal charges against the executives.

Just a footnote: I doubt we will see any civil or criminal charges against Members of Congress that enabled and encouraged the “flexible underwriting standards.” [521] Those perpetrators or at least contributors to the economic crisis and collapse of the housing market will claim a noble purpose and no culpability; however, they are just as involved as the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives. Such is life.

News from the economic front:
-- The UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) reported on the 2008 failure of Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC (RBS), and recommended that major acquisitions by U.K. banks should be subject to regulatory approval and bank bosses should face penalties, if their institution fails. The FSA report claims RBS managers made “multiple poor decisions” when they pursued an ill-fated takeover of European lender ABN Amro in 2007 that ultimately led to a £45.5B (US$71.3B) bailout by U.K. taxpayers.
-- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) apparently reached a deal with three former executives of Washington Mutual in a civil suit, stemming from the biggest-ever U.S. bank failure. The government will reportedly recover a mere 8.3% of the US$900M lost in the bank’s failure with most of the recovery coming from insurers and the bank’s estate – not from the pockets of the former executives. Again, there is no sign of criminal charges from the Justice Department, yet. The deal would mark another setback for the government in a high-profile, financial-crisis-related case. It is most unfortunate there are not more judges like Jed Rakoff [520]. These guys bought their way out of prison. WTF, as the kids say.
-- The U.S. Federal Reserve Open Market Committee voted 9-1 to keep the bank's easy-credit policies unchanged for the second meeting in a row and offered an assessment of the economy that was guardedly more upbeat, but still marked by “significant downside risks.”

Comments and contributions from Update no.521:
Comment to the Blog:
“I’m glad your team won.
“I think your source, Stan Liebowitz, has a bit of a misplaced focus. According to his professional web page http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/ , Mr. or Dr. Liebowitz is a professor of economics at the University of Texas, but his listing of courses taught matches his list of available papers, which he describes as “articles relating to file-sharing and intellectual property issues, path dependence, network externalities, and the Justice Department investigation of Microsoft,” none of which deals with macro-level economics. The issue I have is that his analysis does not follow the big money. I would not excuse local bankers for selling mortgages to people who could never afford to pay and never claimed that ability. I would also never absolve Congress for passing laws damaging to all of us except the biggest bankers. However, those are effects, not causes. The cause is too-big-to-fail banks inventing increasingly complex, risky, and profitable financial instruments. That’s where the big profits from those mortgages went, and also the big-money bailout the bankers counted on to force the government to assume the risk. Of course, I have no issue with any of these parties replacing drug users and prostitutes in prisons.
“My central source on economics lately is Simon Johnson, who has been the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and is currently a professor of economics at Sloan School of Management, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute, and a member of the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) Panel of Economic Advisors. I recommend his book 13 Bankers and his blog Baseline Scenario.
“I wonder whether Standard and Poor’s and their competitors have an appropriate place in rating sovereign debt. Beyond the fact that their measurement systems are geared to corporate offerings and fit poorly with the conditions of governments, an additional issue is their role in the economic collapse. Those junky mortgages we’re discussing were packaged and the packages received ratings from S & P and their brethren that convinced investors they were sound investments. Said ratings were based mostly on the fact that the people selling the packages being rated paid for the rating service in a competitive market; the ratings were as poor quality as the securities themselves. More candidates for beds in the Federal prison system.
“I wonder what has slowed the Chinese economy. Perhaps their customers in the US and the EU are just not buying anything recently. Huawei, the Chinese telecom company serving the Iran government, shows good business sense in limiting their exposure to the drama of radical government.
“I did not mean to excuse anyone in my comment from last week. The point of my comment was pretty much exactly what you said: the bankers saw terrible risks as benign. “Willful blindness” is a legal term which essentially means, “you’re liable whether or not you admit to knowing what you should have known.” The purpose of reading the book is to understand and to know what to guard against, both in one’s own conduct and in working with others. Willful blindness is an important force in people’s actions in general, not just on Wall Street, in Congress, or at your local mortgage lender.”
My response to the Blog:
Thx mate . . . always nice to win. Eventually, we will lose. An awesome rivalry among comrades.
I would encourage you to read the Liebowitz essay. He does not let the bankers off the hook, but they were not the root cause of the mortgage meltdown; the greedy bastards just sought to profit on whatever happened. We are in agreement on “too big to fail”; break up the big banks using the Sherman Antitrust Act [PL 51-190; 26 Stat. 209] to end the grip those banks have on the U.S., and return to the separations delineated in the Banking Act of 1933 [PL 73-066; 48 Stat. 162]. I just do not think we can lay the blame for the mortgage meltdown on the big banks.
I will look for Simon Johnson’s work.
Amen! All three primary rating agencies gave those mortgage-based securities their highest ratings, which certainly tainted their processes and judgment. The rating agencies were culpable as enablers of the meltdown.
Re: Huawei & Iran. I would like to think the Chinese felt the pressure of the world community. Who knows their reason? It is still a good sign.
Re: “Willful Blindness.” Indeed! Spot on! ‘Nuf said.
. . . round two:
“The too big to fail banks clearly do not bear sole responsibility, but they were the driving factor.”
. . . my response to round two:
Re: “the driver.” I just do not see it. I could accept “major” factor. They are certainly culpable, as I expect we will see in the outcome of SEC v. Citigroup. I still put most of the weight at the individual level, with the Federal government very close behind. The banks sought to make a profit on the tragedy.
. . . round three:
“You'll see it if you follow the money. That simplifies many things, including this crash.”
. . . my response to round three:
I’ll keep looking.

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

Update no.521

2011-12-12T02:18:00.002-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.521

5.12.11 – 11.12.11

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

To all,

Whew! That was too close. Navy 27 – Army 21. The tenth consecutive victory. I offer my condolences to my honourable and courageous cousins – Greg, USMA ’74, Colonel U.S. Army (retired), and Sandy, USMA ’78, Lieutenant Colonel U.S. Army (retired). God bless you both for your service to this Grand Republic. But, that does not alter history – Go Navy, Beat Army.

The follow-up news items:
-- Almost five years after the terrible fire during restoration, the repair and renewal of the historic RMS Cutty Sark [285, 330, 355] progressed nearly to conclusion. The Queen is expected to officially open the ship for tourism at the end of next April. Congratulations to the recovery/restoration team and the British People for saving the historic ship for posterity.

A friend and regular contributor sent along this essay on the mortgage meltdown:
“Anatomy of a Train Wreck – Causes of the Mortgage Meltdown”
by Stan J. Liebowitz
The Independent Institute
Published: October 3, 2008
As would be expected in a comprehensive assessment of a complex issue, Liebowitz illuminates the major players from Congress and the law, to real estate speculators, the mortgage lending industry, and of course the investment bankers who packaged and sold contaminated mortgages as solid investments. He clearly places considerable emphasis on the enabling influence of “flexible underwriting standards.” It took me longer than usual to track down the genesis of that relaxation in the law. Depending upon how we perceive congressional action, we could stretch back to 1934, or perhaps 1968. Liebowitz leans toward 1977 and the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977 [PL 95-128; 91 Stat. 1111], well actually, the Act’s Title VIII – Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) [91 Stat. 1147] – that placed emphasis on home ownership in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. After CRA, Congress began to apply pressure on mortgage brokers and lenders to increase home ownership within the low end of the family income spectrum. However, as he notes, the so-called housing bubble began to form with the passage of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 [PL 102-550; 106 Stat. 3672] with several succeeding laws to further coax mortgage lenders to loosen their underwriting guidelines and expand homeownership among low income citizens and other racial groups. Those who questioned the loosening of underwriting standards, even for a noble cause of social equity, ran the risk of being labeled racist – such is our political environment. Liebowitz noted with data that the mortgage market softened and began to sour in the 3rd quarter of 2006. As noted in SEC v. Citigroup [520], the bankers began conniving schemes to pass their risk off to unsuspecting investors. As disgusting punctuation on this progressively degenerative process, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 [PL 110–289; 122 Stat. 2654] that included Division A; Title I; Sec. 1129 (euphemistically titled:) Duty to Serve Underserved Markets [122 Stat. 2703], which stated: “each enterprise shall provide leadership to the market in developing loan products and flexible underwriting guidelines to facilitate a secondary market for mortgages for very low-, low-, and moderate-income families”; the bill was signed into law 30.July.2008, less than two months prior to the collapse and two years after the market began to deteriorate. Liebowitz concluded, “These ‘innovations’ [enabled by flexible guidelines], heralded as such by regulators, politicians, GSEs, and academics, are the true culprits responsible for the mortgage meltdown.” He went on to note, “The main driver of foreclosures was adjustable-rate loans, both prime and subprime,” largely due to over-extended speculators, rather than bona fide homeowners. I concluded from this review that we have a prime example of what can happen when a well-intentioned Congress attempts to strong-arm the marketplace beyond reasonable and responsible conduct, even for the noblest of causes.

News from the economic front:
-- Standard & Poor's Rating Services placed 15 euro-zone nations on negative credit watch, citing tightening credit conditions and disagreements among European policy makers on how to tackle the region's immediate and long-term economic challenges. Six of those 15 countries have S&P’s highest, triple-A rating: Germany, France, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Luxembourg. The decision to put the countries on negative credit watch means there is a 50% probability that their credit ratings may be downgraded within 90 days. Europe’s travails continue.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported some European central banks have started making contingency plans for the possibility that one or more countries might leave the euro zone, or the entire currency union might break apart entirely. Apparently, the central banks are considering how to resuscitate national currencies based on bank notes that haven’t been printed since the first euros went into circulation in January 2002. Given the stresses on the European Union, it would be irresponsible not to have contingency plans developed, tested and ready to execute, but the existence of such plans does not represent an expectation that the euro zone is headed for dissolution.
-- On Thursday, the European Central Bank cut its benchmark refinancing rate by 0.25% to a historic low of 1.0%, fully reversing its increases earlier this year.
-- Further signs of economic stress illuminate the horizon. The European Banking Authority (EBA) announced that European banks must come up with a total of €114.7B in new capital by next June, as a result of its latest stress test. The capital shortfalls are spread across more than 30 of 71 banks in 12 countries. The affected banks must raise the necessary capital by shedding assets, retaining profits, selling shares or other means. Individual banks must inform their national regulators by 20.January, about how they intend to come up with the funds.
-- The PRC’s National Bureau of Statistics reported the country’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose 4.2% in November from a year earlier, sharply slower than a 5.5% year-to-year rise in October.
-- The summit of European Union (EU) leaders failed to achieve consensus among 27 member-states to changes in the EU treaty, enabling tighter fiscal coordination within the EU, with leaders still deeply divided over key elements of their credit crisis strategy. The leaders apparently decided they would take steps to forge an agreement among at least 23 of the members to tighten rules on national fiscal policy. The UK and Hungary backed out, and Sweden and the Czech Republic essentially abstained. Many believe that an agreement that did not include all 27 EU countries would be fatally weak, even if all 17 members of the euro zone agreed.
-- As previously reported [515], the Chinese telecommunications-equipment maker Huawei Technologies has been providing services to Iranian government-controlled telecom operators, enabling Iranian police to use mobile network technology to trace and arrest dissidents. On Friday, Shenzhen-based Huawei company announced they will “voluntarily restrict its business development there by no longer seeking new customers and limiting its business activities with existing customers.” The company said it was making the move due to the “increasingly complex situation in Iran.”

The Blago Scandal [365]:
-- U.S. District Judge James Block Zagel of Illinois, Northern District, sentenced convicted felon and former governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich to 14 years in federal prison. We do not know if he intends to appeal. We can only hope that he slips quietly into the dark night.

Comments and contributions from Update no.520:
Comment to the Blog:
“For the ‘how could they?’ aspect of both Citigroup and the SEC, I again heartily recommend Margaret Heffernan’s book Willful Blindness. I suspect that most of these people never understood even a fraction of the damage they did. I commend Judge Rakoff for getting their attention. I hope that more bankers pay the prices for their choices and I wish that the SEC regulators could receive their share of the prison time. The bankers in their greed and the regulators in their laxity have done far more damage to society than the potheads currently populating our prisons. TV shows including but not limited to 60 Minutes have the opportunity to play an important role in society by bringing awareness of this corruption to ordinary people, and I appreciate 60 Minutes for their leadership.
“Partly as a follow-up to last week’s discussion, I will point out that if you buy a dog, you are responsible for any damage it does to others’ persons or property. Why should banks be excused the damage done by politicians they own?
“We shall see what we shall see in Iran. As you pointed out, nobody was detained or harmed this time, which is a sign of miniscule progress. I hope that this time the US will support a response by the entire Westernized world rather than repeat our antics in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pakistan would be another good place to avoid getting stuck, but I’m afraid we’ve already made our bed there and must lie in it.
“I am glad you mention China regularly in your economic items. Many in the US seem to have forgotten China’s existence, and they are a major player in the world’s economy and politics.”
My response to the Blog:
I would not give those bankers the out of being ignorant. I think they knew precisely what they were doing, but in their voracious, insatiable appetite for massive profits, they saw such risks in rather benign terms, i.e., real estate value has always gone up, it will always go up, therefore minimal risk.
I am currently researching the legislative genesis of “flexible underwriting guidelines . . . for very low-, low-, and moderate-income families.” I hope to have more information in this week’s Update . . . if I can get ‘er done.
Last Sunday’s 60 Minutes program was very well done and quite descriptive. I highly recommend watching it via the URLs, if you didn’t see the original broadcast.
I am not so such your dog-politician analogy is appropriate. Nonetheless, point taken.
The fact that no one was injured or detained does not excuse or lessen the severity of the Iranian Basij violation of British sovereignty. I do not see the necessity of the U.S. taking unilateral action in Iran. I suspect Israel has an order of magnitude lower threshold of tolerance regarding the antics of the mad mullahs in Iran. We have debated the Iraq & Afghanistan; I do not see any rationale for altered positions.
Anyone who ignores the PRC does so at their peril. They are and will be for the foreseeable future a force to be reckoned.

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

Update no.520

2011-12-05T04:48:00.002-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.520

28.11.11 – 4.12.11

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

To all,

No news is good news. Progress continues.

With the thought of hearing another opinion from a qualified citizen, I urge everyone to watch the video via the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ
University of Iowa Student Zach Wahls, 19, spoke about the strength of his family during a public forum in the Iowa House of Representatives on House Joint Resolution 6. He concluded, “The sexual orientation of my parents has had zero effect on the content of my character.” We can all learn from young Zach.

On Monday, United States District Judge Jed Saul Rakoff, Southern District of New York, rejected a US$285M Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Consent Judgment against Citigroup Global Markets Inc., in the case of SEC v. Citigroup [USDC NY SD case 1:11-cv-07387-JSR (2011)]. The judge had some choice words for both the offenders and the regulators. He condemned the SEC’s practice and penchant of seeking out-of-court settlements, to avoid trial, which in turn hides the truth from We, the People. To paint the background . . . in early 2007, as the mortgage-backed securities market weakened, Citigroup created a billion-dollar Fund (known as “Class V Funding III”) that allowed it to dump some dubious assets on misinformed investors. They accomplished this by misrepresenting the Fund's assets as attractive investments rigorously selected by an independent investment adviser. Then, at the pinnacle of deceit, cynicism, hypocrisy and arrogance, Citigroup took a short position against those very assets it had helped select; in essence, the supposedly stalwart bank bet on the failure of the instruments they created and duped their customers into buying. To quote the judge, “Citigroup realized net profits of around US$160M, whereas the investors, as the S.E.C. later revealed, lost more than US$700M.” This is not capitalism; it is fraud, conspiracy, and theft (or more accurately, highway robbery with a transaction rather than pistols). I am certain the wizards at Citigroup saw nothing unethical or immoral about their Class V Funding III brain-fart. Judge Rakoff concluded, “[T]he proposed Consent Judgment is neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest.” Other than that Missus Lincoln, how did you like your investment? The judge went on to note, “An application of judicial power that does not rest on facts is worse than mindless, it is inherently dangerous. The injunctive power of the judiciary is not a free roving remedy to be invoked at the whim of a regulatory agency, even with the consent of the regulated. If its deployment does not rest on facts – cold, hard, solid facts, established either by admissions or by trials – it serves no lawful or moral purpose and is simply an engine of oppression.” I suspect the evidence to be presented in court will be far more damning than anything our vivid imaginations could possibly conjure up. If convicted of their crimes, I expect the wrath of the Judiciary will be far more punitive than the paltry US$285M offered up by the SEC – supposedly the regulators empowered to protect us from the connivance of greedy men. I would like to see more of these damnable bank executives join their buddy Bernie for three hot’s and a cot, and a lengthy stay as our guest to contemplate the error of their ways. Thank you, Judge Rakoff. Let the facts speak for themselves.

How timely . . . on Sunday, CBS News 60 Minutes program broadcast two segments titled: “Prosecuting Wall Street.” The first segment was a virtual Press indictment of the former CEO of Countrywide Financial, Angelo R. Mozilo [358]. The second segment was like a background piece about the Citigroup mortgage situation and indirectly reflects upon the court case noted above.
Part 1:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7390540n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox
Part 2:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7390542n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox
There is hope the bastards will pay the price for their crimes.

On Tuesday, 29.November, 20 Iranian “students” “overwhelmed” the local police “guarding” the British embassy in Tehran to protest tightening sanctions against their country. As Yogi said, “It's déjà vu all over again” – 32 years hence, 4.Nov.1979. None of the British diplomats or support staff were harmed or detained. The British did not take kindly to the violation of their international sovereignty as they ordered their embassy personnel to evacuate and also ordered the Iranian diplomatic personnel to leave the United Kingdom within 48 hours. Various intelligence sources indicate the “protesters” were actually plain-clothes members of the Basij militia task force. The paramilitary Basij (formally, Basij-e Mostaz'afin = “Mobilization of the Oppressed”) is a sister unit of the Quds Force under the command of the Revolutionary Guards, all under the direct authority of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. There is little doubt in my little pea brain that the attack on the British embassy was approved, sanctioned and ordered by the Iranian religious hierarchy. Iran continues its inexorable journey toward the precipice of the abyss. So be it!

On Monday, the Pakistani Telecommunications Authority (PTA) banned a list of 1,600 “obscene” words, most in English, from being used in text-messages and ordered the nation’s wireless service providers to block texts with these words. So much for privacy. Further, if the government can do this, what is the next step in their intrusion on the lives of individual citizens? Further, what public purpose is served by such an action? This is one of myriad reasons we must defend freedom with our lives, if necessary. We must also remain ever vigilant for those forces who seek to impose upon our Liberty and private affairs.

News from the economic front:
-- The People's Bank of China announced their intention to cut its reserve requirement ratio by half a percentage point, the first such cut since December 2008, after raising the ratio six times this year. The cut will take effect Dec. 5, and is aimed at raising liquidity amid global market turmoil.
-- The European Central Bank, the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the Swiss National Bank, and the U.S. Federal Reserve agreed to lower the pricing on the U.S. dollar overnight index swap instrument by 50 basis points, to shore up the global financial system as Europe's rolling debt crisis continues to trouble markets. The public announcement of the U.S. Federal Reserve stated, “The purpose of these actions is to ease strains in financial markets and thereby mitigate the effects of such strains on the supply of credit to households and businesses and so help foster economic activity.” World markets liked the move.
-- The Labor Department reported non-farm payrolls rose by 120,000 last month, with private companies adding 140,000 jobs, while the public sector -- federal, state and local governments -- shrank by 20,000 jobs. The unemployment rate, obtained by a separate survey of U.S. households, fell to 8.6% from 9.0%, the lowest level since March 2009. October's payrolls figure was revised upward to show a gain of 100,000 from a previously reported 80,000, while September was revised up to a 210,000 gain from 158,000.

Comments and contributions from Update no.519:
“I’m glad for your good medical news, and I hope you continue healing with all possible speed.
“The ‘Super Committee’ was nonsense from the beginning. Those draconian cuts, if they take place, will undoubtedly do more harm than good because of their untargeted nature, but they put off any politically unwelcome decisions until after the elections. Same old same old.
“The article on teaching good sex is a welcome breath of reality in a debate that seems to be largely based on paranoid nonsense. I certainly believe that sex is an important part of life and, thus, should be taught as more than fear of disease or unplanned pregnancy. The idea of not actually teaching anything at all (“abstinence”) scares me. If schools taught us nothing about work or about government, people would rise up in arms. Yet this equally important area of living gets no attention. Al Vernacchio is a brave man and an excellent teacher. I hope for all of our sakes that he is not the only one.
“I see the economic situations in Europe and the U.S. as largely a function of the fact that ‘too big to fail’ has yet to be addressed either here or there. Investors are not as stupid as governments and those who finance campaigns seem to think they are. Modern communication has reduced the ability of those people to lie and to distort facts unchallenged. I doubt they have adapted to that.”
My response:
Improvement continues; the pace is frustrating. Nonetheless, in comparison to what could have been, I’m in high cotton.
The Super Committee probably would have worked 70 years ago, but given the intransigent political polarization of Stoday’s Congress, perhaps you are correct. The indiscriminate nature of cross-the-board cuts will generate a whole new level of political infighting. If we thought we had political gridlock and irresponsibility before, we ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
The Victorian-era notion that sex is a duty, for procreation only, and strictly for adult, heterosexual, monogamous-for-life couples in church-sanctioned marriage continues to dictate our socially conservative laws and zealous enforcement. Until we mature as a society regarding sex, we will continue to struggle with the proper teaching of our children. I certainly agree with you with respect to Vernacchio.
I just finished reading Judge Rakoff’s ruling in SEC v. Citigroup [USDC NY SD case 1:11-cv-07387-JSR (2011)], which is a backhanded indictment of both the SEC and Citigroup; more in this week’s Update. “To big to fail” is certainly a significant symptom; however, there are much larger forces involved. It will be interesting to see what Judge Rakoff yields from the Citigroup case. There is hope, however tenuous that hope may be.
. . . round two:
“The only follow-up I have is that few economic forces are larger than “too big to fail” banks in the world’s economies. The combined size of the six largest banks dwarfs almost anything else.”
. . . my response to round two:
Valid point. However, the larger forces include the globalization of world markets and financial interaction, the tragedy of the European debt crisis, the impact of the Federal government and intransigent political situation, et cetera. There is no doubt the banks are a major part of the problem. My point is, the difficulties cannot be placed at the doorsteps of the big banks; it is just not that simple.
. . . round three:
“The biggest banks brought about financial globalization and the European debt crisis pretty much by themselves working through their tame politicians, and they have as large a hand in political polarization as anyone other than, perhaps, the Koch Brothers. The European debt crisis is less a ‘tragedy’ than a crime, even though it will probably never be prosecuted.”
. . . my response to round three:
Whoa, now, dawg! That is like saying the bank is criminally at fault because I max’ed out my credit card and cannot pay the bill; yes, they provided the rope, but I hung myself. The bank’s responsibility rests upon understanding risk and return, to protect lender assets; they are not the adult supervision for a borrower, albeit an individual or a nation-state. This is not to say that the big banks are not culpable for aspects of the crisis, but the root cause was borrowing beyond one’s ability to pay; that’s true to the home mortgage borrower in California or Florida, just as it is true for Greece, Portugal, et al.
Thank goodness Judge Rakoff ordered a trial in SEC v. Citigroup. The results derived from evidence presented in a court of law should give us a glimpse into how at least one of those banks operated prior to the crash. I suspect, based on the judge’s opinion, that the picture will not be pretty and will most likely be very ugly and disgusting. Nonetheless, let’s call a spade a spade; greed is not limited to the big banks.
. . . round four:
“The history of financial-market globalization involves bankers re-writing or repealing regulations that are passed by legislators whose campaigns are financed by bankers. The ‘too big to fail’ bankers specifically caused the crashes in the U.S. and Europe by knowingly taking far too much risk in the certainty they would be bailed out. The people selling the mortgages must take a large share of the blame for the housing mess; many of those mortgages were sold deceptively to people the mortgage bankers knew very well would be unable to pay the mortgage. Such financial creations as ‘interest only’ mortgages are proof of that. People who make a living by their expertise must take responsibility for the abuse of that expertise. What people failed to acknowledge was that many billions of dollars in mortgages were created for the sole purpose of packaging into high-risk derivatives. When all that risk caused the crash, almost every American was harmed to some extent by the bailout, by the drop in all housing values, and by the economic ripples. The important exception to that harm is most of the bankers who caused the crash, who are still making big money. A fairly similar situation is now in the ‘crash’ stage in Europe.
“The bank is not at fault if you knowingly maxed out your credit card, but if the banker made a great effort to sell you twice the mortgage you could afford and you trusted his expertise and his honesty, he has abused his expertise and your trust. He should be liable to a reasonable degree in a civil matter at the very least. And as a group, the ‘too big to fail’ banks should be held accountable to national governments for their knowing destruction of the economies of multiple countries.”
. . . my response to round four:
We are not in disagreement; “too big to fail” is an anathema in any free or even regulated market society. I still believe the Sherman Antitrust Act [PL 51-190; 26 Stat. 209; 2.July.1890] should be used to break up the “too big to fail” banks . . . at least the separation of the banking, investment and underwriting segments. No commercial venture should be beyond the reach of market forces.
I believe you are implying that banks should be the financial nannies for ill-informed, incompetent, ignorant, greedy or wishful borrowers. If so, then we shall respectfully disagree. The law requires lenders to inform borrowers of the terms & conditions, and their rights regarding any lending instrument. Were their banks or mortgage lenders who violated those laws? Yes! Many of those lenders do not exist anymore. Some are those very same “too big to fail” banks, as noted in various Press exposés on fraudulent loan papers. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Some have been or are being prosecuted. The reason I keep returning to Judge Rakoff . . . it is first instance I am aware of that those banking practices will be examined under judicial rules of evidence in a public court room. Nonetheless, I cannot make that jump . . . this is all the fault of the big banks. Individual contribution, responsibility and accountability must be included in any culpability discussion / debate, in my humble opinion.

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

Update no.519

2011-11-28T17:48:00.002-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.519

21.11.11 – 27.11.11

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

To all,
I completed my two-week, post-op, follow-up appointment on Wednesday. Good news! Adjacent, left-side, lymph nodes – clear, normal tissue {recall: right-side tissue clear [512]; right-side, lymph nodes not removed}. Prostate margins clear, except for one “microscopic spot that was indeterminate” – not perfect, but about as close as one can get short of being perfect. Doc said surgery went well, per the plan; results were good, no complications; in his opinion, the indeterminate spot will be OK. My next follow-up check is scheduled for 28.December, which will include my first post-op PSA and a good clue whether the “spot” will be a concern.

The follow-up news items:
-- On Monday, 21.November, the so-called Super Committee – actually, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, per Title IV of the Budget Control Act of 2011 {PL 112-025} [503, 504] – publicly announced their failure to reach an agreement. What a shock! Is anyone really surprised? So now, by law, the more draconian 10% across the board budget cuts will take effect in the FY2013 appropriations, in the middle of a war and economic stagnation.

A rather long article that is worth your time, attention, contemplation and public debate:
“Teaching Good Sex”
by Laurie Abraham
New York Times
Published: November 16, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/magazine/teaching-good-sex.html
For those of us with grown children, the article is perhaps moot; however, it is our generation that makes and enforces laws. Needless to say, I think we need many more Al Vernacchios, and much less abstinence-only dicta from Congress. I certain support parental right and responsibility to teach their children abstinence-only, if that is their choice. Yet, I also think it is unnatural to deny human physiology and biology in the reality of puberty. Someday, we will mature as a society.

News from the economic front:
-- In yet another shock to the world financial system, Germany sought to issue €6B (US$8.1B) of 10-year bonds, but only sold €3.64B at an average yield of 1.98%. The disappointing sale highlighted how the euro zone's debt crisis is rattling investors as it spreads from weaker states to the bloc's core economies. A representative of the Danske Bank said the bond auction was a "disaster" and reflected investors' deep distrust of the euro project, rather than aversion to German government bonds.
-- The Fitch ratings firm downgraded Portugal's credit rating from triple-B-minus to double-B-plus, with a negative outlook, citing its high debts and poor economic prospects. Lisbon seeks to reduce its budget deficit as part of a €78B (US$104B) bailout package.
-- The Italian treasury sold €8B (US$10.7B) of six-month treasury bills at an average yield of 6.504%, nearly double the rate in the last equivalent auction. The government also sold €2B of 24-month zero-coupon bonds at an average yield of 7.814%. The Italian auction of underscores the challenge new Prime Minister Mario Monti faces to restore the country's fiscal health, in the dark shadow of soaring short-term borrowing costs and €1.9T in debt (120% of GDP).
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that under a proposed European Union (EU) plan, national governments would create bilateral agreements that would not take as long as a laborious changes to EU treaties. Some German and French officials fear that treaty changes could take far too long. Euro-zone authorities seek new powers to enforce fiscal discipline in the 17 countries that make up the euro zone, as they struggle to convince investors they can resolve the region's debt crisis and keep the currency area from fracturing.

Comments and contributions from Update no.518:
Comment to the Blog:
“I agree that feeling and functioning progressively better is a good sign for recovery. I will keep my fingers crossed for your results on Wednesday.
“I had no awareness of the USS Liberty incident until I read your report. I am surprised that I did not know. I find Israel strange. The institutionalized paranoia there and the blind support of the US make it one of the odder players on the world stage, and it is a dangerous force. The fact that the Liberty attack has remained largely unknown might lead to questioning of the entire US-Israel relationship if it became known to the public at large. I doubt that will happen. My guess as to the purpose of the report is that it satisfies either a political obligation or some bureaucratic process. Unless I see TV news stories about this issue, I will not expect any action from the government.
“I share your desire for the rule of law rather than public opinion in the Penn State mess. There is some chance that objective law will prevail, but that is by no means a given. In the meantime, a curious side note. The Penn State football team played our local heroes, Ohio State, this Saturday. The loss of the coaching staffers seems to have been overcome very quickly. Penn State played very well and won.
“On the child sexual exploitation issue, I would rather you had linked to the academic study than to Mr. Kristof’s op-ed piece. Op-ed is a place for opinions, and certainly Mr. Kristof’s writing does not rise above that level. The tone of the piece leaves me in doubt of anything he says. He gives nothing that might illuminate the true scope of the issue, the damage to the children, or anything other than the story that moves him. (Does he make a paycheck by being so moved?) The academic study has more to offer by its very nature. An academic study must give its methods and its sources of information, which may then be evaluated for their information value or lack thereof. A truly legitimate study will give the backgrounds of its investigators, their roles in the study, and especially the source(s) of funding. Funding for a study such as this could come from an objective source, but it could also originate from interested parties of any position.
“To finally address your point, I share your idea of legalizing prostitution. ‘The oldest profession’ will not go away. Consider the changes that would arise from regular inspections of people and premises by health departments and other regulators, with any noise or other law-enforcement issues handled by non-bribed police officers. Between the various regulators, human trafficking would become far more difficult, to whatever extent it exists. I suspect that all or most of that regulation could be funded by savings on law enforcement and, perhaps, a transaction tax.
“However, I doubt that legalizing prostitution would significantly reduce sexual contact by adults with children. (I confidently assume that child prostitution would remain illegal.) I do not see adult-child sex as an easiest way out or supply-and-demand type of issue. Sex is everywhere. Most sex offenders are married, and many enjoy a regular sex life with their spouses. The “presenting” issue with adults who have sex with children is attraction; they desire children as much as they do adults, sometimes much more. Of course, other deeper issues drive that attraction, and the experts continue to study the deeper factors with little progress to date in treating them.
“Another set of information I would like to obtain is the seismic maps and information your other contributor mentioned. I know only the bare beginnings of seismology, but I find it interesting and the importance seems obvious. I would appreciate any help with that. I will note that your contributor used “New Madrid” to refer to the fault line itself, not the town for which it is named. The town is located in Missouri, not Arkansas. I’ve been there; it was a nice place.”
My reply to the Blog:
The Liberty incident is a tragic event in U.S. history. An accident might have been a single strafing pass by a fighter aircraft – NOT multiple passes by multiple aircraft, followed by surface vessels firing five torpedoes and circling at close quarters in an attempt to board the ship. Many pilots and naval vessel commanders would have had to be incompetent, ignorant and otherwise blind. It was not until they knew the armed protective air cover was inbound at high speed that they broke off the attack and initiated diplomatic contact to “apologize.” The U.S. Government apparently gives Israel a pass for violent attacks on U.S. ships and sailors. Nonetheless, as I said, my point was not so much the history but rather noting the similarity with Aslan Soobzokov’s struggle – Jewish (Israeli) assassins apparently have a free pass with the U.S. Government – unprecedented in international relations, to my knowledge.
Clearly, I cannot prove my hypothesis; I do not possess the resources necessary to carry out such a comprehensive study; however, I do agree such studies are sorely needed.
All three sources – the Sandusky Press, the Penn State study, and the Kristof Op-Ed column – represent different perspectives of the same issue. My contention remains, “sunlight is the best disinfectant.” By making as much of the sex trade public, inspect-able, regulated, and open, the more isolated and hopefully identifiable the child sex trade would become, presumably making it easier to investigate and prosecute. Yet, there is no law that can defend against parents selling their 6-year-old daughter into the illegal sex trade. My point was, we can rant & rave and pass a myriad of laws condemning child sex trafficking, but that does not address the root cause; and, I will argue that such laws only exacerbate the deplorable situation (as long as the perpetrators are allowed to hide underground).
A collateral purpose in my proposal would be the refocus of Law Enforcement (LE) resources away from moral projection laws and concentration on injurious behavior that harms person or property.
Regulation of prostitution may not “significantly” reduce child trafficking, but any reduction would be good. If we did legalization / regulation properly, we would make it far more difficult to supply that segment of the sex trade. This is also an international issue – sex tourism to more complacent countries. I do not know if you are correct regarding your assessment of “most sex offenders,” but I do believe other acceptable outlets would relieve some of the pressure.
I would encourage more and deeper studies, as you say. I would advocate a broader set of definitions that go beyond the “lowest common denominator” level of our current morality laws. The Penn State study took the current law as sacrosanct, and I am not so sure. Limiting the scope will yield limited results.
I’ll try to recover those seismic charts and send them separately.

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

Update no.518

2011-11-21T05:14:00.002-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.518

14.11.11 – 20.11.11

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

To all,
I went back to work on Monday. I underestimated the difficulty, which was mostly logistical in nature. I adapted and made it through the week. Every day was progressively better, which is a good sign, to my thinking. Next Wednesday is the next big hurdle – pathology results and catheter removal.

In June 2005, the USS Liberty Veteran’s Association produced and submitted to the Secretary of the Army (in his capacity as Executive Agent for the Secretary of Defense), a document titled: “A Report: War Crimes Committed Against U.S. Military Personnel, June 8. 1967.” I believe the purpose of the report, beyond correcting the historical record, was meant to be a catalyst for a formal, public, congressional investigation and subsequent criminal prosecution of the perpetrators of an unprovoked, grievous, intentional attack on the USS Liberty (AGTR-5) while on patrol in international waters off the coast of Gaza and the Sinai, by air and naval forces of Israel. The attack began at 14:00 [B] {12:00 [Z]; 07:00 [R] EDT} on Thursday, 8.June.1967, during the peak intensity of the Six Day War between Israel and her neighbors (Egypt, Jordan & Syria). Weather was CAVU (Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited). One sentence brings the report into clear focus: “The failure of the United States government to undertake a complete investigation of the Israeli attack on USS Liberty has resulted in grievous harm to the surviving victims, as well as to the families of all crewmembers.” The crew of Liberty consisted of 294 officers and sailors of the U.S. Navy (including three civilian advisors). The ship was a World War II cargo transport, converted to be one of the most advanced signals intelligence collection vessels of the day. The savage attack killed 34 Americans and wounded 173 (70% of the crew) during the two-hour struggle. Commander 6th Fleet ordered strike and fighter aircraft to be launched from the aircraft carriers USS America (CV-66) and USS Saratoga (CV-60) to protect Liberty, but all aircraft were recalled prior to engagement. I was a lowly midshipman when the incident occurred, and I cannot recall anyone thinking such an attack was an accident. I recount the history not for a journey down memory lane, but rather to offer another example in direct comparison to the long struggle of Aslan Soobzokov and his family to obtain justice for his murdered father from a recalcitrant government, frightened to impotence at the potential of offending Israel. You cannot kill Americans with impunity no matter who you are or how important you think you are. Aslan Soobzokov and his family deserve better from the government. The survivors of the Liberty attack deserve better.
[FYI: seven months after the Liberty incident, the USS Pueblo (AGER-2) was attacked and captured by naval forces of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) {North Korea} – historic events both, for different reasons.]

This whole Jerry Sandusky / Penn State sordid debacle has stirred up quite the hornet’s nest. Sandusky’s conduct as described in the Press leaves all of us nauseated. However, lest we forget, he has not been convicted in a court of law with the presentation of proper evidence to demonstrate his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I was trying to avoid writing about a man who the Press is portraying as an evil, vicious, pedophilic attacker. This story will play out in the Press (it seems) and the courts; I trust justice will be served. I do not support Sandusky being lynched by a riotous mob, whipped into a frenzy by a ravenous Press. He deserves his day in court. Yet, other coalescent events overcame my aversion. I recently completed reading the executive summary of a study oddly conducted at Penn State by Richard J. Estes and Neil Alan Weiner, titled: “The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in the U. S., Canada and Mexico.” The second stimulant was:
“The Face of Modern Slavery”
by Nicholas D. Kristof – Op-Ed Columnist
New York Times
Published: November 16, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/opinion/kristof-the-face-of-modern-slavery.html
I fully recognize and acknowledge the instinctive drive within every normal parent to protect their children and grandchildren from harm of any kind. Kristof uses the highly charged, emotional plight of a Cambodian child, Srey Pov, then 6-years-old, who was sold by her family to a brothel, and shortly thereafter raped, as if for sport to take her virginity [you can read the rest of the story in Kristof’s column]. Yet, as seems to be our societal penchant, Nick focuses his righteous indignation on treating the presented symptoms rather than the root cause. The same can be said of the Penn State study; there is little discussion that might lead to a more progressive, solution-based dialogue. They simply add emotional fuel to our urge of moral projection and punishment of offenders. I see the exact same forces at play in this arena as were so graphically portrayed in Ken Burns’ “Prohibition” series. When we prohibit something, we inherently force that activity underground, induce extremes, and inadvertently nurture an array of criminal enterprises that supply that demand. Child trafficking is no different. While I imagine there are true diabolical pedophiles who seek domination of children as some exaggerated demonstration of their power, I suspect most practitioners are actually after sexual gratification by the path of least resistance. I acknowledge straight-away that any generalization of human behavior is fraught with risk and mischaracterization. Nonetheless, as our grandparents did in 1933, we must recognize that freedom has a large or unpleasant side – that is the nature of Liberty. While legalization / regulation of prostitution would not totally eradicate child trafficking or child sexual abuse, I truly believe it would significantly reduce the illegal practice; 1.) it would make it much harder for the criminal element to hide, and 2.) it would provide a structure for the protection of both customer and provider. Even if prostitution was recognized by society as a noble profession, as it should be, there would still be those few who are driven to abuse children. Let us focus on the real root cause and not the symptoms.

News from the economic front:
-- The Commerce Department reported U.S. retail sales rose to US$398B, up 0.5% in October from the prior month. The data suggests that consumers may be willing to spend during the upcoming holiday shopping season. Wholesale prices fell a seasonally adjusted 0.3% in October from a month earlier.

Comments and contributions from Update no.517:
Comment to the Blog:
“I’m glad to learn that your surgery went well. Take good care of yourself.
“The voters in Mississippi have shown us that they see the fallacy of taking an idea to its most extreme expression. Here in Ohio, we defeated a law our radical legislature had passed that would have removed bargaining rights for State employees. I find myself tentatively agreeing with some of the analysts who see these developments as a rejection of extremism in general. Rulers of any sort, all the way back to the beginning of history, seem to have a tendency to lose their perspectives. The genius of representative government is that the ordinary people retain their good sense longer than the politicians. Thus, as long as the people retain the power to remove or discipline the politicians we have a chance to thrive despite the failings of our ‘leaders.’”
My reply to the Blog:
Thank you for your kind words. I will do my best to recover quickly. Thankfully, Jeanne has been taking very good care of me.
I did not have the time to research the Ohio initiative. I have mixed feelings. There is no competition in government – no check & balance. Public sector pensions tend to be far more generous than the private sector.
Well said, re: representative government. Unfortunately, we do not exercise our voting power quickly or promptly enough to my liking.

Another contribution:
“Finally taking some time to catch up on overdue communications.
“Hopefully this finds you recovering without any further surprises or complications. As if your health hasn’t been enough having to be concerned with your work welfare can’t be easy either. God speed on full recovery and getting things back to normal for not only your sake, but that of your wife and family.
“Reading of the earthquake in Oklahoma, I decided to share some information. There actually is a fault zone centered SW of OK City and from everything I’ve been able to put together, this quake really has nothing to do with New Madrid in NE Arkansas.
“There are a couple other issues that could be at hand that may have contributed to the ‘trigger’ of this fault zone. One has been discussed (fracking) and the other is the dropping of the Ogallala Aquifer. Most people do not realize that the world’s largest underground fresh water supply lies under the states of Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. This aquifer has been steadily dropping for the past 20-30 years as the drought in the upper plains (Nebraska Sand Hills, South and North Dakota), has not allowed for its replenishment. Demand and usage has significantly outweighed its replenishment. That being said, no one has yet been able to really grasp the impact on the underground structure. When you start adding this potential for cavities and spaces to be generated, along with the Hugoton natural gas fields being “fracked” it stands to reason that the natural seismic regions will begin to strain and eventually something will have to give. Anyway, these are some of the most obvious elements to the quake.
“I’ve included maps and information we use for the construction industry that shows the major seismic regions of the U.S. The most active are San Andreas (CA), Yellowstone (WY/UT), New Madrid (AR), and Charleston (SC). You will also see some minor regions across the plains (OK, Fort Riley, Yankton).”
My response:
Yeah, it’s not been an easy or comfortable few weeks. However, it appears the worst is past. The next big hurdle should come next week with the follow-up check, get the detailed pathology report, and map-out subsequent actions, if any. Each day gets better, so that is a positive sign.
The OK quake had an epicenter NW of OKC. I think we’re all in agreement – not associated with New Madrid.
Good point about the diminishing Ogallala Aquifer. Hopefully, the geologists will get this sorted out, so we know what to expect, henceforth.

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

Update no.517

2011-11-14T05:24:00.002-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.517

7.11.11 – 13.11.11

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

To all,
. . . a more detailed update to the Update [sent 11.November.2011]:
Preparation began a week prior with my pre-op registration and examination, which included blood tests and EKG, and restrictions on some vitamin supplements, alcohol, caffeine, et cetera. I was deemed healthy enough to tolerate surgery. I had nothing to eat or drink after midnight before surgery. We arrived at the hospital two hours prior to the scheduled surgery time. I was ready at 11:45. They said there was an hour delay from the 13:00 scheduled time, so we waited . . . Jeanne and Patty keeping me company. At 14:00, the surgeon came to get me and wheeled me from the preparation room to the surgical suite. He said, “Here’s the machine.” The anesthesiologist said, “Here’s an oxygen mask for you,” and I was gone . . . must’ve been something in the gas. The next thing I remember was circa 19:45 in a room of the 8th floor, surgical, recovery ward. Of course, they had me wired for sound – vital signs good, no leaks. Jeanne fed me a liquid supper before she went home to sleep. Thank you Jacy for tending the dogs. A nurse woke me up every hour to take my vital signs, which did not make for a restful sleep for me. The next morning, I checked out the aftermath of the RALP procedure – six, small incisions scattered across my lower abdomen, including one for an abdominal drain. The most discomfort seemed to come from the retention of air in my abdominal cavity that had been used to inflate my abdomen for better access to the organs in question. I took my first walkabout circa 09:00 the following morning – a little slow but acceptable. The surgeon visited at 12:30 to officially report that the surgery went well. He removed my prostate, seminal vessels, and adjacent lymph nodes; all looked good externally; however, the truth will come in the detailed pathology report, perhaps late next week, more likely to be discussed at our follow-up appointment. He declared me good to go. We arrived home at 14:30 CST on Thursday. My task now is to follow instructions precisely for the quickest possible recovery.

Two days into my convalescence, I received several text messages and telephone calls that the company laid off or gave 60-day notice to 300 employees on Friday. I was informed indirectly that I was not among the layoffs. I understand I will have a new assignment, but I will not learn officially until I return to work, hopefully Monday.

Mississippi Initiative 26 to amend the state’s constitution and define personhood under the law as “every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof,” failed 43-57%. Thank goodness! Using the law to enforce moral values is not the way we should resolve social issues. The initiative was a bad idea from the get-go. I am confident we can all agree that abortion is an important, serious issue that demands an equitable solution. This initiative was not the way to a good solution.

L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- The Washington Post reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disciplined seven agency employees over their handling of the Madoff affair. An eighth person resigned before disciplinary action could be taken. The SEC has been sharply criticized for failing to act on repeated warnings that Madoff's prominent investment business was a fraud.

Comments and contributions from Update no.516:
Comment to the Blog:
“Your earthquake story is interesting. I have already seen an article questioning whether ‘fracking’ (hydraulic fracturing) has caused earthquakes in Britain. There’s certainly logic to that; the process is designed to fracture rock layers. Also, in a TV story here in Columbus last night (11/6/2011), the Oklahoma earthquake was described as being on the New Madrid fault. Past earthquakes on that fault have been felt as far away as Boston; the past quakes have centered on New Madrid, Missouri, which is between Memphis, Tennessee, and Saint Louis, Missouri. Any way it develops, an increase in earthquakes matters a great deal to many people.
“I mostly want to encourage you to take good care of yourself. Between having surgery and your company’s changes, you will have plenty to do. Please take care of your high-priority business first; we’ll be here when you get back.
“Also, I hope Mr. Soobzokov can get some level of justice. He has had a very long road.”
My reply to the Blog:
I do not believe the New Madrid fault line runs through Oklahoma, which makes the earthquake all the more puzzling. I do not know whether they have fracking operations in Oklahoma either. They certainly have conventional oil wells. Perhaps it was a collapsed, empty, oil dome. Who knows? Hopefully, the USGS will figure it out.
Thank you for your words of encouragement. I am optimistic. In a few more days, we should have the preliminary results.
I know Aslan Soobzokov will also appreciate all the support he can gather. He and his family deserve justice.
. . . round two:
“I didn't think the New Madrid fault ran there either; I wish I'd seen the whole story or seen it repeated later. I'll get around to checking it later. Fracking was part of cable-tool oil drilling back in the 1970s and early 1980s when my older brothers were working on that here in Ohio, and apparently is still a part of fossil-fuel extraction. A large deposit of shale that bears natural gas has been discovered east of here and includes the county I come from "back home." They are having various public discussions of fracking and other drilling-related topics per the local newspaper I read online; whether and how fracking may have evolved I do not know. That one can also use further research.”
. . . my reply to round two:
The oddity of multiple earthquakes where no known fault lines exist created a valid and appropriate research topic. Our local newspaper had offered its headline:
“Scientists search for link between man and earthquakes in Oklahoma”
by Dan Voorhis
Wichita Eagle
Posted on Sat, Nov. 12, 2011
http://www.kansas.com/2011/11/12/2099938/scientists-search-for-link-between.html
A quick Google search identifies many similar articles. Like you, I look forward to the research findings.
. . . round three:
“This is interesting, and I look forward to the report that's due next spring. In the meantime, the paragraph in this story that talks about evidence of quakes elsewhere associated with injection wells appears to contradict, to some degree, the statements from industry and government that no hazard exists. This could get to be fascinating, especially in Eastern Ohio where we have a history of oil drilling and a very strong prospect for future gas drilling with the expectation of fracking. This gas deposit has been discovered recently and the drillers are still in the process of getting permission to develop fields. That makes for an interesting conflict, especially in the poorer counties of Appalachian Ohio and West Virginia.”
. . . my reply to round three:
Interesting . . . fascinating . . . all appropriate descriptors. I look forward to learning more.

Another contribution:
“Big week. I know your thought process is sound regarding your decision. I will be praying for the best and a speedy recovery. And I hope things work out for the best at work as well.
“The talk regarding the Galloping Ghost accident continues, so I will off my two cents worth which I have refrained from doing thus far. You know I have been going to the races for many years, so I offer what I hope is a reasonable perspective of the events that unfolded. The attachment contains that which I put to words a few weeks ago. I put it to words in the hopes that it would be somewhat cathartic in nature.”
My response:
Things will be what they will be, and we’ll deal with what comes. I am optimistic. The truth will come in the post-op and pathology reports.
The crash had to be horrific, especially to be so close. I’ve told a lot of folks about your consistent attendance and participation. I was very thankful to hear that you were OK, and I figure best not to pester you with questions. So, thank you as well for taking the time to write your part of the story. My purpose is why? I think the NTSB will sort this one out. I also hope Bill Whittle’s admonition does not come to fruition.

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

Update no.516

2011-11-07T05:29:00.002-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.516

31.10.11 – 6.11.11

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

To all,

On the upside, we spent the weekend with our local grandchildren while their parents enjoyed the big city and the Seattle Seahawks vs. Dallas Cowboys. While the parents had some fun, we went bowling, played dominoes, and watched movies, although Aspen Shae had a babysitting assignment Saturday night. Grandchildren are such a treasure. To top it off, the Cowboys won.

I was awakened out of a dead sleep at 22:53 [S] CDT, Saturday, 5.November.2011, by a low rumble that swayed the entire house modestly and rattled loose objects. My mind raced through various possibilities, eliminating the threats first, and quickly settled on an earthquake – very rare for Kansas. I quickly checked on the grandkids and the house; all good, no harm done . . . well, other than a few exterior cracks that I photographed the following day and will need to have inspected. We turned on the local TV news that reported on a 5.6 magnitude earthquake with an epicenter near Sparks, Oklahoma – a little Saturday night excitement for us.

The time has come. This is the last Update prior to my surgical procedure. Thank you all for your generous words and well-wishes. I certainly expect the next Update will be published on time, and will recount a successful operation and the preliminary results. However, if I miss next week’s Update, please be patient. I shall return.

As if that was not enough, our CEO announced that economic and market conditions have not recovered from the Great Recession thanks in no small part to our beloved politicians repeatedly vilifying the general and business aviation industry. As a consequence, we face another major Reduction In Force (RIF) and a significant restructuring next week. The hits just keep coming. In this instance, I shall ask for best wishes to weather the storm.

The follow-up news items:
-- I recognize and acknowledge that most folks do not concern themselves with aircraft accidents and especially the modified racer, Galloping Ghost, Reno accident [509/510]. I am awaiting the NTSB report. Until then, I suggest the following video essay forwarded by a friend, colleague, classmate and contributor.
“After this, nothing more needs to be said about the Reno crash:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCBbosq9-RI ”
I had not considered that freedom was involved in an aircraft accident, yet Bill Whittle makes a valid and relevant comment worthy of everyone’s attention.
-- Aslan Soobzokov sent another update in his quest for justice on behalf of his family and his assassinated father (1985), Tscherim Soobzokov [474, 480, 496, 507].
“Dear Cap:
“Enclosed please find the appellate brief that was filed in word format and the appendix printed in pdf format. The appendix contains exhibits, which you should see.
“Please review the appellate brief.
“May you and your family be healthy and happy upon receipt of this communication and always.
“May God bless.
“Aslan”
With three (3) attachments:
alfofpetitionerAslanSoobzokovx3rdcourtofappealson10.1.11.doc [brief]
briefandappendixvol.I.pdf [appeal brief submittal]
AppendixVolumeII.pdf [exhibits in support]
The key for me in Aslan’s case rests in two sentences from his briefing to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. “In light of the extensive history by the [Government] in their attempt to prosecute Soobzokov, their subsequent supposed investigation of his murder was suspect and continuous to be suspect.” It is important to note that two federal grand juries refused to bring an indictment against Tscherim Soobzokov, and several additional immigration investigations also failed. He went on to note, “It cannot be disputed that the underlying reasons for Soobzokov’s death stemmed from false and unfounded allegations of Soobzokov being a Nazi war criminal.” The sad, ney tragic, reality in the Tscherim Soobzokov case is, no one has submitted any public evidence of any criminal activity in his life, let alone war crimes. The government’s foolish action of making the Soobzokov investigation public, based on not much more than emotional, circumstantial, indirect information (not even evidence) resulted in the inflammation of retributive, vigilante murder. Aslan sought remedy from both the executive and legislative branches without relief, and as a consequence, he “has no recourse but to file the petition for a Writ of Mandamus.” The Soobzokov family deserves justice. They have yet to receive it.

I offer the following essay to help us understand what happened, leading up to the 2008 mortgage collapse and banking crisis:
“Gambling with Other People’s Money – How Perverted Incentives Caused the Financial Crisis”
by Russell Roberts
Mercatus Center – George Mason University
Published: May 2010 (28.April.2010)
http://mercatus.org/publication/gambling-other-peoples-money
I strongly recommend the Roberts essay for anyone who still seeks to understand why. It is the best explanation of the root cause of the situation we have all endured and continue to pay for with our taxes and lost net worth. I had a few questions and chose to write the author for answers.
Russell,
A friend and contributor to my Blog sent me a copy of your May 2010 essay, “Gambling with Other People’s Money.” As acknowledged in this week’s edition, you offered the best explanation of the banking-mortgage crisis I’ve read to date. For that, thank you very much for taking the time.
I have a couple of questions.
1. On page 20, you stated, “The act even allowed the capital gains on a second home to be tax-free . . . .” I have searched the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (TRA97) [PL 105-034; 111 Stat. 788] to find that provision in the law without success. Would you be so kind to offer a few clues regarding the basis of your statement? Clearly, such a provision in the law adds fuel to the emotional fire of your argument.
2. Given the topic and content of your essay, I wondered why you did not include the banking deregulation provided in the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (FSMA) [PL 106-102; 113 Stat. 1338], as a contributor to the mortgage bubble and the apparent sense of invulnerability in the mortgage lending and derivative business?
Again, thank you for sharing your insight.
Cheers,
Cap
. . . I received a prompt reply:
“If you Google "taxpayer relief act 1997 second home" you will find many examples. Here is one description from a research paper out of the Federal Reserve:
“‘TRA97 was signed into law on August 5, 1997. Effective for sales after May 6, 1997, it fundamentally altered the tax treatment of housing capital gains. First, TRA97 eliminated the roll-over rule. After 1997, the tax treatment of housing capital gains no longer depended on whether a home seller bought a replacement home or the value of the replacement home. Second, it eliminated the age-55 rule. Older home sellers now face the same tax treatment as their younger counterparts. Third, it allowed home sellers to exclude $500,000 (or $250,000 for single ﬁlers) in housing capital gains if they have owned and lived in their homes for at least two years during the past ﬁve. There is no limit on how many times one can claim such exclusions during one’s lifetime, and the required two years of ownership and use during the ﬁve-year period ending on the date of the sale do not have to be continuous. In fact, one can even claim the capital gain exclusion on a second home, as long as the ownership and use tests are met.’
“On FSMA I refer to it in passing saying:
“‘Though other factors—the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, predatory lending, fraud, changes in capital requirements, and so on—made things worse, I focus on creditor rescue, housing policy, tax policy, and monetary policy because without these policies and their interaction, the crisis would not have occurred at all. And among causes, I focus on creditor rescue and housing policy because they are the most misunderstood.
Russ
. . . my gratitude:
Russ,
Thank you for your prompt reply. Please accept my apologies for failing to make the connections in both questions. Again, thank you for your illuminating essay.
Cheers,
Cap

News from the economic front:
-- The Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee voted 9-1 to leave their credit policies unchanged for the first time since August, citing an economy that remains a concern over the next two years, although they did express some modest optimism about the recovery. Chicago Fed President Charles Evans dissented as he sought more action to ease credit further.
-- The G20 economic summit occurred this week and was dominated by the Greek debt situation, namely the Greek prime minister’s decision to put the European Union’s rescue plan to a public referendum [515]. Europe's leaders, making plain that they've reached the end of their patience with Greece, demanded that the beleaguered nation declare whether it wanted to remain in the euro currency union—or risk going it alone in a dramatic secession. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said, “Does Greece want to remain part of the euro zone or not, that is the question the Greek people must now answer.” Under what had to be extraordinary pressure, Prime Minister Papandreou backed off, after imparting enormously more uncertainty in the market.
-- The European Central Bank (ECB) reduced its prime interest rate to 1.25% from 1.5% amid a deepening sovereign-debt crisis and signs of a slowdown in the euro zone's economy. The move comes as Mario Draghi replaces Jean-Claude Trichet as ECB President.
-- The Labor Department reported the U.S. economy created 80,000 jobs in October, with the private sector adding 104,000 positions, as all levels of government continued to trim their payrolls. The unemployment rate edged downward to 9.0% last month from 9.1% in September. Payroll data for the previous two months were adjusted upward by a total of 102,000 to show 158,000 jobs were added in September and 104,000 jobs in August.

Comments and contributions from Update no.514:
“Had to do some reading on that surgery technique. Doesn't seem like you can get any more high tech than that!...minimally invasive, quicker recovery time, and much better success rate with regard to avoiding the possible adverse long term side effects of a prostatectomy via other surgical methods. It is so fortunate that you are able to benefit from this technology and surgical advancement. Our sincerest best wishes for the best outcome and we will anxiously await your first post-surgery update. possible, and for your next "50 years" to be cancer free. Our thoughts and prayers will be with you on the 9th.”
. . . my reply:
Always comforting to have good cover.

Yes, I am fortunate in that context. I recognize that not all outcomes are positive with any technique; however, the RALP has the best results to date. Also, the urologist/surgeon has a very good track record and great referrals with the machine and this procedure. I am eager to get ‘er done. I want that crap out of my body.
I’ll definitely let you know when I’m out the other side.

Comments and contributions from Update no.515:
“The prohibition by any government of private behavior that does not infringe upon the rights of others is unacceptable. The repeal of prohibition is a foundation of the freedom to choose, including the teaching of admirable values for all, but not enslaving people to obey. The loss of freedom is perhaps the most immoral state of all.”
. . . my response:
Absolutely. Now, we only need to convince 320 million other citizens, and direct our representatives to repeal or amend the law, to get the government out of our private affairs.
The issue of “no injury to others (person or property)” is essential to freedom and respect for the choices of others. The first hurdle is amending the law to recognize an individual’s freedom of choice for his particular pursuit of Happiness. The second hurdle will be the definition of injury. The moral projectionists among us cannot fathom anyone choosing to be a sex worker, i.e., prostitute, thus they must be doing so under duress; when in fact, there are plenty of women and men who prefer it, enjoy it, and make a good living doing it, providing a service in public demand. As long as both customer and provider are doing so of their free will and are not transmitting any diseases, then I respectfully submit there is no injury. Further, both customer & provider are protected.

Comment to the Blog:
“I have only seen parts of Ken Burns’ Prohibition; the parts that I have seen are excellent. I will be watching the whole thing courtesy of my local library once this accursed college process ends. In the meantime, I want to state how much I agree that we can substitute “anything” that is seen as sinful for alcohol and repeat the painful process of Prohibition as we are already doing with drugs and prostitution.
“I do want to stipulate, however, that actions affecting others can and should be regulated. My best example of this is allowing banks to become “too big to fail,” thus requiring government bailouts (your tax dollars and mine) when they make insanely risky loans and investments.
“I will quarrel with one point of your analysis of the Greek situation. You attribute this situation partly to the Greeks’ “socialism.” Before you do that, you might want to look at the governance of the sounder economies in Europe, especially Germany and the Scandinavian countries. The root cause of the Greek mess, as in the United States, is banks (not just Greek ones) making huge, risky loans that eventually require government bailouts. The good news in the Greek situation is that the banks are taking a 50% loss on those loans. The bad news, really bad, is that the EU has increased its bailout fund. I recommend reading 13 Bankers by Simon Johnson for a clearer view of this. This book minimizes and clarifies the technical economics involved in the situation.
“That Iran still has a mobile phone provider is unfortunate but unsurprising. Someone will always provide a service for which others will pay, whether that provider is a Chinese telecomm giant or the girl on the corner. That a government (any government) is paranoid enough to track as many of its citizens as thoroughly as it can seems like old news to me.
“I’m glad the economy is beginning to show signs of life. Perhaps it will sit up and begin functioning soon. I hope so. I’m about to graduate college with a very large student loan debt.”
. . . my reply to the Blog:
I am certain you will enjoy Prohibition and find it enlightening; now, if we can only learn and apply that lesson.
Yes, indeedie. Freedom of choice does not entail any right whatsoever to cause injury (person or property) to another citizen. Banks “too big to fail” is another excellent example; they caused injury to a lot of people.
Good point. I was wrong to vilify socialism in general. After all, Sweden is perhaps one of the most socialist countries, and they remain stable. So, the culprit is not socialism by itself, no more so than capitalism is the root of all evil. Like most ideology, it is the application by flawed men that causes most of the problems. In the case of Greece, we add in a healthy dose of corruption and nepotism to the mix. When people expect something for nothing, the foul brew has begun to ferment. Private investors are taking the 50% cut, which is simply a different way for everyone else to pay for Greece’s insane spending. Even with the 50% cut, the debt to GDP ratio is still 120% -- incredible! I cannot imagine any sane person can see such debt as sustainable. Perhaps it was a cold-calculation that they could spend like crazy, knowing their EU membership would pay the bill . . . sovereign extortion, if you will.
OK, so the PRC-IRI connection is not disturbing.
We all want the economy stable and growing again. We still have some crevasses to cross ahead before I start to breathe easy again.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I cannot resist pointing out the past tense you used in saying the ‘too big to fail’ banks ‘caused’ injury. They have not gone away or been made smaller. The only hope I can see of that is the move to take accounts out of those banks over the fee fiasco, and that probably will not come near the change we need.
“On a related note, I tend to think that at least part of the cold calculation you mention is on the part of the biggest banks. They can borrow more cheaply than sounder institutions based on the perception that they will be bailed out of their undue risk when the economy collapses again where smaller banks will fail as so many have. That's the same in the EU as in the US, and nobody is putting a stop to it.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
Good point; I agree. Any bank that was too big to fail in 2008 should be broken up into smaller units that can and should suffer the consequences of unreasonable risk. It seems to me the Sherman Antitrust Act [PL 51-190; 26 Stat. 209 (1890)] remains relevant and applicable in this instance. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act [PL 111-203; 124 Stat. 1376 (2010)] [468] did not go far enough to reform the banking and investment industries. Bankers apparently want all the benefit without any of the risk. You are of course spot on . . . the bankers are right back to business as usual. We may have missed the opportunity.

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

Update no.515

2011-10-31T04:39:00.003-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.515

24.10.11 – 30.10.11

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

To all,

There was nothing to report regarding my health status this week.

A month ago, I recorded by DVR the presentation by our local Public Broadcasting System (PBS) station, the Ken Burns’, three-part, six-hour, documentary titled simply, Prohibition. The program was a history of alcohol prohibition from the 1826 birth of the temperance movement to the 1933 passage of the 21st Amendment, repealing the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As is my inclination in the era of the Internet, computer technology and history programs, I took copious notes. I spent a month writing, cross-referencing, researching, crosschecking, and amplifying the facts Burns carefully collected, edited and told in an engaging, entertaining and thought-provoking story. He did so with meticulous sensitivity to the issues on both sides of the argument. Peter Coyote expertly narrated the work. I cannot and will not recount the history, as that would be impossible and non-productive in this forum. However, I do have a few thoughts I would like to offer. First, every American citizen of any and every age, whether you vote or even care, should attentively watch this documentary, not just for the history, but far more importantly, for what the history means to the ideals of this Grand Republic. Second, I will strongly recommend that each viewer retain an underlying foundational question, what if I substituted any other sinful vice for alcohol – psychotropic substances, prostitution, tobacco, abortion, gambling, hedonism, anything – would the results be the same? Third, I repeat the oft-repeated mantra, we simply cannot legislate morality in a free society. Thus I ask every citizen, is the enforcement of our particular moral choices important enough to sacrifice our precious Liberty and Freedom? Fourth, hopefully, eventually, I truly believe we must learn the hard lessons our grandparents learned – we must remove government from the private domain and refocus it on public conduct. We are either free to make choices for our individual pursuits of Happiness, or we are not free and are slaves to a willful minority and the misdirection of the instruments of State. Drugs, prostitution, et al, may not have the savoir faire of alcohol in the 1920’s, but our dictation of private behavior compromises all of us, whether we recognize reality or not.

Several Press sources reported that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sought documents via the Freedom of Information Act, to learn about the Justice Department’s progress in investigating and prosecuting public officials, specifically the FBI corruption investigation of the now-deceased king of earmarks, Representative John Patrick “Jack” Murtha, Jr., of Pennsylvania. The more we see, the more corrupt Murtha appears. While Murtha will not be held accountable for his actions, hopefully those associated with and who benefited from Murtha’s largesse will suffer the consequences.

After the European Union (EU) ministers approved the new, debt crisis, recovery plan (note below), Greeks turned their ire from the Greek government to Germany and EU ministers, who the perceived as the source of their troubles. French President Nicolas Sarkozy told French television, “Let's be clear; it was a mistake” to admit Greece into the monetary union. He went on to say, “Greece came into the Euro with numbers that were false and its economy was not prepared to assume an integration into the Eurozone. It was a decision that was taken in, I believe, 2001, for which we now are paying the consequence.” Sarkozy’s comments are extraordinary for their frankness and candor, and for their probable veracity. The Greek experience gives us a raw view of the consequences of socialism and corruption. If I was a German citizen, I would not be a happy camper, being asked to sacrifice for the excesses of the Greek government.

News from the economic front:
-- Just before 04:00 [A] ECT, Thursday, 27.October.2011, 17 Euro-Zone ministers announced a substantive accord to reduce Greece’s debt and to expand the firepower of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) after a marathon negotiation. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the leaders had reached agreement with private banks on a “voluntary” [interesting word choice] 50% reduction of Greece’s debt in the hands of private investors. He also said they had agreed to bolster the EFSF, the euro zone’s bailout vehicle, four- or five-fold, and suggested they could provide guarantees for €800B to €1.3T of bonds issued by countries like Spain and Italy. The devaluation of Greeks sovereign debt would bring the country’s debt burden down to 120% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a figure still enormous by any measure, but more sustainable for an economy driven into recession by imposed austerity measures, resultant from the nation’s credit-spending frenzy of the last decade.

-- When the mad mullahs of the Islamic Republic of Iran ordered a bloody crackdown on citizens two years ago, Western telecom companies pulled back from Iran, only to be replaced by Huawei Technologies Company, a People’s Republic of China (PRC) telecom giant that now dominates Iran's government-controlled mobile-phone industry. Huawei recently signed a contract to install equipment for a system that allows police to track people based on the locations of their cellphones. Huawei notes that nearly all countries require police access to cell networks, including the U.S. Huawei (and the PRC, let there be no doubt) now plays a role in enabling Iran's state security network.
-- The U.S. Commerce Department reported the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at an inflation-adjusted annual rate of 2.5% from July through September, the strongest performance in a year. The economy grew a measly 0.4% in the first quarter and 1.3% in the second quarter. Buoyed by stronger than expected consumer spending and greater business investment, the news should soothe concerns the economy may be sliding back toward recession.

Comments and contributions from Update no.514:
Comment to the Blog:
“I wish you well with your prospective surgery. Please keep us advised.
“The life, death, and legacy of Gaddhafi (however spelled) is a large and complex subject that I have not studied in any depth. One facet of this that US media don't seem to share much is that he retained control of Libya's oilfields. We may reasonably expect an outside takeover now.
“While I understand the importance of the line-item veto, I am not lawyer enough to follow your discussion. I tend to share the Supreme Court's position that it is an abdication of power. I see responsibility as a very important issue; this allows Congress to avoid the responsibility for their pork barrel projects and radical notions. The line-item veto also gives the President disproportionate power. Let us remember that the Founders were acutely aware of the abuse of power by kings; they refused to invest great power in our leaders for that exact reason. I share that approach, partly because I remember Nixon's use and attempted use of the intelligence services for personal gain.
“As far as the economy, I am still reading a book named 13 Bankers, written by Simon Johnson, the former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund. It's very illuminating. He is the chief author of the economics blog I read. For a book about economics, it's an easy read as well.”
My response to the Blog:
As we old aviators often say, Wilco!, i.e., Will Comply. Two weeks to my cut day. You can depend upon the Updates as long as I am able.
I do not know about control of the Libyan oilfields, now that Qaddafi is gone. I certainly believe the National Transitional Council (NTC) is working hard to get oil production up & running – after all, oil is their primary revenue stream; I just don’t know how long that will take. Outside takeover; don’t know, suspect not.
Re: line item veto. You hit the point on line item veto precisely. For a long time, I advocated for such authority, thus my humility at the outset of my review. After reading Clinton and especially the dissenting opinions, I acknowledge my conflicted state. Someone in government has to have some semblance of fiscal prudence and accountability. Nonetheless, you are, of course, spot on and otherwise quite right – too much power in the hands of one man or one branch was precisely what the Framers sought to avoid. Nixon is the perfect example. Yet, conversely, we have proven ourselves incapable of demanding our representatives be fiscally responsible. Largesse and reelection are far too powerful counter-forces.
I look forward to your assessment of “13 Bankers.”
. . . round two:
“Perhaps I'm just cynical, but why did the Western world put so much effort into toppling Gadhaffi if they expected only the Libyan people to benefit? History does not support altruism as a sole motivation of such actions.”
. . . my response to round two:
Altruism is perhaps not the proper descriptor. Protecting national interests is probably a more likely motive.
. . . round three:
“Right. How will ‘national interest’ not be seen as the interests of major oil companies?”
. . . my response to round three:
LOL OK, you got me there. We are heavily depended upon foreign oil to sustain our economy, whether we like it or not; so, yes, it would be nearly impossible to separate oil from our national interests . . . just as it was for Japan in 1941.

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

Update no.514

2011-10-24T04:15:00.002-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.514

17.10.11 – 23.10.11

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

To all,
For my health update, I lead with a paragraph Jeanne sent to family and friends.
“We saw [our] oncologist, [on Tuesday]. He had all the test results and notes from our family doctor and the urologist. He concurred with [our urologist]. Three options: wait & watch, surgery or radiation. Dad's numbers fall into the intermediate zone, so surgery was his recommendation. He also said statistically, the odds are that it is ‘contained.’”
For those into the data:
I’m 63yo, PSA = 5.4 (3.3 last year), Gleason = 3+4=7, and Stage T1c. Since I plan on living a lot longer (50 years would be good) and I have no other contradictory health issues, it looks like everyone is now agreed – surgery is the best option. I’m scheduled for a Robot-Assisted (DaVinci) Laparoscopic radical Prostatectomy (RALP) on 9.Nov. I’m ready. It is comforting to know there are further options, given the surgical pathology results and my recovery level. According to the Patin Table, given my facts, I’ve got a 63% probability of containment, which to me means success, i.e., longevity. I’m good with that.

On Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived in Tripoli, Libya, becoming the first cabinet-level U.S. official to visit the country since the dictator Qaddafi was driven from the capital nearly two months ago. She met with top officials of the transitional government, bringing encouragement and millions of dollars in new U.S. aid to assist the new government in consolidating its control over a country ravaged by dictatorship and civil war.

I note the demise of Libyan dictator Moammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Qaddafi, 69, [dictator since 16.January.1970, then 27] on Thursday, 20.October.2011. Reports of his final moments are rather sketchy, as is often the case in war. It appears an estimated 80-vehicle convoy carrying Qaddafi and his supporters and protectors tried to escape from the coastal community of Sirte. A combined attack by a U.S. Predator drone and a French fighter halted the convoy. The Misrata Military Council, the battalion of fighters that commanded the two-month siege of Sirte, overran the remnants of the convoy and found the wounded Qaddafi in a culvert under the roadway. Again, various reports suggest the deposed dictator was summarily executed by a young rebel fighter Mohamed el-Bibi, 20, who was credited with firing the fatal shot with Qaddafi’s own gold-plated pistol. Now, the really hard work begins, as the revolution must transform into a stable, peaceful country and rebuild the damaged nation.

In an easily overlooked announcement, Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) [“Basque Homeland and Freedom” – the Basque militant group] renounced their use of violence and terrorism as a political instrument. ETA sought independence and recognition for the traditional Basque region of Northeast Spain and Southwest France, across the Pyrenees Mountains. ETA has a history of declaring unilateral ceasefires only to carry out another terrorist attack. Only time shall tell whether this is truly a decision for peace.

I like to think I am an informed, engaged citizen, and then I am reminded that I am a miniscule person of simple intellect and limited knowledge, in the grander scheme of things. Unbeknownst to me, on 9.April.1996, President Clinton signed into law the Line Item Veto Act (LIVA) [PL 104-130; 110 Stat. 1200; 2 USC §691]. The first challenge to the law failed as the Supreme Court remanded Raines v. Byrd [521 U.S. 811 (1997); no. 96-1671] to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Then, Congress passed two laws: the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 [PL 105-033; 111 Stat. 251] and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 [PL 105-034; 111 Stat. 788]. President Clinton exercised his authority under LIVA and vetoed Sec. 4722(c) [111 Stat. 515] of Title IV, Subtitle H, Chapter 3, of PL 105-033; and Sec. 968 [111 Stat. 895] of Title IX, Subtitle G, of PL 105-034; before he signed the parent bill into law. The President’s action created an “injury” that satisfied the Article III jurisdictional requirements. Sec. 4722(c) provided a Medicare refund specifically to the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, while Sec. 968 provided tax relief that benefited the Snake River Potato Growers, Inc. The combined, companion cases reached the Supremes – Clinton v. City of New York [524 U.S. 417 (1998); no. 97-1374]. The Court decided LIVA exceeded the constitutional provisions of Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution – the Presentment Clause. Justice Stevens succinctly summarized the Court’s position, “Abdication of responsibility is not part of the constitutional design.” The Court believed LIVA compromised the implicit but essential Separation of Powers. Congress delegated, actually abdicated, its authority to the President, to make the Executive the “fall guy” for cancellation of spending they intended to placate constituents or special interest groups. The sponsors could claim they allocated the funding agreed and concomitantly claim the President was the bad guy for his line item veto. Conversely, the President could sign a bill he largely supported, while eliminating the spending he disapproved. The reality is, such negotiations should be accomplished within the Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 process, not outside it. Yet, the Supremes did not address composite bills, i.e., multiple “acts” wrapped into a cover bill. We have numerous omnibus spending bills in our history – bills that are vast composites of multiple spending initiatives, laws, resolutions and directives. To say that the deletion of one sentence or modification of one word alters the entire legislation defies logical reasoning. Interesting argument . . . the ruling states that the presidential veto of one line or one word alters the law, and thus violates the Presentment Clause. In a general sense, there is no rebuttal. The two items involved in this case are not integrated or essential to the purpose of the law. Yet, conversely, the debate over what is integrated and thus essential to the purpose of the law is a very slippery slope. Nonetheless, the Supremes decided LIVA was unconstitutional – it was all or nothing.

News from the economic front:
-- The People’s Republic of China’s National Bureau of Statistics reported the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose 9.1% in the third quarter from a year earlier, down from 9.5% in the second quarter and 9.7% in the first. The PRC’s economic growth slowed in the third quarter but remained at a relatively healthy pace, especially compared to the Western economies.

Comments and contributions from Update no.513:
“I did not read your update last week, so I am just receiving the news below.
“My thoughts are with you today and trust your course of action will be both well considered and inspired.
“We have often discussed the notion of living for today, for we know not what tomorrow will bring. Don't listen to any outside opinions on your riding - trust your heart (and counter steering . . .). I am sure flying an Apache in combat conditions might be a bit risky as well.
“I had to laugh at your comment about riding being close to flying. I had always wanted to get my ticket, but there always seemed to be things getting in the way - and I was telling someone about that this week-end. My closing comment was I truly feel the 100,000+ miles I have on my Harleys were probably as close to what I expect that feeling of freedom would be like if flying.”
My response:
Thx for yr kind words.
I take everything with a grain of salt. I had more than a few folks advising me not to join the Marines, not to go to flight school, not to go to test pilot school, not to jump out of perfectly good airplanes, and so it is with motorcycles. There is risk in life, and there is certainly no more risk than many of my other life experiences. The key is being mindful of the risks and managing our actions to mitigate those risks.
I’m coming up on 1,000 miles on this bike. I still have a way to go regarding smoothness, but at least I’m under control, conservative in action, and balanced.
What do you think about a trip out to Beaumont for breakfast on Saturday? My treat. Forecast looks like it might be amenable. I think I’ve got about 80 miles left before my 1,000-mile mandatory service, so I should be OK, if I don’t ride this week. BTW, the rookie is always the wingman.
[PS: We had a great ride on Saturday, to the Carriage Crossing in Yoder, Kansas, for a magnificent breakfast.]

Another contribution:
“Recently had 3 of my aviator buds from my flying days with the same affliction. They all opted for surgery and are doing great. If that is any indicator the 90% advice is solid.”

Comment to the Blog:
“I encourage you to seek the best available advice on your struggle with cancer. I myself have no useful knowledge to share, but I am concerned for you.
“I rejoice that your wife is beginning to share your love of the motorcycle. Enjoy it.
“I will repeat my assertion that a war on a concept cannot be won. ‘Terrorism’ is a concept embedded in the quote you shared, and it is as amorphous as ‘poverty’ or ‘drugs,’ two other concepts on which we continue lengthy ‘wars.’ This leaves the simple fact that the US government can choose to kill a US citizen without due process as my concern here. That fact overwhelms all other concerns about civil rights. While the Mann Act is a travesty in its own right, if ‘human traffickers’ can be seen as terrorists (and they can if manipulative people define terrorism), death or the threat of death supersedes all other attacks on their rights. That applies to anything else that powerful individuals dislike or see as obstacles to their own goals.
“I regret if it upsets you that judges have political opinions which occasionally show up in their writings. While I see other judicial politics as more upsetting, such as the current Supreme Court, pretty much any act can be seen as political in the broad sense that it endorses some positions and refutes others. For example, if a gay person chooses to remain in the closet, that choice essentially endorses the moral and political statement that homosexuality is wrong. Any number of other examples could illustrate the statement. Even one’s choices of food (organic or not, vegetarian or not, genetically modified or not, prioritized to price, nutrition or taste) express opinions and ideas about subjects regulated by the political system. In the last analysis, objectivity is relative. Judges’ opinions are bound to show up at some points.”
My reply to the Blog:
Thx for the encouragement. Good advice . . . taken with gratitude.
We plan to enjoy the bike as much as can safely and comfortably be done.
Once again, I do not think we are at war with a concept. We are at war with those who seek imposition of their ideology on everyone by violent means.
I think we all share your apprehension and concern about extrajudicial killing. The central element in the al-Awlaqi case was the cost of exercising a warrant in the instance of a man who publicly threatened the safety of innocent American citizens and incited others to carry out violent acts against American citizens. We do not know the process by which the government fights this war. One day we will know. Then, we can make our judgments. The risks of this practice are enormous, just as the consequences of losing the War on Islamic Fascism are enormous.
Judges having political opinions is only natural; after all, they are flawed human beings as we all are. It is rare that a judge’s political opinions are so blatantly expressed. Usually judges are more sophisticated and subtle. Not so in that case. Interesting logic, nonetheless. Well done.

Another contribution:
“I see you have been very busy during the week. Please keep me apprised of your visit tomorrow in Kansas City. I presume, should you decide to continue with this path, your surgery would take place in Kansas City? What is the recovery period for something like this? What are you looking at down the road?
“You have been in my thoughts every day.”
“Should you decide to have this surgery in Kansas City, do you know if they use a Da Vinci Surgical System for the prostate surgery?”
My response:
LIFO. Yes, the urologist/surgeon will use the DaVinci robotic system. The surgery will be accomplished in Wichita, rather than Kansas City. He used the machine for Jeanne’s surgery and far better than highest expectation; so, I am optimistic.
He said I should be up & around the next day, and should be 6-8 weeks before we have a clear view of results. Of course, a major concern is the pathology report; we should have a quick shot that day with full results in 3-4 days. The pathology of the removed tissue will determine further action.

A different contribution:
“Take care of yourself and get another opinion on the cancer, especially another biopsy, if possible. He sounds like an excellent surgeon but in the case of cancer, two opinions are usually more helpful than one.
“Since we are in full election campaign mode, I see little relief from the excessive political rhetoric we are subjected to on an hour by hour basis. I really would like to see term limits for all, and limited time for campaigning. Right now, it's who has the most money for later on that is determining the direction of the campaign.
“I think that Romney may have overplayed his hand on demanding investiture as ‘The Republican Candidate’ for President so early. I, for one, am not convinced he is the right man (or woman) as yet-he is only the most experienced debater and has the most money. I am upset that the Republican establishment is ready to anoint him and there are others that have as much or more support.
“The whole point of the above two paragraphs is I'm tired of campaigning already and there is a long ways to go.”
My reply:
I could not agree more. These two-year campaign marathons are debilitating, and they’re all about money . . . nothing more, nothing less. I’m with you brother.

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

Update no.513

2011-10-17T04:29:00.002-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.513

10.10.11 – 16.10.11

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

To all,
First, please allow me to express my deep, heartfelt gratitude to all those who offered kind and generous words of encouragement, experience, counsel and support after my little, personal announcement last week [512].
Jeanne and I had our follow-up consultation with our urologist. My biggest concern was whether the malignant cells were outside the prostate. He said insurance and the government would not approve a full body scan or bone scan without other indicators, and he said all my indicators point to organ isolation. He also said the scans were not able to detect cells, only collections or tumors, and the only positive method is to check the margins of the organ and the adjacent lymph nodes. He was very careful to outline my options from wait & see to radical excision. We discussed the benefits, risks and prognosis of each treatment modality. My primary objective, by far, is longevity, thus eradication is the leading choice. He was careful to repeatedly say, there are no guarantees. Given my facts and objective, he thought the best choice was surgery; he said I had a 90% shot. My inclination is precisely that.
We had a family meeting Wednesday night (well, at least those who live close by; the others were invited to join by conference call). Everyone handled the news & status quite well, even the grandchildren understood and asked questions. Our youngest son admonished me for what he perceived as jumping too quickly for the surgical option. Out of respect for his counsel, we will do so.
Jeanne summarized our state quite well. “After our family discussion around the table the other night, we have also made an appointment with Dr. Cannon of Cancer Center of Kansas for next Tuesday, October 18th. He was Tinka's (Mom's) oncologist. We thought we would at least cover that area, in case they have come up with some new process of dealing with prostate cancer. Dr. Steinberger is an amazing surgeon and urologist. Dad and I feel good about the decision to take the prostate out of the body; hence, the cancer is removed. This is how he has dealt with both of his skin cancers.”
The journey continues.

Some may be wondering, or even concerned, about my use of the motorcycle [502]. I check the weather every morning, as I usually do. If conditions are favorable, i.e., no chance of rain, reasonable temperatures and wind, I use the bike for my daily commute. I generally stay in the right hand (slow, i.e., lorry) lane and putt-putt along with the flow of traffic. The field of view is far better than any 4-wheeled vehicle. I am much more aware of the air. It is about as close to the sensations of flying as you can get on the ground. However, the big news was actually Jeanne’s first ride with me on Saturday afternoon. She was ready. She suggested we ride across town for an early supper – very nice I must add. We returned home on backcountry roads. It was a perfect day to ride. She is now officially my biker b----, ah lady. Life is good.

The follow-up news items:
-- More on the continuing debate regarding the elimination of Anwar al-Awlaqi [511/12]:
“Killing Awlaki was illegal, immoral and dangerous”
By Mary Ellen O’Connell – Special to CNN
Posted: October 1st, 2011; 03:48 PM ET
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/01/killing-awlaki-was-illegal-immoral-and-dangerous/
and
“America’s drone campaign – Drones and the law – America’s attacks on suspected terrorists should be more closely monitored”
The Economist
Posted: Oct 8th 2011
http://www.economist.com/node/21531477
Since academics are sensitive to such things, I open by noting that Mary Ellen O’Connell is actually the Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law and Research Professor of International Dispute Resolution at the University of Notre Dame Law School. Whew! That was a mouthful; now to the meat of this topic. Mary opens here essay with this paragraph: “Every American adult knows what an armed conflict is. The U.S. is engaged in armed conflict in Afghanistan and Libya. It engaged in combat in Iraq from 2003-2011. Thus, every American knows that the U.S. is not engaged in an armed conflict in Yemen - not a real armed conflict. Nevertheless, President Obama placed an American citizen in Yemen on a kill list. Anwar al-Awlaki and several other people were killed on September 30 by a ‘barrage’ of missiles launched from drones operated by the CIA.” She goes on to declare, “So they have been asserting the U.S. is in a worldwide ‘armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.’ This assertion defies common sense.” This is where my tolerance reached the threshold of boil. I would suggest Mary needs to read or re-read the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) [PL 107-040; 115 Stat. 224]. Further, as a lawyer and presumably as an educator, she should know the importance of language and definitions. The AUMF states, “[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” The language of the law is quite simple and direct. There are no other limits or constraints (geographic or otherwise); and as noted in the law, the AUMF satisfied the War Powers Resolution [PL 93-148; 87 Stat. 555] [344]. Mary’s inference that the President (either Bush or Obama) did not and does not possess authorization for such action just does not square with the law. Further, I would suggest Mary read, or re-read, Al-Aulaqi v. Obama [USDC DC case 1:10-cv-01469-JDB (2010)] [479]. As acknowledged elsewhere, we all share degrees of unease, trepidation and concern for extrajudicial, international termination of any American citizen, as reflected in Judge Bates’ careful assessment in Al-Aulaqi. We do not know the deliberations carried out within the administration regarding the al-Awlaqi action; they were secret and should remain so, until hostilities cease. As much as my curiosity would like to be fed, I hope we have to wait to know the rest of the story. I am more concerned about winning the war than understanding how the Executive branch made these decisions. I can only deduce from Mary’s choice of words and tone that she sought political inflammation rather than deliberative intercourse. I am not swayed; I trust you are not as well.
-- Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab [419] – AKA the underwear bomber (25.Dec.2009) – answered questions from a federal judge before pleading guilty to charges that include conspiracy to commit terrorism and attempted murder. I trust he shall enjoy the hospitality of the Federal penal system for the rest of his natural life, however unnatural that may be.

The Justice Department announced the criminal charging of naturalized U.S. citizen, Manssor Arbab Arbabsiar, 56, and Gholam Shakuri with conspiracy to assassinate Adel al-Jubeir, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the U.S. According to the government’s statement, there is a strong linkage to the Quds Force, the paramilitary unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps that reports directly to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, via Quds Force chief Qassem Suleimani. This verges upon an act of war and reminiscent of the Black Tom Island attack by German saboteurs before the U.S. entered World War I [at 02:08:00 [R], 30.July.1916]. This does not bode well for the Islamic Republic of Iran.

After the extended discussion of the Commerce Clause [512], I had cause to read Hoke v. United States [227 U.S. 308 (1913)] – a challenge to the White Slave Traffic Act of 1910 [PL 61-277; 36 Stat. 825] (AKA Mann Act) that prohibited interstate transport of a woman or a girl for immoral purposes [327]. The central issue in Hoke was the use by Congress of the Commerce Clause to inject the Federal government into the practice of prostitution. The Supremes defended the law with no dissent. FYI: the Mann Act is the same law with which the righteous, moral guardians of the Bush administration threatened Governor Elliot Spitzer [12.Mar.2008; 327]. The Mann Act was passed in the era of Anthony Comstock, the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League, the rising tide of Prohibition, along with all those other moral projectionist laws we still suffer, now in mutated forms. Our grandparents learned the hard lessons of legislating private morality. It took them 13 years to recognize consequences and correct a dreadful wrong. We have but to read the Mann Act and Hoke in the context of the Declaration and Constitution to see the unfortunate over-reach. What if one state legalized prostitution, say Nevada, and a woman was transported (excluding of course her ability to transport herself) from a legal state to a prohibited state to practice her trade or avocation, or vice versa. Would the Mann Act still apply? With the abandonment of the doctrine of coveture, would such an act still be valid? What about men or boys for immoral purposes? Who determines what is “an immoral purpose”? These are very slippery questions that deal with predominately private conduct . . . except as they intersect with the public domain. So, all of these private morality laws must be repealed as they no longer exist in the context in which they were created. I know I am a broken record, but We, the People, must remove the government (in all its forms) from our private lives and resist the urge to dictate how we are to live our lives. Freedom of choice is an “unalienable” right, endowed to each of us by our Creator. Private morality is between the individual and God.

On 29.September.2011, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered its judgment regarding the appeal of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States [USDC CA(CD) case no. cv-04-08425-VAP (2010)] [456, 457, 461] – Log Cabin Republicans v. United States [9CCA 10-56634 and 10-56813 (2011)] – the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” challenge. The judges declared the case moot after enactment of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 [PL 111-321; 124 Stat. 3515] [471], which was certified by the military in accordance with the law and became effective on 20.September.2011. The court vacated the district court decision and all associated injunctions, and ordered the case remanded to the district court with specific orders to dismiss the case. I do not think I have seen such a pointed and harsh judgment before. Circuit Judge Diarmuid Fionntain O'Scannlain was not satisfied and chose to write a concurring opinion to skewer District Judge Virginia Phillips. His concluding sentence, “When judges sacrifice the rule of law to find rights they favor, I fear the people may one day find that their new rights, once proclaimed so boldly, have disappeared because there is no longer a rule of law to protect them.” We do not see judicial pronouncements that border on accusations of judicial malfeasance very often. Let it suffice to say, Judge O'Scannlain’s opinion is just as political as Judge Phillips’s original decision, it seems to me – it all depends upon perspective. Nonetheless, I suspect this case will end here, although the issue of reinstatement remains.

Comments and contributions from Update no.512:
Comment to the Blog:
“You gave us the numbers on your diagnosis but no interpretation. What does this mean? The only clue I have is the death rate of 28,000 out of 218,000 men diagnosed, which works out to 1 in 8. Please tell us more about the meaning of the figures. We are concerned about you.
“If that British study is correct and applicable, I guess I won't worry about my prostate health too much yet.
“Your suggested alternative to the individual health care mandate, denial of services, will not happen. Most of us are not teabaggers in the political sense of that term. Besides, even the patron saint of sociopathic greed, Ayn Rand, found it necessary to draw on government health care eventually. The teabaggers will follow that role model anywhere.
“You and I are old enough to remember 1968; Occupy Wall Street brings back memories of that time. We shall see what happens. In the meantime, I'll be going to more demonstrations here.”
My reply to the Blog:
I chose not to get very verbose. Those who cared, would ask, as you have done. I will have more to say in the Update when we know more.
The information received from my biopsy confirmed stage 1 prostate cancer. The N & M portion of the stage are for regional and general involvement, respectively; thus, the question marks (not yet determined). The Gleason score is the pathologist’s grading system for this type of cancer; the first number is the primary cell pattern, along the secondary cell pattern equals the total. My score suggest a less aggressive form, but more testing is needed. My next consult is Wednesday to lay out the plan.
Re: individual mandate alternative. My proposal was more tongue in cheek to make the point that we cannot have it both ways – the status quo ante is unstable, unfair and otherwise unacceptable. I want the Supremes to curtail the reach of the USG via the Commerce Clause; yet, I also want the individual mandate to proceed; we can make it better as we gain experience.
I don’t think it is sociopathic greed. The real question for us is balance; where is the balance point? Communism is equally unacceptable as unregulated, capitalistic greed. The balance exists between the two extremes; we must find that point.
Yes, I remember 1968 vividly. Both the OWS and TP movements have flavors of those bygone movements. I am not a crowd person, so you will not find me at that type of public demonstration.

Another contribution:
“Too much to respond to, but as to killing a U. S. citizen involved in the war against us, I say he forfeited his rights as a citizen when he joined up with the terrorists.”
My response:
Essentially what Judge Bates concluded in Al-Aulaqi.

I share another, more personal contribution, simply because I belief the information may be of value to others who might face my situation:
“We are very disheartened to hear your disturbing news. Our sincerest hopes and prayers are with you for a favorable prognosis. Many of our friends and family have beat the villain cancer, and modern medicine has certainly contributed greatly to positive outcomes. You will be in the thoughts and prayers of many people and hopefully that will help to give you the strength and determination needed to maintain a positive outlook while meeting the challenge of this adversity.
“You are wise to learn everything you can about prostate cancer to make the best decisions about treatment with the information that you have (I humbly provide these links:
http://www.thermographyarizona.com/cancer_is_preventable.html
and
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-prostate-20111015,0,4641717.story
only because they discuss 1) the big business associated with diagnosing and treating cancer VS placing a focus on preventing cancer, and 2) the rush to pursue radical treatments including surgery).
“I am sure you will keep your readers updated as you learn more about your condition. Just like you keep reminding us every week...take care of YOURSELF,”
My reply:
Thank you so much for your kind and generous words, and thank you for the links.
I also appreciate the your concern about rushing things, but I do not feel like I am rushing or being rushed. I have dealt with two other spots: a basal cell lesion on my right ear (excised 17 years ago; no recurrence), and a squamous cell lesion on my right elbow (excised 1 year ago; so far no recurrence and still a way to go on that one). To the best of our collective knowledge, this next event is a more serious episode, but the sooner the better. I will get through this as I have all other challenges in my life.

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

Update no.512

2011-10-10T04:56:00.002-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.512

3.10.11 – 9.10.11

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

To all,

With a somber and clear mindset as well as a sense of literary honesty and candor, I write this paragraph so that no one is surprised . . . no matter what the outcome. As is my practice, I had my annual physical at my birthday, as I have done every year since I was 17-years-old. For the first time in all that time, my family physician noted that his digital prostate check indicated a slight enlargement and my PSA blood test nearly doubled from last year. I had no other indicative symptoms. Our doctor recommended I see a urologist, who in turn noted that the PSA is notoriously unreliable and only a biopsy could reliably determine any abnormal condition. I elected to have the biopsy; I received the results this week. All three right side samples were normal tissue. All three left side sample showed prostatic adenocarcinoma, with 40-90% involvement and Gleason score 3+4=7; stage T1c N? M?. We have not yet eliminated collateral involvement, which should be the next step after my follow-up consultation on Wednesday. Obviously, Jeanne and I have jumped into learning about a very specific topic. Prostate cancer strikes more than 218,000 U.S. men each year; I am now one of those. About 28,000 die of it, making it the most common cancer and second-leading cancer killer among men. For us, the journey has only just begun.

In an odd timing, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force – the same group that ignited a 2009 firestorm over the efficacy of routine mammography for breast cancer – recommended the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for prostate cancer not be used for routine examination without collateral indicators. Perhaps in the category of TMI: according to a recent British study, young males, 15-19yo, should be ejaculating 3-5 times per week for good prostate health. I apparently failed in that health precaution – out of ignorance more so than purposeful disregard. I say this not to offend, embarrass, or make anyone uncomfortable; rather only to raise the topic of how we teach our children. I failed in that regard as well. Nonetheless, I would like to be the poster-child for routine examinations and early detection. Only time will tell.

The follow-up news items:
-- The House quietly passed the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 [PL 112-036; H.R.2608; House: 352-66-0-15(2); Senate: 79-12-0-9(0)] [511], which funds the government at FY2011 levels through 18.November.2011, i.e., a stop-gap measure to buy time, hopefully to pass the FY2012 appropriations.

As indicated in Update no.511, I undertook a reading / review of the salient appeals court decision to be placed before the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) regarding health care reform – Florida v. HHS [11CCA nos. 11–11021 & 11–11067 (2011)]. The three-judge panel rendered their opinion on the appeal of Florida v. HHS [USDC FL ND(PD) case: 3:10-cv-00091-RV/EMT (2011)] [477] – the challenge by 26 states of the massive 975–page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) [PL 111-148; 124 Stat. 119] [432] {please note that I include the amendments of the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 [PL 111-152; 124 Stat. 1029] under the PPACA banner}. Before we jump into the pool, please allow me to suggest to those who wish to know more about PPACA, the 11th Circuit’s concluding document offers a succinct summary of PPACA at pp. 21-23 with a broader judicial view, pp. 11-53; the court offers an excellent, unbiased, expanded summary in Appendix A: Overall Structure of Act’s Nine Titles (pp. i-xiii); I strongly recommend reading the short summary, if nothing else, and suggest reading Appendix A. The 304-page, 11th Circuit ruling took an inordinate amount of time for me to read and digest, which is an obtuse reflection of how complicated or difficult this issue is . . . for me, at least. Let it suffice to say the states’ challenge acknowledged acceptance of the majority of PPACA, while objecting to several key elements, with the primary focus on the individual mandate of PPACA (created by Title I, Subtitle F, Part I, Section 1501) versus the Commerce Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) that delegates to Congress the power to “regulate Commerce.” Chief Judge Joel Fredrick Dubina of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote for the three-judge panel. Three sentences appear to brightly illuminate the central issue in this case. He noted, “The government emphasizes that Congress intended to regulate the health insurance and health care markets to ameliorate the cost-shifting problem created by individuals who forego insurance yet at some time in the future seek health care for which they cannot pay.” Dubina added, “The [states] stress that Congress's authority is to ‘regulate’ commerce, not to compel individuals to enter into commerce so that the federal government may regulate them.” The court concluded, “[T]he individual mandate exceeds Congress's enumerated commerce power and is unconstitutional. This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority.” Judge Stanley Marcus agreed with the majority on all except their assessment of the individual mandate as he concluded, “At bottom, Congress rationally concluded that the uninsured's consumption of health care services, in the aggregate, shifts enormous costs onto others and thus substantially affects interstate commerce. The individual mandate directly and unambiguously addresses this cost-shifting problem by regulating the timing and means of payment for the consumption of these services. Congress also fairly determined that the mandate is an essential part of the Act's comprehensive regulation of the health insurance market. I would, therefore, uphold the mandate as constitutional, and I respectfully dissent on this critical point.” The individual mandate has no meaning or relevance for the majority of Americans who are covered by health insurance – some purchase their own, some from their employment, and some by virtue of their service to this Grand Republic. Yet, an estimated 50 million citizens are unable to afford health insurance, choose not to have coverage, or are under-insured. In 2008, US$43B in uncompensated medical treatment had to be absorbed by the payers – the cost-shifting mentioned above. The Catch-22 . . . we don’t want to be told we must have health insurance, yet we expect treatment even though we cannot pay for the treatment we receive. That dichotomy is not stable, or balanced, and cannot be sustained. Congress may not have found the correct remedy, but the PPACA Section 1501 requirement is the best effort to date to mitigate the enormous cost-shifting situation. Nonetheless, the bottom line: we simply cannot have it both ways. The State requires a citizen to pay for a minimum level of insurance as a condition to operate any vehicle on public thoroughfares, and establishes penalties for a failure to comply. It could be argued the health insurance requirement is the same; however, the citizen does not have a choice regarding illness (well, other than the argument that preventative medical treatment would avoid many illnesses or at least mitigate the seriousness of illnesses). None of the court documents I have read so far address the preventative or preemptive treatment for life-threatening, highly contagious, infections like influenza, HIV, et cetera. Freedom of choice is the essence of Liberty. Responsibility and accountability for our choices is also vital to an organized society. I have no problem with an individual choosing to reject health insurance coverage, however the consequence you either pay cash for treatment up front as a surety for payment for services rendered, or you are denied treatment. As long as everyone can live with those consequences, then we are good to go with no individual mandate. You just cannot have it both ways. The whole purpose of any insurance is paying a reasonable fee when you don’t need it for the security of not being bankrupted when you do need it. If the individual mandate is determined to be unconstitutional by SCOTUS, another choice for Congress might be new laws to prohibit the transfer of uncompensated treatment costs along with the power to audit hospitals and health insurance companies to ensure that the costs of uncompensated treatment are not passed on, thus doctors, hospitals and health insurance companies would have a choice to make regarding the treatment of individuals who cannot prove they have sufficient means to pay for the treatment they are about to receive; this would naturally have to include emergency treatment as well. In essence, we could require the USG to hire an even larger army of accountants to ensure those who do have Federal health insurance (e.g., Medicare, Tricare, et cetera) are only paying for the services rendered to them rather than supporting the uninsured and underinsured. Of course, such laws within congressional authority would shift the US$43B in uncompensated treatment costs to all other non-Federal health insurance programs as well as à la carte expenses for everyone else. That way, no individual mandate would be required. Now, that sounds fair, doesn’t it? As a citizen and novice student of the law, I think the Supremes have gone way too far with the expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause ever since Gibbons v. Ogden [22 U.S. {9 Wheat.} 1 (1824)]. As noted above, I am quite conflicted on the constitutionality of the PPACA individual mandate. Being so, I must come down with Judge Dubina. In my parlance, we must move the limits of the Commerce Clause back to a more reasonable and realistic position. Conversely, I believe any citizen who wants health insurance coverage should have it. The Supremes have embraced a federalist bent for many decades now, which suggests they may overturn the 11th Circuit and reflect Judge Marcus’s reasoning. At this point, I urge the Supreme Court to accept the Solicitor General’s petition for preemptive hearing.
One postscript comment: What has not been spoken as far as I can tell is the precautionary / preventative health care necessary to maintain good health and to blunt potentially catastrophic illness in the early stages before it becomes serious or life-threatening.

The continuing debate regarding targeted assassinations:
“Assassinations and the destruction of history”
by Derek Henry Flood
Asia Times
Published: October 4, 2011
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MJ04Ak01.html
and
“Assassins of Liberty – The death of Anwar al-Awlaki”
by Justin Raimondo
antiwar.com
Posted: October 03, 2011
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/10/02/assassins-of-liberty-2/
A contributor pointed me to an essay by University of Notre Dame Law School Professor Mary Ellen O'Connell, titled: “Killing Awlaki was illegal, immoral and dangerous.” I did not have time to read Mary’s opinion; I intend to do so for next week’s Update. I note that the difference between President Carter’s Executive Order 12036: United States Intelligence Activities, and the Bush/Obama directives for targeted strikes is war, plain & simple. This is not an easy debate. Technology has enabled this capability and the debate, but capture or assassination has been a tool of war since our ancestors began to scratch out a historic record on clay tablets. More to follow; all opinions welcome.

This exchange is reprinted from a different network with the author’s permission:
“I'm too going to read 11CCA opinion [Florida v. HHS].
“Had an extended phone conversation last night with an old friend, [ ], that I've known since a kid, and later he contracted my services in the early 2000's to convert his company to computer accounting (versus their manual bookkeeping methods), and a full contact mgmt/prospect tracking software-driven company. [He] was diagnosed more than 5 years ago with Mesothelioma, malignant lung cancer triggered by asbestos contamination. The fact he is still alive is a miracle, as many victims live only 1 year, with the average max being 3 years. So [he] has beat the odds though they do have a few who have lived 10 years after diagnosis. He was able to do an early retirement in life, at the end of last year. His sons and wife ran the business up to that point. He can afford to take the time off to work on immunity, and he said all the doctor's visits, hospital stays, testing, etc., is almost a full-time job. But he also said that he would never have been able to afford the superior health care he gets (UCLA) had it not been for his business giving him a good income, and then selling the company and using some funds to pay for med-care. He said anyone in a less blessed position, would be dead. His wife did the accounting and said his health care out-of-pocket is costing them about $35K per year, on top of an excellent health insurance plan he purchased but that costs him $1K/month! This week he has to get a new type of SCAN test, that the insurance provider has denied payment for (this time, they paid for the last 2), and so out-of-pocket cost for [his family] is $7,500 for a test.
“The conversation with him caused me much thought about what are the goals of our PPACA, and what will be the real product when implemented. How would it affect someone like [my friend], or let's say many of us who may not have the means to pay for the kind of care [he] gets. Towards the close of conversation, [my friend] said something about his ancestors being from Holland, and that he is not a socialist but wishes the national health care plan could help more people and if he had not had the assets/cash, he would have had to use it.
“You opine/proffer many good things below Cap, causing all of us to think better, about complicated issues in our nation.”
My response:
[Your friend] makes some very good points, and certainly thank him for his honesty and candor. I wish him continued success in fighting that monster. As I’ve said many times, PPACA is not perfect, but at least it makes an attempt to remedy a rather egregious societal problem.
I still have not finished Florida v. HHS [completed now]. Interesting ruling. We still don’t know if the Supremes will honor the USG’s request for preemptive hearing, but I certainly hope they do. Furthermore, it is impossible to predict how the Supremes might decide, but I suspect whenever they render their opinion, it will be a landmark-class decision – after all, there is an epic principle at hand. If the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional, it will render PPACA virtually toothless. With the mood of Congress being what it is, I suspect such a decision will also be the death knell.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I know this is a very different topic, but would like to see your analysis on the Occupy Wall Street group, perhaps in your next Update. Many I know are very mixed on the activists, or at least who is organizing them behind-the-scenes, in the so-called ‘leaderless’ swell of them across our country. I find their timing ironic, considering the surmounting issues here and abroad. Our GOV needs to pass another spending extension in November or it will again be timed to shut down. I look at the Arab Spring revolutions and wonder too, what entity is behind that as well.”
. . . my follow-up response:
As with the Arab Spring movements, the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) group [if we can even call them that] appears to be “leader-less,” which makes it very difficult to grab a handle on. I perceive OWS in the same vein as the Tea Party (TP) was several years ago . . . an amorphous, public demonstration of dissatisfaction. The TP has not progressed much farther past the embryonic stage, although they have obviously exerted some influence on the political process. Also, the OWS appears to be a left-leaning version of the TP. Indeed, the timing is not good . . . kinda like the union movement in the early 30’s.
As I reported in this week’s Update, the House did pass the Senate’s version of the extension bill HR.2608 [now PL 112-036] that funds the USG at FY2011 levels until 18.Nov. I’m sure you recall the foolishness we had to endure last spring regarding funding extensions upon extensions; I suspect we are now back into that same cycle. Also, the Super Committee on spending reduction has their deadline set at 23.Nov., per the Budget Control Act of 2011 [PL 112-025] [503], and a congressional deadline of 23.Dec. I suspect we’re in store for a raucous few months; and then, primary season starts in January. This will be a hot time in the old town tonight.

News from the economic front:
-- The Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) announced its decision to buy £75B (US$116B) of government bonds in a new round of quantitative easing intended to hold the inflation rate below its 2.0% target over the medium term and to stimulate the UK's stagnant economy. The MPC also voted to keep the U.K.'s benchmark interest rate at 0.5%. Bank of England Governor and MPC Chair Sir Mervyn Allister King, GBE, FBA, said, “This is the most serious financial crisis we’ve seen, at least since the 1930s, if not ever. We’re having to deal with very unusual circumstances, but to act calmly to this and to do the right thing.”
-- The European Central Bank left its benchmark interest rate unchanged at 1.5% for a third straight month, choosing not to reverse its recent rate increases despite a worsening European sovereign-debt crisis. The euro-zone inflation rate jumped to 3% from 2.5% in September.
-- The Labor Department reported the U.S. economy added 103,000 jobs in September, with the private sector contributing 137,000 jobs. The unemployment rate remained at 9.1% for the third month in a row. A broader measure of the unemployment rate –including people who stopped looking for work or settled for part-time jobs – rose to 16.5% in September from 16.2% the previous month.

Comments and contributions from Update no.511:
Comment to the Blog:
“From here, the important news is the killing of a US citizen by the US government without any due process whatsoever. If that stands, we may as well get used to the loss of lesser rights under the PATRIOT Act and other actions. If the government can kill people, monitoring our communications and all the rest of it fade into insignificance.
“I do not understand your concern with Obama’s lame attempt at health-care reform. That was made to be overturned one way or another. Any time you give a hostile Congress four years before your legislation is enacted, that legislation is strictly a gesture rather than a real change. Not gonna happen.”
My reply to the Blog:
Re: killing al-Awlaqi. Before we go too far down this path, I would suggest re-reading my review of Al-Aulaqi v. Obama [479], or read the case itself. Judge Bates struggled with the legal and moral questions, as we all have. Yet, at the end of the day, I believe he called it the only way he could. Clearly, the al-Awlaqi case existed in a misty, gray zone, but I think Judge Bates pegged it succinctly when he observed, “All U.S. citizens may avail themselves of the U.S. judicial system if they present themselves peacefully, and no U.S. citizen may simultaneously avail himself of the U.S. judicial system and evade U.S. law enforcement authorities. Anwar Al-Aulaqi is thus faced with the same choice presented to all U.S. citizens.” In essence, he cannot claim the protection of the system as he incites others to destroy that system; further, to my knowledge, he never sought constitutional protection; his father did on his behalf.
Re: PPACA. Let it suffice to say, I am not as cynical as apparently you are regarding PPACA. The time allotted for effectivity may have been political, to allow Congress a way out, but I doubt it. I think the effectivity date was to allow sufficient time for the government, the health care and insurance industries, and citizens and companies to prepare for implementation. The 11th Circuit’s Florida v. HHS decision, which I am still studying, offers an exceptional view of PPACA, and more specifically the individual mandate. I believe this case is extraordinarily important legally, constitutionally, personally to all Americans, and worthy of our focused attention.
. . . round two:
“On this particular killing we disagree. I cannot avoid the thought that you cannot see the forest for the trees. In this instance, if a government (any government) can decide to kill one of its citizens without due process, all other discussions of civil rights are pointless. No government is representative with that condition, regardless of what else happens or who bloviates about anything else.
“In the case of health insurance, regardless of the logic given for the time frame, the four years between Congressional passage and implementation is an enormous and unmistakable opportunity for the opponents of the legislation to neutralize it. Given that fact, implementation is not an issue because the law will not be implemented.”
. . . my reply to round two:
Well, now, that was a fairly stiff accusation. I appreciate and share your concern. However, for the moment, we shall disagree. I urge you to read the Al-Aulaqi v. Obama case.
Re: PPACA. Again, we shall respectfully disagree.
. . . round three:
“It's no use telling ordinary people to read a legal case. I have no legal training or background. The information you provide is already the maximum that I can understand and a bit over.”
. . . my reply to round three:
There is no magic to judicial pronouncements. They use the same English language we use. They are quite like reading a philosophy or logic textbook. Nonetheless, as you wish.
. . . round four:
“Having read what I could of some legal decisions, I beg to differ. I suspect you suffer from the most common issue of trainers, not being aware of what you know and how that sets you off from your readers. Your example of a logic textbook is particularly unfortunate, as I have read a couple of them recently in my college experience. I got my grades by ignoring most of the content. The one on ethical analysis, which attempts to apply logic to morality, is the most utter garbage I have ever been obligated to read.”
. . . my reply to round four:
You seem to be in quite the mood this week. Regardless, I concede. There is no point in continuing to waste your time.

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

Update no.511

2011-10-03T04:29:00.002-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.511

26.9.11 – 2.10.11

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

To all,

The follow-up news items:
-- The Federal government’s new fiscal year began on Saturday. Well, it appears our dysfunctional Congress has once again succumbed to political recalcitrance [481, 483, 487], resorting to continuing, short-term, operational appropriations. The Senate passed HR.2608 – Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, retooled from the originally introduced Small Business Program Extension and Reform Act of 2011. As would be the case, the House took a recess, which was obviously more important than funding the government; so, by some unknown slight-of-hand procedure, a diminished House passed a 4-day extension, funding the government into next week, presumably to allow the House to consider the Senate version of HR.2608. We shall see.
-- The Obama administration petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the government’s appeal of the 11th Circuit’s ruling in Florida v. HHS [11CCA nos. 11–11021, 11–11067 (2011)] and the constitutionality of the individual mandate, rather than seek a review by the full 11th Circuit panel or take the time for other lower court cases to work their way through the process. The case being pushed to the Supremes is the appeal of the district court case – Florida v. HHS [USDC FL ND(PD) case: 3:10-cv-00091-RV/EMT (2011)] [477], which is the challenge by 26 states (alphabetically from Alabama to Wyoming) to the individual mandate invoked by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) [PL 111-148; 124 Stat. 119] [432]. I am only halfway through reading the decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals [my review next week, I hope].
Just an FYI: pp.21-23 of the 11th Circuit’s ruling offers the best summary of PPACA I have seen to date.
-- Yemen’s Defense Ministry announced and the White House confirmed that Anwar al-Awlaqi – a U.S. citizen by birth and self-anointed Muslim cleric affiliated with al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and one of the most influential al-Qa’ida operatives wanted by the United States – has been killed in Yemen’s Marib province. Please recall, Anwar’s father, Nasser al-Awlaqi [a legal resident alien], filed suit against the President in an attempt to prevent the targeted killing of his son. Al-Aulaqi v. Obama [USDC DC case 1:10-cv-01469-JDB (2010)] [479]; he was unsuccessful in that effort, and now any appeal is moot, other than to press the principle involved.
-- On Thursday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling on the government’s appeal of Judge Phillips’ injunction against enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” – Log Cabin Republicans v. United States [USDC CA(CD) case no. cv-04-08425-VAP (2010)] [456, 457, 461]. I have not had the time to read the 9th Circuit’s appeal decision – Log Cabin Republicans v. United States [9CCA no. 10-56634 (2011)]. I do not think the ruling is moot, given the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 [PL 111-321; 124 Stat. 3515] that became effective two weeks ago [510], because the question of reinstatement of previously discharged service members remains unresolved and depends upon a finding of unconstitutionality. More to follow.

Comments and contributions from Update no.510:
Comment to the Blog:
“Your link to Jennifer Valentino-Devries’ story on “‘Stingray’ Phone Fuels Constitutional Clash” leads to an error message reading ‘Page Unavailable. The document you requested either no longer exists or is not currently available.’ Possibly someone has decided it’s a bad idea for Americans to know about this. In any case, I share your concern about Americans’ civil rights and your fear of another J. Edgar Hoover.
“I welcome the various subpoenas and other investigatory developments involving Wall Street. If Congress will not act to limit Wall Street corruption, perhaps the courts can at least “persuade” people to act according to such laws as still exist to regulate them.”
My reply to the Blog:
Nothing quite so sinister. The newspaper is a subscription service. They want money. I will attach the text to my eMail reply. My apologies.
The Judiciary cannot act without a bona fide complaint.
[FYI: If anyone else would like the text of the article, just ask.]
“‘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

I extracted one element of my contribution to an extended threat debate regarding societal response to the issue of homosexual rights.
The article that precipitated my reply:
“‘Gay’ culture war: It's nearly lost”
by Scott Lively
Posted: September 23, 2011; 3:53 pm Eastern
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=348101
“Dr. Scott Lively is an attorney, pastor and author of several books on the homosexual agenda, including "The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party" (co-authored by Jewish researcher Kevin E. Abrams).”
My response:
Wow! Talk about red meat for the carnivore!
Re: “threat to our society posed by the homosexual movement.” I wish someone would articulate the threat. Lively certainly did not do so.
As we have discussed more than a little, any citizen is entitled to their opinion. The difficulty for us as a society rests on the threshold of injurious. When does one person’s opinion become incitement to riot, to violence, to cause injury to another citizen?
I have not read Lively’s “Pink Swastika” book, and I am not likely to waste my time doing so. Let is suffice to say, his statement, “Were the Nazis anti-homosexual? Far from it!” is flat wrong and otherwise a gross distortion of history. Did homosexuals exist among the Nazi hierarchy? Yes, absolutely, as they do in every collection of human beings – the most notable being Stabschef Sturmabteilung Ernst Julius Röhm. Such facts cannot absolve the Nazis from the murder of thousands of homosexuals, simply for being homosexual. Lively’s intimation is no different from Ahmadinejad’s public pronouncements that the Holocaust never happened.
Lively’s concluding paragraph: “The homosexual agenda represents an existential threat to Christian civilization and we're in the final phase of the war, losing badly. It all hinges upon you, Christian reader. Either get into the ‘game’ in earnest, immediately, or wave goodbye.” Now, if I am an impressionable, unthinking, devout, Christian believer, what am I to take away from his statement? Is that an inciteful statement? Am I compelled to take up the sword and avenge the affront to all Christianity?
Lastly, thank you for sharing your note. I would most likely not have become aware of such vitriol.
[NOTE: Reprinting the exchange before and after was too voluminous and not practical in this forum.]

Another contribution:
[Re: the Reno air races accident.]
“I didn't realize that losing a trim tab could have such catastrophic results- but I guess at those speeds they would.
“Also, I have seen several videos of the crash-- he came down at a steep angle. There was no fireball, just disintegration. Any thoughts why no fireball--thank goodness.”
My reply:
The aircraft was not designed for those level-flight speeds. Control loads increase dramatically with speed due to a combination of forces involved. For the P-51D as I understand it, the left tab is fixed to bias the trim-speed band as desired by the pilot. Anecdotal information suggests Leeward had been repeatedly warned that the forces on the left, fixed tab at speed were too high, but apparently he disagreed. If true, a substantial control input would have occurred with the tab failed, and that transfer would have been near instantaneous. A similar, modified, P-51D racer failed in virtually the same manner in 1998 – that pilot was extraordinarily lucky.
Preliminary indications are the engine was putting out full power, so the speed at impact had to be very high. The disintegration at impact reflects massive momentum transfer.
Re: no fireball. First, he had minimal fuel on board for just the heat he was running (minimum weight for maximum thrust-to-weight ratio), so the quantity of fuel had to be quite low. Second, the impact forces probably vaporized the remaining fuel past the combustible threshold. Either that, or there was no ignition source, which I think would be rather doubtful given the energy involved.
. . . with a follow-up:
“Thanks, appreciate the analysis. The speed was very high. There is one video in which you can see the plane diving very quickly to the ground and disintegrating. Thanks for explaining why no fireball- I thought that the high energy at which the plane hit the ground caused what fuel there was to vaporize past the combustible threshold. I hadn't thought about a low amount of fuel.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
When I flew airshow routines, I would generally have sufficient fuel for the routine, times two, which is not much. For racers like that at the airfield, they could literally carry just enough fuel to make it to the finish line and use their excessive energy to glide home . . . although the other competitors would not look kindly on such a maneuver. He probably started with just enough fuel to start, taxi, take-off, stage, run the race, sequence to land and taxi; if he planned it perfectly, the engine would stop on its own.

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

Update no.510

2011-09-26T05:14:00.002-06:00

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

2011-09-19T04:49:00.002-06:00

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

2011-09-12T04:57:00.003-06:00

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

2011-09-05T04:48:00.003-06:00

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 :-)

Update no.506

2011-08-29T04:16:00.002-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.506

22.8.11 – 28.8.11

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

To all,
The follow-up news items:
--The trauma of Air France Flight 447 (AF447) [391, 493] will continue for many years to come. Lines have been drawn in this accident, more so than in most other aircraft accidents – pilots versus designers, airlines versus manufacturers. We still do not know the root cause or contributing factors. However, the facts we do know so far point to a combination of natural and induced factors. We do not yet know how the automated system may have contributed. I do not like the posturing and finger-pointing that has clouded this investigation as we wait for the full investigation report with the flight data.

A friend and frequent contributor passed along a relevant column by retired columnist Charlie Reese that the Orlando Sentinel first published on 3.February.1984, updated and reprinted as Charlie’s last column upon his retirement on 29.July.2001, and updated again recently as reflected in the Iraq / Afghanistan sentence. I have not been successful with proper corroboration and confirmation, but sufficient collateral references suggest the text and citation are valid. I have written numerous times of the same sentiment. Charlie’s words are far more cogent and enlightening; thus, I take the unusual step of reprinting directly for your cogitative pleasure.
“545 vs. 300,000,000 People”
by Charlie Reese
“Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
“Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
“Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
“You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.
“You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
“You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
“You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
“You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
“One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
“I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
[Federal Reserve Act {[PL 63-043; 38 Stat. 251] [416]]
“I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
“Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
“What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
“The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House now? He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
“It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
“If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
“If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
“If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ...
“If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
“There are no insoluble government problems.
“Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like ‘the economy,’ ‘inflation,’ or ‘politics’ that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
“Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
“They, and they alone, have the power.
“They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
“Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...
“We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!”
No truer words were ever spoken. Spot on, Charlie. Now, when are we going to do something constructive to end this national nightmare? We cannot vote out the Supremes, but we can most certainly vote out everyone else, and hopefully find representatives who will more loyally act on behalf of We, the People. The obstacles are greater today; now, we must overcome corporations, massive law, accounting and special interest groups, and other huge concentrations of money, all buying influence and laws to protect their particular income stream from the Federal government. I think we can all recognize and acknowledge that if we were billionaires, or even just millionaires, or we were tax lawyers and accountants, or all the others who feed at the public teat, we would aggressively advocate for maintenance of the status quo – protect the income we receive by the largesse of Congress. Unfortunately, most of us are not so blessed; we loyally pay our taxes, so that Congress can give it away to the uber-rich. Eventually, we will see reality and take appropriate action.

News from the economic front:
-- Moody's downgraded Japan's sovereign debt rating from Aa2 to Aa3, due to its “large budget deficits and the build-up in Japanese government debt since the 2009 global recession.” Moody's joins the other major ratings companies Standard & Poor's and Fitch Ratings, both of which rate Japan's sovereign debt at AA- with a negative outlook.
-- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the U.S. economy is recovering and the nation’s long-term prospects remain strong, while short-term progress would remain slow and jerky. He said, “The growth fundamentals of the United States do not appear to have been permanently altered by the shocks of the past four years.” Bernanke also took this shot at the political convulsions we have endured for the last six months, “The country would be well-served by a better process for making fiscal decisions.” I must add a “well, duh!”

Comments and contributions from Update no.505:
Comment to the Blog:
I think your (and many people's) concept of "choice" is seriously over-simplified. I commend to you the new definition of addiction by the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) found at http://www.asam.org/. The ASAM study defines addiction (to whatever) as an organic brain disease. While I see the definition as lacking emphasis on the spiritual/emotional side of addiction, it is still very important to note the function of brain chemistry and structure on behavior. Indeed, study of the brain in general (neurology) has shown many fascinating connections to behavior and emotions. Please study at least some of this material before you blithely dismiss poverty as a "choice."
My reply to the Blog:
I am not sure I understand. Are you suggesting poverty is an addiction, and thus biological – a predilection, if you will? On the ASAM FAQ page, they say, “Addiction is about what happens in a person’s brain when they are exposed to rewarding substances or rewarding behaviors, and it is more about reward circuitry in the brain and related brain structures than it is about the external chemicals or behavior that ‘turn on’ that reward circuitry. We have recognized the role of memory, motivation and related circuitry in the manifestation and progression of this disease.” I am just not able to follow this path to the discussion of poverty. Please take another pass at making your point.
. . . round two:
“The point was only partially about poverty, although addiction does make people poor and keeps them there. The point was that addiction is one example of the over-simplified use of the concept of “choice,” an idea that is very appealing to a great many people who have never experienced whatever situation they are discussing. In most cases, they have not studied it in any depth either.
“To return to the poverty issue, saying that poor people often choose to remain in poverty, however one defines it, does not follow except in the foreign situations you refer to when you dispute the US definition of poverty. There are necessarily reasons of some sort that Americans do without adequate food and shelter, and dismissing them as the person's ‘choice’ does nothing to either explain or alleviate them.”
. . . my reply to round two:
While my poverty definition concern applies more to indigenous tribes and such, it also applies in this Grand Republic. Poverty is not addiction, in my opinion. As you note, addiction does contribute to poverty, and often as a consequence, to crime as a by-product of that poverty coupled the physiological desire to feed the addiction. I propose to break that cycle by allowing the addict to be an addict without poverty or crime, until he decides he has had enough and wants to change his life. The short, succinct version: I have no interest in helping those who do not want help or are not willing to contribute to the society that is helping them. You are, of course, correct; some who are stricken with genuine poverty did not choose to be so or seek to remain so afflicted. Our challenge is finding those who qualify for assistance AND are willing to return that generosity to the society that helps them. I simply urge us not to cast too broad a net without conditions. I did not intend or believe the causes of poverty were simple or easily dismissed. Like most things in life, the poor must decide to change their condition; if not, there is nothing we can do to help them. Further, I see no purpose served in subsidizing a middle class lifestyle for someone who is unwilling to work, or to learn. The bottom line is, we cannot help those who do not wish to be helped, and we should not help those who will not contribute to society.
. . . round three:
“We are in agreement at some levels. However, I object to the notion that "subsidizing a middle class lifestyle" is now or has ever been an objective or result of welfare programs in this country. I have been poor the majority of my life. As a result of that, I know many poor people and I have not seen anyone receive anything approaching a middle-class income or result from welfare programs except in a few short-lived incidents of gross and illegal manipulation of the system. Those people get turned in by other poor people.”
. . . my reply to round three:
Your objection is reasonable and appropriate if my comments were applied to all citizens who need / use public assistance. However, I was simply amplifying my suggestion for the need of filtration in qualification. Not all citizens availing themselves of public assistance are good people, who follow the rules. I simply advocate for respect . . . respect for the generosity of the State. Further, I did not say anything about income but rather lifestyle . . . Cadillacs, flat-screen TV’s, booze, neglecting their children, God knows what-all. If no welfare recipient abuses the system and all of them follow the rules, then there should never be a problem. I simply seek a proper quid pro quo for the public treasure. I do not nor do I have any intention to condemn or disparage good citizens who truly need help. Respect is bi-directional.

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

Update no.505

2011-08-22T02:58:00.002-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.505

15.8.11 – 21.8.11

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

To all,
This is a very short Update. Between our return from Austin and my motorcycle safety course for the last four days, I barely kept up with my daily reading, neglected eMail, and had to push topics into next week. If anyone else ever considers getting a motorcycle, I strongly encourage and recommend the Motorcycle Safety Foundation’s Rider’s Edge safety course . . . well worth the money, time and effort. I feel like I’ve been rode hard and put away wet, but I am street legal, now.

A long-time friend and contributor sent this link to an incredible video of a machine that actually flies like a bird. This is a must see for anyone who enjoys flight.
http://www.flixxy.com/airplane-flies-like-a-bird.htm

Comments and contributions from Update no.504:
Comment to the Blog:
“I seriously disagree with your correspondent in Mississippi. The level of poverty that we now experience in the USA is neither a Constitutional issue nor a moral one. Poverty is an economic issue. The nation as a whole, as embodied by government, must consider the ramifications of allowing more and more people to sink into poverty. My advice is to consider other nations with high rates of poverty and small numbers of extremely wealthy people, such as Haiti. Most of them are neocolonial countries, subject to the economic whims of outsiders. That is the real issue about poverty. To provide one simple example, about 14,000 people currently die here in Ohio annually from lack of health care. Even if that does not bother you, who pays to bury them? What happens when that number rises?
Of course, I disagree with your correspondent about the class warfare issue as well. Conservatives have indeed supported the wealthy in opposition to the poor. In many cases, such as Warren Buffett, the wealthy themselves object to this. Most of the conservatives are middle class or poor people consistently voting against their own interests.
“I have no idea why Harry Reid would appoint John Kerry to the ‘Super Congress.’ He’s a weak spot if there ever was one.”
My reply to the Blog:
Re: poverty. Like most topics, we must first agree upon the definition. The commonly understood definition of poverty is something like, “the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor,” which is common among “Western” nations. Americans tend to use money (income) as the measure of poverty, because that is the medium of our subsistence. However, I respectfully submit that such a metric is not only unreasonable; it is also unrealistic and seriously biases our view of poverty. I use the conjunction ‘AND’ in my conditions: “helping those who wish to be helped AND seek to better their circumstances.” If both conditions are not met, then I see no reason to expend public monies on those individuals. I acknowledge the individual citizen’s fundamental right to choose for either condition, and I shall respect their choices. Also, as I previously stated, I believe public monies should have strings attached – conditions that must be met and maintained; otherwise, no deal – sorry. Using income (or money) as the metric has gotten us so bloody crosswise with indigenous peoples around the world; it is wrong. So it is here. If a person chooses to kill themselves by overdosing on psychotropic substance(s) or chooses to live without the encumbrance of property or possessions, I say let them be, just as we should respect the decision of an individual to accept life-saving medical intervention. We must stop trying to induce people to live as we want them to live; it is not necessarily better. That said, I do accept your point; far too many people satisfy my constraints but still slip through the cracks.
Re: conservatives. I understand your argument. I am not sure I can agree. I know the public image of conservatives and even the Republican Party, but there are more than a few compassionate conservatives.
Re: Super-Committee. From my perspective, the selections by all four congressional leaders serve one purpose – perpetuation of the loggerhead. Neither party can tolerate “giving in,” so we select the faithful partisans, who will presumably not stray far from the party line. I do not see one of the selectees as helpful to finding a mutually acceptable solution to a very real problem. Further, I see the default position as a blunderbuss or perhaps even a scorched-earth solution. I want to be proven wrong.

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

Update no.504

2011-08-16T05:29:00.002-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.504

8.8.11 – 14.8.11

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

To all,
This week we finally made the journey down to Austin to see our grandchildren – Judson James and Avalon Mar . . . oh yeah, and their parents. Shalee Lynn joined us. We played a great 18-holes of golf – putt-putt miniature golf -- Saturday morning and bowling on Sunday. Judson is growing so fast and Avalon is developing quite the personality. She has a magnificent grin and quite the little flirt. We had to drive through the night to get Shalee back to make her first day of school; she was so excited. Thank you very much Melissa and Tyson. We had a delightful visit. Sorry it took us so long to get down there. We are already looking forward to our next visit.

This Update edition was a day late. My apologies.

A frequent contributor shared his letter to the local newspaper editor:
Dear Editor:
Noel Polk offers a typically well-worded criticism of classic conservative concerns ("Poor, not rich, are suffering," August 5, possibly not his chosen title). The writer he criticized complained about a perceived prevailing mentality of the near-majority of voters who pay little or no income tax and expect those who have earned comparative wealth to involuntarily share more and more of it to fund more and more welfare. I want to point out that the liberal mentality illustrated by Mr. Polk's letter, believing that there is some inherent right to "entitlements" at someone else's expense, consistently ignores the wisdom of our constitution, which was never intended to guarantee individual comfort or equality of wealth. It was structured to enhance individual freedom (from government) and equality of legal opportunity for rich and poor. Human character and achievement, like human muscle, are not strengthened by lessening resistance or removal of obstacles or compassionate enabling to make burdens easy; instead, humans are weakened by such well-intentioned but shortsighted methods, creating habitual dependence and inadvertently denying development. The poor do suffer more than the rich, but enabled by liberal idealism in government like that apparently endorsed by Mr. Polk, human beings (rich and poor) like water will seek the easiest path and that is invariably downward. Our country and our citizenry are weakened by the government "lifelines" referred to by Mr. Polk, while the Christian virtue of giving to help the poor is overshadowed and discouraged by government redistribution of wealth. Yes, the poor suffer always, more than the rich, as the Bible clearly tells us, but the truly compassionate solution is not for government to perpetuate poverty by removing incentives for our poor to strive toward individual opportunity. Mr. Polk's accusation of class warfare waged by conservatives is unfounded, but counter accusations against kind liberals would be just as counter-productive. Instead, I say, to put the principle far too simply, let's try giving away fewer fish and try offering or possibly requiring more fishing lessons for those who want fish.
. . . my contribution
I have long favored helping those who wish to be helped AND seek to better their circumstances. I am not interested in helping those who do not satisfy both conditions. Further, I think it is only fair and reasonable if you take assistance, you must abide the rules; there must be a quid pro quo; we should never dispense unconstrained monies from the Treasury. Thus, I subscribe to your “fishing lessons” conclusion.
BTW, what is the name of your local newspaper?
. . . the reply:
“The Clarion Ledger of Jackson MS (or clarion liar, as some call it) is a Gannet paper, once owned by a wealthy and prominent Jackson family who are still big in publishing. It is by far the largest in the state but has significant competition in north MS from The Commercial Appeal out of Memphis and in south MS by the Times-Picayune out of New Orleans, and has much loyal opposition from smaller local papers statewide. Fewer than 10% of my letters to the editor get published, and I have an on-going feud with David Hampton, editor, over their infuriating policy (not published by any written disclaimer at all) of editing letters that they do publish without showing that they have left out words or phrases or sentences, thus unfairly crediting the named writer with something different from what was intended. They have gutted some of my letters and made typos in others, and my complaints are to no avail. Do you know of any other paper that does this without at least showing "..." or some other indication of omissions, and without at least confessing this in a statement on the same page as the published letters?
. . . and my last comment:
I think I have roughly the same yield and same editing problem with my local newspaper – Wichita Eagle (a McClatchy paper). They’ve edited to condense, but to date have not altered the essence of my opinions.

The so-called “Super Committee” has now been selected. The leaders of each party in each chamber picked three of their members for the deficit reduction committee created by the Budget Control Act of 2011 [PL 112-025] [503]. They are:
[Speaker of the House John Boehner of Ohio selected:]
** Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas as co-chair,
** Representative David Lee “Dave” Camp of Michigan, and
** Representative Frederick Stephen “Fred” Upton also of Michigan.
[House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California selected:]
** Representative James Enos “Jim” Clyburn of South Carolina,
** Representative Christopher “Chris” Van Hollen, Jr. of Maryland, the Budget Committee ranking member; and
** Representative Xavier Becerra of California.
[Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has selected:]
** Senator Patricia Lynn “Patty” Murray (née Johns) of Washington as co-chair,
** Senator Max Sieben Baucus of Montana, and
** Senator John Forbes Kerry of Massachusetts.
[Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky selected:]
** Senator Jon Llewellyn Kyl of Arizona,
** Senator Robert Jones "Rob" Portman of Ohio, and
** Senator Patrick Joseph "Pat" Toomey, Sr., of Pennsylvania.
The selectees for the Super Committee speak volumes regarding the congressional leadership’s expectations and portend more of the same, as we have just endured in the past half dozen months. We are not likely to witness bipartisan solutions to pressing Federal financial issues. I truly hope I am pleasantly surprised. By the law, they have until the end of this year to solve the problem. This is going to be a very interesting and entertaining few months.

News from the economic front:
-- The U.S. Federal Reserve indicated it plans to keep its benchmark short-term interest rate at or near zero until at least mid-2013, as it substantially lowered its forecast of the U.S. economic recovery. Seven board members voted in favor of the action, with three voting against the move.

Comments and contributions from Update no.503:
Comment to the Blog:
“I comment this time only to point out that your position on Obama is wrong by your own reasoning. You state, ‘Politics is NOT the domination of one ideology or another; it is entirely about seeking compromise among widely divergent position, desires and objective; it is working with people of all persuasions to achieve a mutually acceptable compromise solution.’ I agree. Krugman’s point and mine is that Obama has not successfully compromised but has capitulated at every turn. He has certainly not achieved ‘a mutually acceptable compromise solution’ on much of anything. What we see is domination by the Tea Party as funded by the Koch brothers, which cannot be supported as either majority rule or constitutional government. The budget fiasco is only the latest case in point. After all the posturing and shouting, Obama got nothing for the progressive views of those who elected him. I voted for him and I wish I’d stayed home.”
My response to the Blog:
Oh my! Negotiation and compromise require that all parties at the table are prepared to compromise. Like any relationship, when one party becomes recalcitrant, the whole process breaks down. What we witnessed was political extortion. I saw little evidence of negotiation or compromise. To blame the President for suffering the extortion seems rather capricious to me. His choice was accept the bill as presented or veto it. He chose the only reasonable path available to him . . . in this case, something was better than nothing. If he had vetoed S.365, the consequence on the market would have been even more drastic that it already is. No, in this one, I believe virtually 100% of the culpability lies with Congress . . . specifically with the House Republicans and precisely with the so-called Tea Party malcontents. Unlike the recalcitrants, I am not willing to shutdown the government and destroy the standing of the United States in the world marketplace; clearly, they were! That said, I agree in principle with the Tea Party recalcitrants that the USG must make serious spending cuts . . . closing tax loopholes and ending subsidies for the wealthy is just as necessary as reform of the entitlements or major cuts in the Pentagon (but not the military). To continue giving the wealthy and corporations access to paying no taxes simply pushes the burden onto the middle class, which already pays a higher fractional tax rate than the rich. Fair is fair; everyone should share the pain.

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

Update no.503

2011-08-08T04:15:00.003-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.503

1.8.11 – 7.8.11

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

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- As we all know, this has been a tumultuous week. A few hours after the Senate passed the long awaited legislation, President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011 [PL 112-025; S.365; Senate: 74-26-0-0(0); House: 269-161-0-3(2)], which began the deficit / debt reduction process and increased the Federal debt limit from US$14.2T to as much as US$16.6T. Just as we witnessed the transformation of S.627 (AKA Faster FOIA Act of 2011) into a debt reduction bill and the Senate’s ultimate rejection [502], so too we see the diversion of S.365 that began as “a technical amendment to the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002.” Regrettably, Speaker Boehner decided to publicly gloat, claiming he extracted from Congress and the President “98% of everything he wanted in the deal” – not particularly becoming of an honorable politician . . . but, then again, “honorable politician” seems to be at least a dichotomy, if not an oxymoron. Why does this episode appear to be public extortion? The only bright spot was the triumphant return of Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona [473] to the House for the vote on the S.365 bill. Then, after all that doubt, confusion and emotional trauma, Standard & Poor’s downgraded the sovereign debt of the United States of America from AAA to AA+ (see below).
-- Leonard Pitts added his voice to the prospect of ending the so-called “war on drugs” [119 et al].
“NAACP’s paradigm shift on ending the Drug War”
by Leonard Pitts Jr.
Miami Herald
Posted on Saturday, 07.30.11
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/30/2338455/naacps-paradigm-shift-on-ending.html
. . . or . . .
“Leonard Pitts: War on drugs has been a disaster”
by Leonard Pitts Jr.
Wichita Eagle
Posted on Monday, August 01, 2011
http://www.kansas.com/2011/08/01/1956748/leonard-pitts-war-on-drugs-has.html
Leonard concluded, “It is time to concede what has long been apparent: You cannot jail people out of wanting what they want. But you just might be able to treat and educate them to that purpose. Granted, that will require a paradigm shift some of us will find difficult to get our heads around.
“But if the NAACP can do it, you and I have no excuse.”
Amen, brother! I admit the urge to add a few words in a trailing prepositional phrase to Leonard’s: “. . . what they want . . . in a free society.”
-- Perhaps the best public account of the bin Ladin raid [490], yet:
“Getting Bin Laden – What happened that night in Abbottabad”
by Nicholas Schmidle
The New Yorker
Published: August 8, 2011
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle?printable=true
An interesting FYI: Nick’s father is Lieutenant General Robert E. Schmidle, Jr., USMC, currently: Deputy Commander for U.S. Cyber Command, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland.

“The Cult That Is Destroying America”
by Paul Krugman
New York Times
Published: July 26, 2011, 5:09 pm
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/the-cult-that-is-destroying-america/
I draw attention to this opinion, not because I find any affinity with the reasoning, but rather to illuminate the very logic that so divides this Grand Republic. Politics is NOT the domination of one ideology or another; it is entirely about seeking compromise among widely divergent position, desires and objective; it is working with people of all persuasions to achieve a mutually acceptable compromise solution. Paul Krugman is just as wrong as Rush Limbaugh.

I reached the point of my judicial reading list for an oldie but goodie – Ginsberg v. New York [390 U.S. 629 (1968); no. 47]. I would not note or offer an opinion on a 43-year-old, obscenity case, but after the reading, there is an important lesson for us. Sam Ginsberg and his wife owned and operated “Sam's Stationery and Luncheonette” in Bellmore, Long Island, New York. The Supremes of the day affirmed the authority of the State to prosecute Ginsberg for selling a 16-year-old boy two “girlie” magazines in October 1965, in violation of §484-h of the New York Penal Law. It was Associate Justice Abraham “Abe” Fortas who gave us a succinct, second, dissenting opinion that struck a chord with me. He was the only justice to note, “A 16-year-old boy was enlisted by his mother to go to the luncheonette and buy some ‘girlie’ magazines so that Ginsberg could be prosecuted.” He concluded, “But it does not follow that the State may convict a passive luncheonette operator of a crime because a 16-year-old boy maliciously and designedly picks up and pays for two girlie magazines which are presumably not obscene.” This case is an excellent example of what happens when we try to impose our values, our beliefs, our morals, on other citizens. A free society means all citizens must enjoy the Liberty to pursue their particular choices for Happiness, not just the chosen few.

News from the economic front:
-- The Commerce Department reported U.S. consumer spending decreased 0.2% in June, after rising an upwardly revised 0.1% in May -- the biggest drop since September 2009. Incomes rose 0.1% after increasing 0.2% in May.
-- The Institute for Supply Management's manufacturing index was at 50.9% down from 55.3% in June (the lowest level in two years), after an earlier report that the U.S. manufacturing sector barely expanded in July.
-- Japan Finance Minister Yoshihiko Noda announced the government’s intervention in currency markets to stem the speculator-driven rise of the yen against the dollar. The yen weakened suddenly, with the dollar jumping from ¥77.13 to ¥78.20 and the euro from ¥110.72 to ¥111.80. The Japanese government seeks to preserve modest growth in their economy, rebounding surprisingly well from the March earthquake and tsunami.
-- The Labor Department reported nonfarm payrolls rose by 117,000, and revised the previous two months up by a total of 56,000 – stronger than expected. Private-sector employers added 154,000 jobs in July, up from 80,000 in June. Government employment continued to fall, shedding 37,000 jobs. The unemployment rate declined from 9.2% to 9.1% last month.
-- After the markets closed on Friday, Standard & Poor's took the unprecedented action of downgrading the U.S. government's sovereign credit rating one notch from AAA to AA+ -- an action that has never happened to the United States before, and undoubtedly will send deep reverberations through the global financial markets and potentially undermine world economic growth. The other two ratings agencies, Moody’s and Fitch, both have said that they have no immediate plan to downgrade the country’s credit rating, which should mitigate the S&P action somewhat. This appears to be far more a political statement rather than a financial judgment. Just an FYI: other countries that still retain their AAA are: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. As a side note, other countries that have a AAA rating but are small and dependent on other states are: Guernsey, Isle of Man, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg. Countries with an AA+ rating include New Zealand and Belgium. Countries like Bermuda, Spain and Qatar have an AA rating, one notch lower than the United States.

Comments and contributions from Update no.502:
Comment to the Blog:
“I have found it easier to face commuting by using two methods. (A) I am currently a college student. Most of my courses are online; problem solved. (B) Whenever I drive, I drive only the vehicle of which I am in charge. I remember that others’ driving is not my problem and I allow the amount of time required to arrive at my destination legally and safely. I carry something to read in case I encounter no dimwits, unexpected construction zones, or other unplanned delays, but I get little reading done that way. The specific delays I cannot predict; that I will have delays I can expect.
“Your new Harley may very well bring you a great deal of joy, just not while commuting. If your last 2-wheeler was a 350 and was long ago, please begin with a great deal of caution. I don’t know the motor and drive line of that bike, but Harleys of which I’m aware little resemble a Honda 350.
“I assume that the use of “disperse” rather than ‘disburse’ is intended ironically. The debt limit “debate” (grandstanding) is an example of politics, not of economics. The Congress feels the pressure every so often to show fiscal responsibility, of which it collectively knows nothing. The result of that is nonsense like the debt ‘ceiling.’ I follow a blog written by economists, the leader of which is Simon Johnston, the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund. Here is my explanation of one thing I’ve learned. That the USA has more debt than income is roughly equivalent to a household that has $50,000 in income and $150,000 in a mortgage and other debt. Both parties pay interest on their debt. So what? I’d rather the banker for the USA’s debt was not China, but that’s not my decision.
“Good luck rooting out hypocrisy in Congress. There’s plenty and that will continue for the foreseeable future. We elect human beings to handle vast amounts of money. Their desire to be re-elected assures that some of the money flows to districts, states, and campaign contributors, deserving or not.
“I believe that Warren Buffet knows more about his tax situation than that reporter. Buffet knows a great deal about money in general and seems to be a responsible citizen, one of the few in his industry. Perhaps we should listen to him.
“My point about ‘professional’ soldiers still holds, I think. The people who have fought the US to a standstill in Iraq, Afghanistan, et al are minimally trained and not organized in the way or to the level of any professional military. Something fundamental has changed.”
My reply to the Blog:
If telecommuting was available to me, I would take it in a heartbeat. You have a good, stable attitude toward driving. My downfall is I have driven in other countries; while there are obvious similarities, there are significant differences that tend to illuminate the deficiencies of discourteous American drivers.
I am keenly aware there is a huge difference between a 1971 Honda 350 Scrambler (350 cc) and a 2011 Harley Road King with its 1700 cc engine and doubled weight. Rest assured, my hero days are long over, and I intend to be a respectfully cautious rider.
Re: debt limit. Yes, spot on!
Re: hypocrisy in Congress. Again, spot on!
Re: Warren Buffet. My point, precisely!
Re: professional soldiers. I thought your comment was directed at U.S. soldiers. Taliban, al-Qa’ida, et al, yes indeedie; the best we could call them is “irregulars” as you said. I do not believe the Taliban has fought us to a standstill. There is ebb & flow in all warfare. It is too early to write off the United States and its allies in the Battle for Afghanistan.

Another contribution:
“I still can recall our days together on Okinawa when you convinced me to buy a motorcycle. Our whole set of officers in D 1/4 ended up owning motorcycles.
“I took mine back to Camp Lejeune with me, but eventually sold it. As CO of K 3/6, I was making too many calls on the orthopedic ward at the Navy Hospital to visit my Marines recovering from motorcycle accidents. No matter how good a rider you are, your are constantly vulnerable to those idiot drivers you now complain about. I think steel frames, air bags and seat/shoulder belts are much safer.
“I wish you luck and hope you enjoy many years of safe riding on your cycle!”
My response:
Ah yes, that is where it all began. I shipped mine back as well. I rode through Flight School and my first squadron (HMA-169). I sold it before heading to Test Pilot School when our first child was born. I recognize and acknowledge the risks. I was taught early and reinforced repeatedly to assume every driver on the road is trying to kill you; it kept me safe during my riding years, and expect it will continue to keep me safe.

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

Update no.502

2011-08-01T04:27:00.002-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.502

25.7.11 – 31.7.11

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

To all,
I know I am more than a few pence short of the full quid. I acknowledge that fact up front. It only took me 40 years to figure out a life-truth. Y’all have endured my periodic rants about discourteous American drivers. I finally figured out how to keep what is left of my feeble pea-brain safe from the stress of tolerating the oblivion of some drivers who apparently believe the entire highway belongs to them personally, and there is no need or reason for order, discipline, respect or reason. Here is my epiphany. If I drive 20mph below the speed limit in the far right lane (or left for our British cousins), then I will never have a slower driver block the road. I will just stay in the lorry lane, and enjoy that I am avoiding the frustration of disrespectful drivers. I wish those drivers, who are the object of my scorn, could learn to drive properly in England, Italy, Japan, Germany, and so many other countries. Alas, I would not wish them on any decent citizens of other friendly nations, who know how to drive with respect for others on the road.

Sensing my frustration with the daily commute, Jeanne took charge (not that she ever lost it), gathered me up, and off to the local Harley-Davidson dealership we went. We are now the proud owners of a 2011 Silver Road King motorcycle. I gave up my Honda 350 Scrambler when the kids were born. They are grown. My Mom has passed. Jeanne knew it was time. So, there you have it – my mid-life crisis realized.

Monday night, President Obama and Speaker Boehner took to the airways to pitch their case in the continuing debacle over the U.S. debt. They both played to their political supporters, but I must say, of the two messages and positions, I believe the President more. He said, “[The American people are] fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word.” Spot on, Mr. President! Boehner’s notion of a small six-month extension, pushing this very same debate into an election year, will NOT encourage compromise; as such, I cannot support the Boehner approach. The last few months of this debate have occurred in the precise time of the fiscal year that Congress should be passing appropriations for governmental operations, including for an army in the field engaged in harm’s way. Economic growth depends directly upon confidence. When that confidence is shaken for whatever reason (war, disaster, instability, et cetera), markets become progressively more conservative and wait-n-see-ish. Congress is not playing with matches; they are playing with thermonuclear bonfires.
The debt limit of the United States is a self-imposed, artificial boundary. Congress created the debt limit with passage of the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 [40 Stat. 288; 31 USC 3101] that imposed a not-to-exceed limit of US$7.539B on Federal debt. I have not taken the time to count how many times Congress has raised the debt limit since 1917; let it suffice to say . . . a lot. The U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8 (1788) authorizes Congress to raise revenues and allocate funds. In essence, Congress passed a law to limit itself . . . except Congress just moves the limit so it can disperse more money. . [NOTE: I used the word ‘disperse’ rather than the normal ‘disburse’ intentionally.] The 14th Amendment, Section 4 (1868) acknowledges and reinforces the sovereign debt of this Grand Republic. No President has had a “blank check” as some of the political drivel has claimed. While the President has some discretion in spending money, just as he does with enforcement of other laws, it is Congress that authorizes expenditures – telling the Executive on what and how much to spend the public treasury. So, all the mindless, parochial, political yammering, trying to point the accusatory finger at President Obama, serves only one purpose – political division and adherence to political ideology. This is Congress’s mess lock, stock & barrel.
The so-called Boehner Plan barely passed the House of Representatives Friday afternoon. Actually, the bill used for that purpose was S.627, titled: Faster FOIA Act of 2011. The text presented by the Library of Congress addresses the original purpose, rather than whatever the new purpose happens to be; I have no idea what the “Boehner Plan” entails, other than what the Press has reflected. The House passed S.627: 218-208-0-5(4). Less than two hours later, the Senate passed a motion to table the House S.627 bill: 59-41-0-0(0). Congress has been working through the weekend. Late Sunday, the President and the Press suggested a 23rd hour deal may have been struck. We shall see if they pass something the President can sign by Tuesday.
Some additional thoughts. The most we can accuse at least the previous three presidents of is not having the cohones to veto the constant flood of obscene, earmark-laden, spending bills coming from Congress; and frankly, the worst of the three has been George W. Bush. So, let’s call a spade a spade. For Republicans to stand on some faux-sanctimonious ground of fiscal responsibility is so far down the hypocritical scale, it is beyond the boundaries of the solar system. On one hand, I laud the Tea Party freshmen for their resolve and courage to stand up to the mark and be counted as trying to get our governmental, fiscal house in order. However, holding the government hostage, after a serious recession, shaking the entire world financial system, threatening to send the nation into a second dip recession or even a major depression is NOT the way to accomplish the objective. I want to see if any of these Tea Party guys who seek to bring down the government will avail themselves of earmarks to disperse their particular largesse. I do not have evidence, yet, but I strongly suspect we shall see more of the hypocrisy that contaminates our political system. After doing all this damage and adding whatever lies ahead, if one of those Tea Party guys tries to attach just one, little, tiny, teeny-weeny earmark, he should be nailed to a cross, upside-down, as Peter was in 67AD and ignominiously erected on the lawn of the Capitol Building to remind everyone that hypocrisy will not be tolerated.

I sent an eMail message to Congress and our local newspaper:
Sent to U.S. Senators Roberts & Moran, and U.S. Representative Pompeo:
You are a representative of We, the People, in Congress. By the Constitution, Congress determines what, when and how to spend the public treasury. Congress must stand up to reality. The continuing impasse regarding the Federal debt has already caused a substantial reduction of confidence in this Grand Republic. We strongly urge you to find a mutually acceptable, compromise solution, NOW! Pushing this debate into an election year will not make the process of compromise and moderation easier. You must abandon the rigid political ideology that places political party over the general welfare of We, the People. This is NOT a game. We do not want to find out if Lord Woodhouselee was prophetic.
Sent to Congress and the Wichita Eagle, Thursday, 28.July.2011.

The Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses pour la sécurité de l’aviation civile (BEA) issued its second interim report on the Air France Flight 447 (AF447) crash.
It appears the investigation is narrowing down to the root cause. The BEA notes "likely" ice crystal impaction compromising all three pitot tubes, yet they do not acknowledge that as the precipitating event, or even mention the phenomenon and susceptibility in their recommendations. They hit the pilots' actions rather strongly. It was like the pilots got mentally locked into a presumed "solution" and held it to impact. They apparently aggravated the stall and entered a deep stall, which in turn was probably not recoverable. However, they made no mention of "out of the box" efforts to extricate themselves. Before we go too far down that road on words alone, I would really like to see the FDR traces and a full-up animation to correlate the instrumentation, controls, and communications. Hopefully, they will release that processed data soon. It was good to see their recommendation that direct Angle of Attack (AOA) indications should be available to the crew; that one piece of data might have saved their lives (if they knew how to use it).

“Warren Buffett Is Wrong On Taxes – Millionaires and billionaires pay a higher share of their income in taxes than the middle class”
by Stephen Moore
OPINION
Wall Street Journal
Published: July 28, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903999904576466541882356616.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h
Holy jumpin’ jehosafats, Batman! These are the games we are destined to play . . . very supportive of the Republican mantra, “No new taxes.” It is intriguing to see how Moore rationalizes his presumption. But, oh what the heck, he has impressive numbers, so he must be correct, and Warren Buffet must be delusional.

News from the economic front:
-- Moody's Investors Service reduced Greece's foreign- and local-currency bond ratings from Caa1 to Ca – three notches further into junk bond status – citing the likelihood that private creditors will suffer “substantial” losses on their holdings of government debt. Moody's said that even with the European Union rescue plan, the Greek government was “virtually 100%” likely to default on its bonds.
-- Moody's also announced with was reviewing Spain's Aa2 ratings for possible downgrade, citing the increased vulnerability of the government's finances to market stress, and greater risk to bondholders due to the precedent set by euro-zone action to support Greece. Moody’s did give the Spanish government positive recognition for its efforts to meet near-term fiscal consolidation targets, but highlighted the challenges posed by weak economic growth and fiscal slippage within parts of its regional and local-government sectors.
-- The U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose at an annualized seasonally adjusted rate of 1.3% in the second-quarter against an expected GDP increase of 1.8%. Consumer spending edged up by an annualized rate of only 0.1%, the weakest it has been in two years. The first-quarter growth was revised down sharply from the earlier estimate of a 1.9% to a 0.4% gain.

Comments and contributions from Update no.501:
Comment from the Blog:
“In regard to polygamous families (they do not claim to be ‘married’ in a legal sense), I have watched that show. As far as I know, no party claims any form of abuse or coercion in that particular family. That leaves only the likes of Justice Scalia to harass and annoy the people in this case, Kody Brown and his large family. Justice Scalia’s extensive list of his fears concerns me less than his precedent for “validation of laws based on moral choices.” If Justice Scalia disapproves of ‘bigamy, same-sex marriage . . .’ etc., he should avoid participating in those activities. If Kody Brown’s wives knowingly agree to plural marriage and remain in that marriage voluntarily, that’s not Scalia’s or any moral arbiter's business. I have watched at least a season of their reality TV show; they and their children appear to be about as happy, unhappy, confused, certain, loving, indifferent and all the rest as more ordinary families I know. While I am not a polygamist by nature, other forms of “alternative” relationships might appeal to me. I will remember not to ask Justice Scalia to participate in them.
“In re: Supreme Court. Some of the justices have other issues at present. A CNN story at http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-20/politics/scotus.conflict.allegation_1_justice-department-scalia-political-strategy?_s=PM:POLITICS details Common Cause allegations against Justices Thomas and Scalia concerning their involvement with the Koch brothers, who operate an energy company based in Wichita and who are deeply involved in political activities. Thomas has other allegations against him as well.
“We have argued the torture/interrogation issue at enough length, but I want to point out that your statement that “wars need to be fought by professional warriors” runs counter to history. Beginning in 1783, when the best professional military of its time was defeated by those amateur American colonists, professionalism in the military has declined. A likely final blow has been dealt by Afghanistan, where a truly unprofessional collection of true believers and others has defeated the mighty USSR and brought the USA to a lengthy stalemate, thus humbling what had been the two superpowers. “Irregulars” might very well be the wave of the future.
“I will answer your rhetorical question. ‘I ask, have we traded the oppression of the ‘divine right of kings’ as royal birthright, for the tyranny of the royalty of money?’ Yep. The only power left to the People is the only power that matters—the power of the ballot box. In order to use that, we must overcome the power of money to buy media and other influence.
“Finally, to respond to one of your responses, our “social and political hypocrisies” mark the places where our society is dysfunctional.”
My reply to the Blog:
Re: polygamy. Well said! I think that should be the mantra against most, if not all, of the morality laws. “If you don’t like something, don’t do it.” That said, I must add concomitantly that some regulation is required in place of any of the morality laws. For example, I can accept non-traditional marriage arrangements defined by the individuals involved, as long as all participants freely choose the arrangement and do not pass communicable diseases unknowingly (full disclosure). The same would be true for the other “sins”: prostitution, gambling, consumption of intoxicants, et al. Scalia & Thomas casually wave away the freedom of choice for We, the People; I’m obviously not a supporter of their political beliefs.
Re: Kody Brown. We’ve watched the program as well. While I generally laud their conduct and dedication to family, his paternalism (founded in his religious beliefs) is just as wrong as racism, sexism, homophobia, et cetera. My bottom line: we can object or even be offended by the choices of others, but that does not give us the right to impose our beliefs and values on others.
Re: Scalia / Thomas ethics. We must remain vigilant.
Re: military. By professional, I mean trained, not simply lifers. We had trained soldiers in 1776, as we have had them in every war since. My point was, we do not watch over the shoulder and critique the doctor, or the artist, or the lawyer for that matter. Average citizens should not be looking over the soldier’s shoulder either. War is a nasty, disgusting business, best left to those trained to perform those duties.
Re: money royalty. You are of course quite correct, but that does not diminish my disdain for those who consider themselves better than us common folk.
Re: dysfunctional society. Probably so, but I suspect we have endured the phenomenon since the founding of this Grand Republic.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“The only thing I can add is that dysfunctional societies probably go back before written history; hypocrisy is, however, a marker we could use to locate the problems.”
. . . and my follow-up reply:
Well said and spot on!

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

Update no.501

2011-07-25T04:09:00.002-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.501

18.7.11 – 24.7.11

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

To all,

At 05:57 [R] CDT, Thursday, 21.July.2011, Space Shuttle Atlantis landed at Kennedy Space Center for the last time, completing a successful STS-135 mission and ending the incredible space shuttle program. This moment is historic and quite similar to 19.December.1972, when the Apollo manned missions to the Moon ended. Now, we move on to the next era of human exploration of space beyond our beautiful blue orb.

“One Big, Happy Polygamous Family”
by Jonathan Turley – Op-Ed Contributor
New York Times
Published: July 20, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/opinion/21turley.html?nl=opinion&emc=tya3
The opinion article notes a legal challenge to the Utah criminal code by the patriarch of a public polygamous family featured in TLC’s “Sister Wives.” Professor Turley drew specific attention to Antonin the Impaler’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003] [082, 188]. If you choose to read the article, I thought I would offer the specific quote: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision [Lawrence]; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.” Once again, I ask, why should the State be involved in any of the moral choices listed in Antonin’s dissent (or even others not listed)? We need to talk about these topics, overcome our learned sensitivity and discomfort, and find solutions . . . after all, there is at least one of those choices with the potential for injury. Let the intercourse begin.

Earlier this month, Human Rights Watch (HRW) published a report titled: “Getting Away with Torture – The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees.” The title aptly and solely offers a good clue of the report’s content. Nonetheless, I took the time to carefully read the 108-page screed. The tone of the report at the outset did not convey objectivity – only predisposed political bias. I suppose we could stop here, but I have more to say. If an individual reader does not care about a scholarly, balanced assessment of intelligence interrogation processes or detention of illegal battlefield combatants, then the HRW report offers a convincing treatise to feed his presumptions. If on the other hand, you seek to understand the challenges of intelligence interrogation and to place such activities in the proper context of a worldwide War on Islamic Fascism, then the HRW report is woefully and sorely lacking. Amply inundated, impressive looking citations of U.S. law and related documents help wrap such work in the cloak of authenticity and legitimacy. They got a number of key facts wrong, which detracts from their credibility to be objective regarding a sensitive topic like wartime detainees, e.g., footnote 9 is completely wrong, and on pg.49 – the Anti-Torture Act does not exist. The report makes no attempt to even acknowledge or recognize any proper intelligence value beyond simple detention of an unlawful battlefield combatant. If you are convinced Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Tenet were criminals, then the HRW report will be a highly supportive and reinforcing essay; you will find abundant ammunition for your continued disdain of the prior administration. I do not see this issue in the same light; and thus, I reject the attempted indictment of President Bush and his lieutenants for “war crimes.” It is as if HRW seeks to humanize war, which in turn will only get good men killed.
Beyond the overall rejection of the HRW report, I will acknowledge disturbing conduct in the handling of some detainees in the War on Islamic Fascism as illuminated in the report. Were their detainee abuses even by my rather broad definitions? Yes, absolutely and without equivocation. Rather than indict the whole process and seriously hobble our intelligence apparatus, let us prosecute the offenders rather than those leaders charged with waging war successfully and defending this Grand Republic.
Now, if I have not already lost your attention and if you will permit me, I would like to offer some constructive criticism. To avoid this divisive debate in future wars, we need a dedicated, professional, strategic interrogation unit like the MIS-Y group of the P.O. Box 1142 unit [246] created on 15.May.1942, and operated secretly and effectively throughout World War II, only a few miles from Washington, DC. We need to search for, train and encourage professional interrogators like Major Sherwood Ford Moran, USMCR [491]. The various laws, conventions, guidelines and protocols, including 18 U.S.C. §2340A, do not recognize the status of the captive person, i.e., all captives are to be treated the same. I shall respectfully submit that battlefield captives are NOT the same, and should not be subject to common treatment. More realistic stratification might be: 1.) Proper POWs, 2.) Individuals subject to prosecution under civil code, 3.) Proper POWs subject to field combat interrogation, 4.) Captives subject to strategic intelligence interrogation, and 5.) Illegal battlefield combatants or other irregulars. Each category of captive should be exposed to different potential treatment and techniques commensurate to their strategic value to the United States and our allies. Failure to recognize the intelligence value of certain captives will be yet one more hobble on our ability to wage war successfully. I understand quite well that discussions of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs) make normal citizens uncomfortable and that the majority of citizens would prefer EITs were never used on another human being. Likewise, I think those same citizens would not want to watch an eight-year-old girl explode or a sharpshooter decapitate an unlawful battlefield combatant with a well-aimed, two-kilometer shot. This is precisely why war needs to be fought by professional warriors and intelligence agents beyond the awareness of the public.
Lastly, I join HRW regarding the need for an independent investigation to understand the facts. However, as long as the War on Islamic Fascism continues, such an investigation must be highly classified, beyond public view, on the basis of legislative enhancement of controlling law. If evidence of criminal abuse is detected during such a secret investigation, then specific consideration by the CID or FBI should be initiated. The Supreme Court’s recent Davis “good faith” ruling [500] appears to apply; we do NOT need our intelligence operatives looking over their shoulder during wartime. If we want a public examination of intelligence interrogation processes and techniques, then we must wait until the War on Islamic Fascism is won and concluded. We must not forget that we remain in an active, serious war.

Imagine, if you will, being an aspiring, committed candidate seeking to serve We, the People, in high political office. You are not a wealthy person and do not possess sufficient, personal resources to finance your campaign. You only have two choices: 1.) solicit substantial contributions from your supporters, or 2.) submit to the political agenda of one of the two major political parties; either choices means you will are beholding to those who have the resources to support you. Nearly one-third of states have adopted various forms of public financing of election campaigns with one purpose – reduce or end political corruption. In 1991, a major political scandal known as AZSCAM rocked the Arizona legislature; ten members of the State House and Senate resigned or were removed. In 1997, the Arizona governor was forced to resign due to a felony conviction. In the election of 1998, the People of Arizona passed two important referenda: Proposition 200, also known as An Act Relating to a Campaign Finance Funding and Reporting System or the Citizens Clean Elections Act, the subject of a recent Supreme Court ruling, and Proposition 105 that limits the ability of legislature or governor to alter laws passed by the People. The Clean Elections Act created a scheme of public financing and rules in an effort to “level the playing field” for all qualified candidates to counter those candidates with massive campaign treasuries of corporate and private contributions. The purpose of the law was to reduce the corruption in government. The Arizona Free Enterprise Club challenged the constitutionality of the Clean Election Act on behalf of the organization’s Freedom Club PAC, claiming the law violated their First Amendment freedom of speech. Last month, the Supremes decided that case – Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett [564 U.S. ___ (2011); no. 10–238]. The direct, succinct, summarized conclusion of this latest ruling . . . another Citizens United [424], we have. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the sharply divided 5-4 Court. The narrow majority was quite transparent and not worthy of more words. Associate Justice Elena Kagan offered an articulate, scholarly, passionate dissent. She noted, “So the majority has no evidence--zero, none--that the objective of the Act is anything other than the interest that the State asserts, the Act proclaims, and the history of public financing supports: fighting corruption.” Kagan concluded for the dissent, “No fundamental principle of our Constitution backs the Court's ruling [Freedom Club PAC]; to the contrary, it is the law struck down today that fostered both the vigorous competition of ideas and its ultimate object--a government responsive to the will of the people. Arizonans deserve better. Like citizens across this country, Arizonans deserve a government that represents and serves them all. And no less, Arizonans deserve the chance to reform their electoral system so as to attain that most American of goals.”
I ask, have we traded the oppression of the “divine right of kings” as royal birthright, for the tyranny of the royalty of money? Why is it so hard for the Supremes to recognize or acknowledge the vast corrupting influence of money? Oh wait . . . could it be they have a vested interest? Now, please allow me to emphatically state, I am NOT against the wealthy among us using their money to seek advantage, or the program, expenditures, or tax breaks that enhance their wealth and privilege. What I am adamantly against is the implication that money makes an individual citizen any more important than another, or that their wealth entitles them to pay less tax than me, or any of the rest of us. The established political parties do not want competition, which is precisely why they work so hard to make it virtually impossible for independents or even third party candidates to successfully compete. Even the vast wealth of Ross Perot was not enough. Lastly, again I ask, what is wrong with “leveling the playing field” with respect to campaign funding? The Supremes did not help me understand their objection.

Comments and contributions from Update no.500:
“Certainly a heart-breaking loss for the US Women. But on the flip side, Japan certainly needed something to lift their spirits after the earthquake and meltdown that devastated their country. Congrats to Japan on a hard-fought victory.
“Good for the Danes! Though they better be prepared. If the EU is anything like the Obama Administration in regards to Arizona, they'll do a full-court legal press on them and treat them like an enemy state. Hey, if the so-called leaders at the top don't want to do squat on illegal immigration, states have to take matters into their own hands . . . if federal officials and incompetent judges will let us.”
My response:
Thank you for your comments. Well said!
I have nothing to add.

Another contribution:
“Just a note regarding the financial problems of Greece and Italy- in particular. One huge problem those countries have is the inability to collect taxes. It is a game people play, and the government does not have a viable IRS-type entity to collect. Greece is the worst, with billions of taxes not paid- which is why they are in such trouble.”
My reply:
Italy seemed to be pretty effective at collecting my tax contributions when I worked there. I do not have any experience working in Greece. I would wholeheartedly agree that ineffective tax collection is injurious . . . I would go so far as to say far worse than no tax at all. It creates an environment of inequity and corruption.
If wealthy Americans paid the same fraction of their income as I pay of mine, I would be far more supportive of the Republican “no new taxes” mantra. They do not! In fact, not only do many not pay a comparable percentage of their income, they often feed bountifully at the Treasury teat with bogus farm subsidies, development exemptions, off-shore income, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum. Big contributors expect and receive big breaks and benefits.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I heartily concur with you....the same Tea Party crowd that yells about taxes is actually funded in large part by the wealthy Americans who pay little or no taxes...and that is why.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
Not the least of our social and political hypocrisies.

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

Update no.500

2011-07-18T05:08:00.002-06:00

Update from the Heartland

No.500

11.7.11 – 17.7.11

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

To all,
For those into numbers, a bit of a milestone, I do presume – 500th edition, spread over nearly ten years. I have enjoyed this process. I hope others have found some smidgen of usefulness in this Blog. I look forward to the next 500 editions.

As disappointing as it is for a proud American, congratulations must go the national team of Japan for their victory in the Women’s World Cup championship in Frankfurt, Germany. The U.S. women did extraordinarily well, but two defensive lapses along with lackluster penalty kicks did them in, but that is the nature of the game.

In the category of “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore,” we have the Danish government’s defiance of European Union (EU) edicts regarding immigration control. When I look at the Danish situation, they are faced with virtually unchecked immigration into other EU countries; and then, the open borders agreement as part of the EU has allowed too many undesirables into their small country, which in turn seriously burdens their social support structure without compensation from the EU or the countries that let the individuals into the EU in the first place. Denmark felt it had no choice but to institute border controls to regulate entry into their country. Does this sound familiar? This is where we are headed, if the Federal government does not control the borders and implement comprehensive immigration reform.

Now, we add Italy to the list of EU countries at risk in the on-going debt crisis. Does anyone else find it odd that all of the EU countries in trouble – Greece, Ireland, Portugal and now Italy (with Spain looming) – are all heavily socialist states? Could it be that socialism is a fair-weather friend, easily abused?

On Tuesday, on behalf of We, the People, President Barack Obama awarded the Medal of Honor to Sergeant First Class Leroy Arthur Petry, USA, 31, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty on 26.May.2008, as a Weapons Squad Leader with D Company, 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, in the vicinity of Paktya Province, Afghanistan.

I lifted this comment from our daughter-in-law’s Facebook page:
“Don’t like gay marriages? Don’t get one!
“Don’t like cigarettes? Don’t smoke them!
“Don’t like abortions? Don’t get one!
“Don’t like sex? Don’t have it!
“Don’t like drugs? Don’t do them!
“Don’t like porn? Don’t watch it!
“Don’t like alcohol? Don’t drink it!
“Don’t like guns? Don’t buy one!
“Don’t like your rights taken away??? Don’t take away someone else’s!!!”
I could keep going on a list like this. Distilled down to its basic elements, the equation is quite simple – let us all respect the choices of each individual citizen and their choices for “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.” We can object, be offended, or consider such activities sinful, morally reprehensible and flat wrong; but, that does not give us the right to intrude upon another citizen’s choices (as no one else’s person or property is injured or harmed). We have acquiesced to our representatives for generations and tolerated those damnable moral-projection laws; it is long past time for We, the People, to reassert our fundamental, unalienable rights. Freedom is freedom for all of us, or none of us are truly free.

“There is so much good in the worst of us,
and so much bad in the best of us,
that it ill behooves any of us to find fault with the rest of us.”
-- James Truslow Adams (American Historian, 1878-1949)

A continuation from a separate thread:
This is part of a reply sent by my Republican U.S. Representative, Steve Stivers [of Ohio], to one of my emails. Coming from a Republican, this looks hopeful.

[see below]

I'm not sure whether you would want to use this in your blog or not, but it seems to be an indicator of "which way the wind blows." I was particularly interested in the figure on people needing but not receiving rehabilitation annually. That surely exceeds any court-ordered programs for our state.
[Constituent response letter from Representative Stivers:]
“Thank you for your recent email regarding legalizing marijuana and for sharing your perspective. I appreciate hearing from you.
“There are several factors to consider when debating the issue of legalizing marijuana and the war on drugs. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) conducts an anonymous annual survey of 8th, 10th, and 12th-graders in the United States regarding their personal use of illicit drugs. Their findings from 2010 indicate that more 14-year-olds report using marijuana on a daily basis than at any point in the past ten years of the study.
“There are also issues to consider regarding the sentencing guidelines for non-violent drug offenses. The current U.S. punishment model for non-violent drug users contributes to overcrowded prisons in Ohio and across the country. The costs of incarcerating so many people vary from prison to prison, but a large portion of taxpayer dollars are consumed by locking up non-violent criminals. Other issues to consider in this discussion of legalizing marijuana include the treatment and prevention of addiction to illicit drugs. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, more than 200,000 Ohioans report needing but not receiving rehabilitation services for illicit drug use each year.
As you mentioned, Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced H.R. 2306 on June 23, 2011. This legislation seeks to limit the application of federal laws to the distribution and consumption of marijuana. It was referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee and House Judiciary Committee. I am not a member of those committees, but be assured I have noted your comments and should H.R. 2306 reach the House floor for a vote, I will keep your support in mind.”
. . . to which I replied:
I have no idea whether the data are correct, and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of Stivers’ comments / opinion. Now, we simply need to convince 434 other representatives and 100 senators to join Stivers.
As we discussed many times before, I have been in favor of helping those who truly seek to rid themselves of the shackles of addictive intoxication. I do not think incarceration is appropriate or effective for non-violent, non-injury-inflicting, substance abusers; in essence, they are only harming themselves. Likewise, I am not interested in contributing to an individual’s cycle of abuse . . . too much risk to others.
I hold no illusions that unraveling the obscene web of laws and consequences created by the foolish “war on drugs” will be easy or quick, but we must start somewhere, just like a huge knot of yarn . . . we start with one strand and work our way to conclusion.
. . . with this follow-up comment:
“I would not publish a private communication, but I don't see this one as private. It's a response by a public official to a constituent not known to him personally or via any business association, so I see it as essentially a public position.”
. . . and my follow-up reply:
No need to verify numbers, unless you want to; they are an interesting curiosity, but not really relevant to the discussion, i.e., need is present, magnitude irrelevant. I don't want that to sound harsh, just honest.
. . . along with this secondary follow-up comment:
“I fail to see how the magnitude could be irrelevant. The urgency of the issue, the money saved or spent, and the ultimate results of changing or failing to change all depend upon the magnitude of the need. If 20 people in a given state are turned away from treatment for lack of funding, that's sad for all of us and tragic for the 20 people. If 200,000 people are turned away, that's a major issue for law enforcement, prisons, victims of accidents and crimes, and the entire state budget as well as the 200,000 people whose lives might or might not be saved.”
. . . and my secondary follow-up reply:
My point was, whether 20 or 200,000, no one who seeks help should be denied the assistance they seek. I recognize it is easier said than done, but nonetheless, that is how I feel. Yes, the quantity does directly affect funding and infrastructure for such treatment. Like you, I want the huge amount of public treasury being spent on enforcement, prosecution and incarceration of non-violent users to be used for the treatment of those consumers who truly seek help. The number does not change my opinion.

Dozens of law-enforcement agencies from Massachusetts to Arizona are preparing to deploy controversial hand-held facial-recognition devices, raising more significant questions about privacy and civil liberties. Given the recent 4th Amendment exceptions ruling from SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) {see Davis [below]; King [495]}, does this little news tidbit make anyone else really uneasy? If the police can search your body, belongings, automobile or even your house, based on probable cause (even if that cause stems from a wrong address or an erroneous hit from a facial-recognition device), do we have any practical protection against search & seizure by the State? This sense of vulnerability and subservience is precisely what the Founders / Framers sought so strongly to avoid. Freedom is precious . . . and oh so fragile.

On an April evening in 2007, Willie Gene Davis was a passenger in an automobile being driven by Stella Owens in Greenville, Alabama. Police Sergeant Curtis Miller stopped the car for erratic driving. When Owens failed her field sobriety test, Miller asked Davis for his name. After a pause, Davis identified himself as “Ernest Harris.” Miller noticed Davis fidgeting with his jacket pockets and asked Davis to get out of the car. As Davis exited the vehicle, he started to take off his jacket. Officer Miller told him to leave it on, but Davis removed the jacket anyway and left it behind on the seat. Miller checked Davis for weapons and took him to the rear of the vehicle, where he asked a crowd of bystanders whether Davis’s name was really Ernest Harris. The bystanders gave Davis’s true name, which Miller verified with the police dispatcher, using Davis’s birth date. The police handcuffed both Owens (for driving under the influence) and Davis (for providing false name), and then placed the arrestees in the back of separate patrol cars. The police then searched the passenger compartment of Owens’s vehicle and found a revolver inside Davis’s jacket pocket. Davis was indicted and convicted in 2008, on one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Davis’s appeal and upheld his conviction. On 21.April.2009, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Arizona v. Gant [556 U.S. ___ (2009); no. 07-542] [385], which declared unconstitutional, violations of a citizen’s 4th Amendment rights against unwarranted search and seizure, searches by police after an individual is secured in custody, as was the case for Willie Davis. The Supreme Court chose to review the case – Davis v. United States [564 U.S. ___ (2011); no. 09-11328]. Davis sought to exclude the discovery of the pistol based on retrospective application of the Gant ruling. Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court. “Real deterrent value is a ‘necessary condition for exclusion,’ but it is not ‘a sufficient’ one. The analysis must also account for the ‘substantial social costs’ generated by the rule. Exclusion exacts a heavy toll on both the judicial system and society at large” (citations omitted). The Supremes decided that police acted in “good faith” to existing common law during the arrest and search, and affirmed the 11th Circuit’s ruling. Associate Justice Stephen Breyer dissented. “While conceding that, like the search in Gant, this search violated the Fourth Amendment; it holds that, unlike Gant, this defendant is not entitled to a remedy. That is because the Court finds a new ‘good faith’ exception which prevents application of the normal remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation, namely, suppression of the illegally seized evidence. Leaving Davis with a right but not a remedy, the Court ‘keep[s] the word of promise to our ear’ but ‘break[s] it to our hope.’” (Citations omitted.) I understand the Court’s reasoning, but I do not concur with their conclusion; Breyer saw it correctly. This so-called “good-faith exception” to the “exclusionary rule” is not respectful of the Fourth Amendment. I wonder, if Willie Davis had not been a convicted felon, would the opinion of the Court been different? I suspect so, which is probably why Alito raised the “substantial social costs” dimension. We can look at cases like Davis and simply discount the ruling; after all, most of us are not convicted felons, and beyond that, most of us do not carry firearms; so, how do cases like this apply to us? There is a fine line between proper State authority for the common good and abuse of power that reduces our rights and freedom to simple words on paper.

News from the economic front:
-- The People’s Republic of China's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth slowed to 9.5% year-to-year in the second quarter, from 9.7% growth in the first quarter.
-- Moody's Investors Service issued a warning notice that the Aaa credit rating of the U.S. Government (USG) is being reviewed for a possible downgrade. The next day, Standard & Poor’s announced a comparable warning for its AAA credit rating of the USG. The uncertainty stems from the continuing political nonsense going on inside the Beltway . . . politicians far more interested in parochial gain than the welfare of this Grand Republic.
-- The European Banking Authority examined the abilities of 90 top lenders across Europe to endure a deteriorating economy and strained financial system. The EU regulator said that eight banks flunked the “stress tests,” with a combined shortfall of €2.5B in capital under a simulated worst-case economic scenario, and another 16 banks narrowly passed. Last year, seven lenders failed with a combined capital deficit of €3.5B, but those tests were widely discredited for being overly lax and inconsistently enforced.

Comments and contributions from Update no.499:
“Well dang.
“Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen any recent comment of yours concerning the subject I will share with you now by sending you a copy of my most recent letter to the editor of the largest (but widely disparaged, highly liberal and Gannett owned) newspaper in Mississippi, The Clarion Ledger:
“Mike McCommell's oft-repeated and unfortunately by-partisan statement (Nobody is talking about not raising the debt ceiling.) is the problem! He's wrong, but then what can you expect from a Repandercrat! Many of us indeed are talking about not raising the national debt limit again and again and again. Although it has always been the simplest solution to the current budget crisis for both parties, it is not the right solution; indeed, it is no solution at all! I greatly fear that the Repandercrats will cave in to the mantra advanced by the Democrats, threatening default. The U.S. will not default. Interest payments will be made. The ONLY question is where the money will come from, and it should not come from more borrowing. I am not an economist, but I wish I were. With some suffixes after my name after the B.S. and J.D. and other credentials acceptable to the elite who control the press, maybe I could be heard along with the multitude of ordinary Americans who say ‘Enough is enough.’ I hope all of you will take time to make your voices heard, whether or not you are a Tea Party sympathizer. Yes, delays or cuts in government payments will be painful in 2011 and 2012 and maybe beyond those elections that the politicians want to get past before facing the music. However, the truth is that until we learn that borrowing to pay debts is economic suicide, we will continue down the path to destruction of our way of life, at the tragic expense of our descendants who will enjoy only such "freedom" as their owner (the government, and maybe not ours) allows.
“Your flaming Conserberal,”
My response:
You certainly raise good and valid points. “[B]orrowing to pay debts is economic suicide,” no matter how you cut it. I do agree that default is an inappropriate term to use in the nation-state context. However, financial metrics like debt ratio and such, determine bond ratings, which in turn establish the interest rate (risk) on any paper issued. Yes, we must get our total debt down. We are not in a sustainable mode, even for a country our side and with the resources we have.
That said, I do not think the situation is as dire as the politicians and Press suggest. Our financial stability is not threatened, but our position in the world economy is very much at risk; so, the long-term impact remains real.
The long & short of it, politicians have been spending precious Treasure at an obscene rate for more than a generation, and it must STOP! There are too many things the USG should NOT be doing and we are continuing to pay for that excess, simply because we have been doing so for decades. As you say, we are going to have to endure some pain to get the ship of state trimmed properly for the conditions we face. I understand using the debt limit as leverage to get the spending cuts we must make, but I do not understand the intransigence regarding revenue. When I pay a greater fraction of my income in taxes than another citizen who makes several orders of magnitude more than me, I have a hard time seeing that as fair. By the same token, I am not interested in robbing from the rich to pay the poor.

Another contribution:
“I, too, offer my congratulations to the US Women's Soccer Team. Missed the game, but I saw the highlights on ESPN. Holy crud, what a game and what a comeback. Brandi Chastain and Mia Hamm (or Mrs. Nomar, as I tend to call her, as she's married to one of my favorite baseball players, Nomar Garciaparra) both commented that their comeback is a perfect example of the American spirit, that we will fight and fight and keep fighting until the bitter end, no matter the odds. Sometimes, when you turn on the TV or read or watch the news and are bombarded by examples of apathy, of selfishness, of a lack of leadership from our political leaders, of seeing the traditions that have made this country great torn to shreds, you wonder if the American spirit does exist any more. Then you see what the US Women's Team did and you realize that yes, there are people who have that can-do, never-say-die spirit, and I bet it's in a lot more people than we realize. In addition, and being one who makes his living covering sports, what happened Sunday is another example of how women's sports has gained so much respectability in the last decade or two. I've covered plenty of women's sports over the years, and can tell you first-hand that many of the female athletes I have interviewed are just as competitive, as tough, and as hard-working as any male athlete. I've even had male athletes tell me there are certain female athletes they would not want to go up against because they would kick their butts.
“The end of an era with the space shuttle. This must be what it was like between 1972-1981. Thank you, President Useless, for ending the Shuttle program and not having a replacement vehicle ready and not even giving a damn about the space program. Then again, as Casey Stengal said after the 1962 New York Mets season of 40-120, "No one man was responsible for this, this was a team effort." NASA leadership also needs to take the blame here. To me, our manned space program has been rudderless for many years. Where is the bold, clear-cut initiative of those guys laying out a plan that says Moon and Mars by such and such a date? President Bush had one speech about going to Mars, which many of the Dems ridiculed just because, and then Bush said nothing more of it and, as usual, never responded to his critics. NASA and D.C., pardon my French, get your fingers out of your asses and take us to Mars!
“I'm with you on the police and jacking up their weapons and capabilities. The bad guys are getting much better weapons than the cops. What does this writer want? Our cops to take on AK-47s with .38 revolvers? You're right. Weapons and gear are tools, and how they are used depends on the person wielding them. I know plenty of cops and plenty of ex-military people, and using their arsenals to oppress citizens and turn the USA into a police state is not something that crosses their minds. That is something that cannot be said in many other countries across the world. For the writer of that article to say that all US citizens are considered enemy combatants by law enforcement and that many of us are living in a police state strikes me as a combination of hysteria and ignorance, or at the worst, stupidity and just pure hatred of the police.
“Much as I can't stand the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, they did get this one right. It is not the state's business to determine what video games kids can and can't have. I remember being 8-years-old and going to the arcades on the boardwalk at the Jersey Shore and playing this bazooka game where you blew up everything on the screen. That included ambulances and stretcher bearers, even though my Dad told me not to shoot them because you lose points. But I blew them up anyway. And guess what? All those years of playing blow up everything in sight video games, all those years of watching ‘violent" cartoons/anime like ‘Star Blazers’ and ‘Battle of the Planets’ did not turn me into an unfeeling, unempathetic, delusional psychopath bent on taking out a Walmart with an assault rifle. I knew what the difference was between reality and make believe. I knew killing animated people on a video screen was OK, and doing it in real-life was not OK, and I think most kids out there understand that, too.”
My reply:
Re: women’s sports. Great observations. Thx. I’ve watched that last crossing shot and header . . . I don’t know how many times, and I have not reach my limit.
Re: space program. I believe the decision to end the shuttle program was taken by Bush 43, not Obama. Yes, I suspect we are heading into a period like 1972-1981, as you noted. Bush set the Mars objective, but he did not articulate why. President Kennedy’s Moon speech was inspirational, stimulating, and most of all uplifting. No president since has helped We, the People, see and understand the “why.” We must go to Mars, just like we had to cross the Mississippi and the Rocky Mountains. We must go beyond our Solar System.
Re: police up-gunning. When you distill out the political rhetoric and ideology, I think Khalek was trying to express an underlying concern for the government’s continuing encroachment upon our rights and freedoms. If true, I share that concern, which is precisely why I continue to read so many court rulings. IMHO, the government has gone too far, and we need realignment.
Re: SCOTUS & video games. We are agreed. Unfortunately, the Roberts’ Court is not likely to make the jump I suggest. We must change the law, but that is not likely to happen in the current environment of national debt, the War on Islamic Fascism, and the foolish political parochialism that paralyzes our ability to negotiate and compromise. I think you hit the point precisely. Spot on! Your parents taught you well how to see right from wrong, real from make-believe, non-fiction from fiction; regrettably, not all parents have done so. Very well said, my friend.

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