28 May 2007

Update no.285

Update from the Heartland
No.285
21.5.07 – 27.5.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
In the United States of America, this is Memorial Day – a day of remembrance and gratitude for those who have sacrificed so much for our freedom. May God bless them all.

On occasion, the Wall Street Journal asks accomplished individuals and authorities in their arena of expertise to offer their top five book choices. As a timely, fortuitous, and appropriate addition to the list, we have:
"War Stories -- On Memorial Day, keep in mind these books about soldiers in battle."
by John McCain
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/fivebest/?id=110010129
Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:00 a.m. EDT
1. "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Ernest Hemingway (Scribner, 1940).
2. "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbon (1776-88).
3. "This Kind of War" by T.R. Fehrenbach (Macmillan, 1963).
4. "Hell in a Very Small Place" by Bernard B. Fall (Lippincott, 1966).
5. "All Quiet on the Western Front" by Erich Maria Remarque (Little, Brown, 1929).
Please allow me to be so bold and presumptuous to offer my choices.
A. "Goodbye, Darkness" by William Manchester (Little, Brown, 1979).
B. "Battle Cry" by Leon Uris (Putnam, 1953).
C. "Once an Eagle" by Anton Myrer (Henry Holt & Co, 1968).
D. "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara (Ballantine, 1974).
E. "Fields of Fire" by James Webb (Prentice Hall, 1978).
Lest we ever forget what the warriors do for us all.

We have a few follow-up news items from previous Updates:
-- The long awaited emergency appropriation bill – Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007 [H.R. 2206] [277, 281-4] {vote: House: 280-142-0-11; Senate: 80-14-6} – passed both chambers, and the President is expected to sign the funding bill. Deadlines for withdrawal from Iraq were removed, but the plethora of earmark pork spending additions remains. The war funding confrontation now moves to September. One kinda last word on this topic, these debates over the conduct of the war should be carried out beyond public view. Public debate during wartime only serves the enemy.
-- According to CNN, Astronaut Navy Commander Bill Oefelein – the middleman in the bizarre Nowak assault case [269-70] – will be released from the astronaut corps and returned to the Navy. As precious as an astronaut position is for many of us, his departure is quite sad, but as the old saying goes, we reap what we sow.
-- Department of Justice liaison to the White House Monica Goodling – counselor to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales – testified with congressional immunity before the House Judiciary Committee. The U.S. attorney firing plot continues to thicken. [268, 283]

RMS Cutty Sark – one of the fastest tea clipper ships in its day – suffered significant damage in a suspicious Monday morning, London, dry dock fire. Fortunately, the ship’s deck house, masts and rigging had been removed for the refurbishment. London authorities indicated they would investigate the origins of the fire and take appropriate action. Preliminary examination indicated the damage was not as bad as initially feared. Since the initial announcements, the news services have gone cold. If any of our English subscribers have more recent information, I would like to hear more of this event.

I was asked my opinion on the latest Rosie O'Donnell incident – an on-air confrontation with co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck on the 23.May.2007 broadcast of The View. On a prior program, Rosie said, "655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?" Now, what are we to take from Rosie's implicit statement? The following day, Joy Bahar lit the match – in my opinion, intentionally, given Rosie's prior statement – to torch off the conflagration. The arguments were shallow, ill-informed, unfocused and myopic. Rosie loves to cast herself as the victim, and this incident is a perfect example. My take from all this folderol . . . if Rosie or any of us cannot stand up and defend our opinions by ourselves, then perhaps we should not be expressing our opinions. In the next two days of the frenzied feasting by the Press, ABC announced Rosie would not be returning for the last five weeks of her contract. It is sad and unfortunate that a person as outspoken as Rosie has such a thin skin and fragile character.

The venerable and celebrated peanut farmer, Jimmy Carter -- oh yeah, and Nobel laureate and former POTUS -- cast aside tradition and declared that the Bush administration is “the worst in history.” Carter backtracked the following day. He violated a long held, unwritten rule of ex-presidential etiquette. In some measure, dear ol’ Jimmy is probably correct. I suspect most folks in the United States and the World do not see Islamic Fascism as a threat, but in true socialist form, these poor downtrodden Muslims are victims of American commercial oppression and exploitation. If so, the conclusion that the American reaction to the 9/11 attacks by this administration was wild and wrong, and thus succumbed to whimsy regarding the administration’s aggressive actions in the War on Islamic Fascism. I have not studied American presidents and their administrations to the level I can claim authority on the “worst in history,” but of the administrations since I was old enough to appreciate such things, I have a different opinion than that Georgia peanut farmer.

I direct your attention to this Leonard Pitts opinion column:
"More government intrusion in our lives"
by Leonard Pitts
Wichita Eagle
Opinion: Monday; May 21, 2007; page 7
Aalso titled as,
"Government shouldn't judge morality for us"
by Leonard Pitts Jr.
http://www.miamiherald.com/285/story/113473.html
The genesis of Leonard's ire stems from an Alabama state law – the Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1998 – that makes unlawful the sale of any device used “primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.” Sherri Williams, a resident of Florida, owns two adult toy stores in Alabama and challenged the constitutionality of the Alabama obscenity law. Beyond all the judicial wrangling and legal mumbo-jumbo, this case hinges upon a state’s authority to enforce public morality, and at an even more basic and fundamental level, the definition of public morality. Yet, before we jump into the greater meaning to all citizens, let me just summarize my take of the various rulings in this litany – the court’s rationale truly scares the bloody hell out of me. I want to analyze the logic in these judicial pronouncements, but I suspect the details will bore to tears most folks. Yet, I wrote an opinion of the case [168] when the Supreme Court declined to hear the original appeal, but asked for further examination of the case in light of Lawrence v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003)] -- a case decided after the first couple of cycles of Williams, which has now made the third full cycle between U.S. District Judge C. Lynwood Smith and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (11CCA). According to Leonard, the case is once again before the Supreme Court. We do not know, as yet, whether the highest court will hear the case. Perhaps we should wait to hear what the Supremes have to say, but Leonard’s articulate and concise admonition compels me to add my voice.
We could allow this discussion to descend into the prurient aspects of the case; after all, we have plentiful fodder for such stimulating rumination. Yet, beyond the salacious aspects, this case portends profound potential impact on every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy – the implications are enormous.
From the various Williams rulings so far, we see key salients. The judiciary’s use of “public morality” and “sexual privacy” emotionalize and cloud the essential issue – We, the People versus the State, or in my common terms, private versus public. Many facets of this case enable the spin-doctors to take virtually any view they wish. However, I see far larger, reflective, and ominous questions in these court rulings, the specifics of the case, and in our society in general.
1. “Sexual privacy” – To the strict constructionists, there is no constitutional right to “sexual privacy.” They are correct, strictly speaking; there is NO explicit constitutional or fundamental right to sexual privacy, period. To claim as much sullies the Constitution. In fact, there is no mention of sex, sexual behavior, or sexual morays or rights anywhere in the Constitution. The term, as these judges use it, applies to a rather narrow subset of a far more expansive, fundamental right to privacy, which also is not mentioned in the Constitution. Yet, Judge Smith believes we have the expectation of sexual privacy. The 11CCA dryly states there is no such right, thus should be no expectation, and restates that the State’s judgment and determination that “certain sexual behavior is ‘immoral and unacceptable’ constitutes a rational basis for regulation.” The implications here are staggering. Imagine, if you will, the extension of the 11CCA's reasoning, and worse yet, the codification of the State's imposition upon the most intimate of personal affairs simply because some powerful majority disapproves of what they think our private sexual behavior MIGHT BE. Are we free or are we subject to the imaginations of a willful majority?
2. Sale – Alabama’s law in question in the Williams case makes no restriction on the use of these devices, only their sale. So, citizens/residents can use them; they just can’t acquire them – neat circular argument. However, the Supreme Court clearly defined the relationship between sale and use in such cases. “[T]he same test must be applied to state regulations that burden an individual's right to decide . . . limiting access to the means of effectuating that decision as is applied to state statutes that prohibit the decision entirely. Both types of regulation ‘may be justified only by a ‘compelling state interest’ . . . and . . . must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake.’” Carey v. Population Services International [431 U.S. 678 (1977)] at 688. Thus, in light of Carey, the State’s interest in such regulation becomes a critical path of debate.
3. State interest – The State has a bona fide, proper interest in public morality; that is the moral standards by which citizens conduct themselves in the public domain. However, that State interest cannot and should not be stretched to encompass or intrude upon the private domain unless an injury or abuse of the public good occurs. The State has the responsibility, authority and right to regulate public behavior and conduct for the general good of the community, and as such, commerce is a direct segment of that broad, general responsibility. Boundaries inherently bring disputes, and thus the judiciary occupies the position of interpretation of the law and resolution of disputes regarding the characteristics of the boundaries. This is true between national and international, state and federal, and private and public. Alabama argues their interest is “public morality.” A curious twist of selective reasoning comes in the comparison of the 11CCA’s ruling in Williams [02-16135] with the 8th Circuit’s decision in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning [05-2604]. Various courts state that we have no constitutional right to privacy for sexual intimacy, and on the other hand claim the State has an interest and authority to determine proper sexual conduct in the privacy of our bedrooms and within our most personal relationships. I do not have access to the original arguments or even the district court’s findings, only the reflections of those arguments in the appeals court rulings, so far. No description of or rationale for the State’s interest in such regulation was offered other than the notional “public morality.” So many of our social confrontations and conflicts force us to examine the proper interests of the State. The temptation in those confrontations turns us to the instruments of State to enforce our views of morality. And, as long as the law does not affect us, we say, sure, I think the use of sex toys is immoral anyway. If Alabama is concerned about the public display of these devices, the state’s demand is appropriate. There is no mention of such public display. The basis of the state’s objection appears to be the “imagined” knowledge of their intended use, and thus disapproval of such usage as obscene and/or immoral. We must ask what is the State’s bona fide interest? Is it really the sale of certain devices or is it a desire by lawmakers to reduce or eliminate the use of such devices by regulating the sale? I continue to return to the same question – where is the harm to the public good? Does the use of such devices truly cause harm in some form within the public domain?
4. “Public morality” – Here lies the rub, and the very essence of this debate. American legal attempts to regulate public AND private morality can be traced back easily to at least the Comstock Act of 1873 [PL 43-257; 17 Stat. 599 (1873)] and a plethora of subsequent efforts at federal, state and local levels. Even today in this particular case, we may view the customers for and the purveyors of any device(s) used “primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs” as perverted, sinful, obscene, immoral, and otherwise really bad or misguided folks. That is our choice, our freedom to do so. Regardless, when it comes to our imposition of authority on all citizens, we should also ask the questions: where is the harm to the public good, or are we offended by the sale of those devices or by what we think those customers do with those devices in the privacy of their homes? I am having a very hard time seeing the “public morality” question here. Do we make the same judgment with regard to the sale of alcohol, tobacco products, condoms, lottery tickets, contraceptives, pornography, erectile dysfunction medications, ad infinitum? Further, unless these devices are being used on a school playground, a park bench, or some other public venue, how can the word “public” possibly be applied to the “immorality” of sex toys? Then, the issue boils down to the State’s professed interest versus a citizen’s right to conduct his private life as he sees fit. The 11CCA did not delve any deeper into the permeability of the boundary. For contrast, some citizens are offended by pork, some by any meat products. Some citizen somewhere is offended by virtually anything. We must learn as citizens to contain our offense to the public domain and those things that injure the public good. The fact that my neighbor buys bacon, cooks it in his house, and presumably consumes the pork may turn my stomach, and yet, how can I claim offense to the public good? Similarly, just because a citizen may purchase a sexual device, take it home, and use it for their pleasure in private, I cannot claim harm to the public good; after all, I am offended by the implicit or perceived carnal use of such devices, not some explicit public use.
5. A citizen’s fundamental right to privacy – The 11CCA repeatedly ignored the essential principle as is so often the case in other sensitive deliberations like abortion, assisted suicide, et cetera. Numerous cases over many years have flirted with the edges of the essential question or principle – does an individual citizen have a fundamental right to privacy? The judiciary’s reticence to buttress a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy is apparently a bridge too far. We have discussed the right to privacy numerous times in this forum. [202, 203, 224, 242-4, 258, 263, 280] No need to rehash the basis. The bottom line: does an individual citizen have a fundamental right to privacy, to enjoy protection from unwarranted intrusion by the State? In answering this most basic question, we can ask the concomitant question – without a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, what protection do we have from intrusion by the State into our most intimate private lives? And yet, an unqualified, unbounded and inviolate privacy raises the specter of collateral consequences.
6. Collateral consequences – The 11CCA said, “If we were to accept the invitation to recognize a right to sexual intimacy, this right would theoretically encompass such activities as prostitution, obscenity, and adult incest -- even if we were to limit the right to consenting adults.” The 11CCA implicitly frames the State's apprehension regarding a definitive description of a citizen's fundamental right to privacy. The inherent reticence comes from our inability to forecast outcomes associated with future human behavior. By making too explicit a definition, the 11CCA implies unintended consequences in a myriad of other areas of legal dispute –prostitution, incest, assisted suicide, the use of psychotropic or hallucinogenic substances, abortion, bestiality, child pornography, ad infinitum – all those activities that occur at or beyond the boundary between the public and private domains. The court’s concern is valid. And yet, in my mind, we can readily reconcile the conflicts in each area of private behavior with simple criteria “absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects,” as the court suggests.
Given the tête-à-tête between the district court judge and the appeals court, the ruling of the Roberts court should make interesting reading and forecast the inclinations of the Court regarding the critical issue of a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy.
Why do we find ourselves with such weighty questions? The answer is quite simple -- technology. Technology . . . that enables us to connect around the world instantaneously; that enables the State to see far deeper into our lives, and that exposes us to aspects of life we never knew existed, just a few decades ago. The Comstock laws were tolerable back in the day; they are not today. We are faced with questions of governance the Founders could never have imagined, and yet they provided us a flexible structure to allow successive generations to adapt the law to the times in which we live. Our choice is always how we use the law for the public good without carving up our most basic right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
In closing, freedom is not just what touches us. Denying another citizen their freedom of choice chips away at all freedom, including those that apply to us. Let us confine our disagreements to words at Debater's Corner and use the law sparingly to impose upon the private lives and choices of citizens. I know this segment is probably far longer than most folks care to read. However, I hope my opinion can help in some small way to focus just a few of us to carefully examine the laws we create.

Comments and contributions from Update no.284:
"I share your fears. I don't think people will wake up until something really bad happens. Oddly enough, as I was driving to work Sunday morning, heading west, I pictured a blast over downtown Phoenix, the mushroom cloud beginning to rise. I wondered what I should do, what would Daphne and the dogs do, how much time would I have, until the shock wave and the heat reached me and them.
"It is not if it happens. It is when it happens. It will happen in my lifetime. And the liberals will ask why didn't do something about it."
My response:
Quite soberly put, I must say, for that is indeed the question. Sadly, the Islamofascists do not possess the delivery media the Russians and Chinese possess. Most sophisticated nuclear devices are programmed for airburst to maximize the explosive effects while minimizing the radiological contamination. Surface or subsurface detonations that broach the surface are generally far dirtier with radiological effects lasting much longer than airbursts. The size of the device determines the dimensions of the fireball, and the shockwave moves at the speed of sound, i.e., you won’t have time to blink. So, when it comes, it most likely will be a very nasty secondary effects event, probably a surface event from a container or tractor-trailer. The fallout would take a day or two to reach us, depending upon the prevailing weather. Thus, when threatened by such a potential attack, preemptive action makes a lot of sense to me.
No, the naysayers will not ask why. They will blame the destruction on warmongers like me, who hypothesize about such things and condemn the aggressors. The liberals will say that the poor little ol’ terrorists never would have been driven to such destructive action if we had just given them what they want . . . oh, and some milk and cookies to show our friendship. Do I sound angry?
. . . with this follow-up:
"Using 780 mph, I figure 115 seconds (25 miles from downtown). But my math skills have deteriorated immensely.
"I don't think of us as warmongers, but as rationalists, realists, students of history."
. . . and my response to the follow-up:
The fireball expands quite a bit faster than the speed of sound, and the size of the fireball is determined by the yield of the device. The shockwave moves out from the fireball at the speed of sound. Nonetheless, two minutes does not leave much time. And, the EMP would eliminate the cellphone, car ignition, and virtually anything electrical. We don't need to dwell on the morbid, technical details of thermonuclear warfare. I don't think of us as warmongers either, but I know there are folks out among us who do. We must not ignore those who differ with us.

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

21 May 2007

Update no.284

Update from the Heartland
No.284
14.5.07 – 20.5.07
To all,
Several subscribers have wondered about the Greensburg, Kansas tornado. The Wichita Eagle published an album of images of the devastated town. The URL link is:
http://www.kansas.com/static/slides/050507tornadoaerials/
As you can see, the town was literally sucked off the Earth.

Since we started with images and for those aviation enthusiasts and aficionados among us, I direct your attention to:
http://www.f22-raptor.com/media/video_gallery/videos/F22_AirShow_Langley.wmv
To my knowledge, this is the first public airshow demonstration of the U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor fighter aircraft.

After something like a five month search or more depending on how we count the time, the President found a taker for the position of so-called “War Czar” – to coordinate military and civil action related to the War on Islamic Fascism. His eventual choice was Lieutenant General Douglas E. Lute, USA [USMA 1975] – the Director of Operations, the Joint Staff. I do not know Doug, but he comes with worthy supporters and pedigree. However, please pardon my skepticism, but this looks like the designated target and thus the presumed fall guy set up.

We can cut another notch in the pistol grip. Coalition forces operating along the Afghan border with Pakistan killed Mullah Dadullah -- the purported, foremost, Taliban operational commander, and one gruel dude.

A couple of independent assessments regarding the War on Islamic Fascism were presented this week and are offered for your critical review . . .
“Accepting Realities in Iraq”
by Gareth Stansfield
Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs) [an independent organization that promotes the rigorous study of international questions and does not express opinions of its own].
Middle East Programme Briefing Paper (MEP BP 07/02)
May 2007
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/mep/BPIraq0507.pdf
and
“The Case for Bombing Iran”
by Norman Podhoretz
Commentary
Issue: June 2007
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=10882
All opinions are welcome.

The New York Times’ Adam Liptak reported on a Canadian psychotherapist who was denied entry into the United States because he had reportedly used LySergic acid Diethylamide (LSD) – a powerful hallucinogenic compound – some 40 years ago. LSD was developed in Europe in 1938, as a therapeutic pharmaceutical and saw success in treating schizophrenia, but gained a reputation as a recreational drug during the 1960’s, and made it to the list of controlled substances enveloped by the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 [PL 91-513] {AKA the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)} [112, 117-120, 127-8, 183, 197, 204, 215, 220, 234, 269]. The plight of the Canadian practitioner represents a far more costly consequence of the so-called War on Drugs – collateral damage that stretches far beyond the battlefield. Several contributors to this forum have related their family experience with psychotropic substances. Beyond the obscene and grotesquely abusive enforcement of the Federal CSA, the societal punishment of individual citizens like the Canadian therapist is staggering. Individuals who may have experimented with substances on the CSA list in their juvenile youth or young adulthood are forever tainted, some of whom stood before the bar, accepted their punishment, and did their penance to society. Yet, for reasons that are as yet beyond my comprehension, we continue to “punish” those who make even a minor experimental transgression, and forgiveness seems to be a bridge too far. There is no redemption. Good young citizens are denied their opportunity for service to their communities or this Grand Republic. The collateral and consequential damage goes far beyond any injury or even insult to the public good. The CSA remains perhaps the single greatest expansion of Federalism as well as an obscene violation and intrusion of a citizen’s private domain. Most citizens may not recognize this intrusion, but the lack of recognition does not diminish the reality. I wonder whether we have passed the point of no return regarding the needed contraction of Federalism to a more proper state envisioned by the Founders and embodied in the Constitution. The CSA and especially the abuses in the name of the CSA have extended the tentacles of Federalism far beyond states’ rights and deep into the private domain of every citizen.

The political frontal assault on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales continues unabated as the Senate reportedly proceeds toward a vote of no-confidence next week. The drubbing Gonzales has endured as a consequence of the inept mishandling of the U.S. attorney firings would have consumed most folks. Adding fuel to the pyre, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty announced his resignation with the plausible claim that he needed to make more money for his children’s college education. While there are most likely many contributing factors, some of which may never reach the public domain, McNulty’s resignation cannot be seen as positive. Then, former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey contributed his logs in the form of revelations of resistance by then Attorney General John D. Ashcroft regarding the NSA warrantless surveillance program. My lesson from this morass . . . obfuscation is hardly candor and forthrightness as some would like us to believe. The cover-up is always worse than the crime, and here there was no crime.

The unidentified legislation for emergency appropriation for the war effort and other spending passed by the House last week was U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007 [H.R. 2206] [277, 281-3] {vote: 221-205-0-7}. The bill has been referred to the Senate for consideration. The Senate rose to the challenge with a dazzling array of proposals, amendments, and political subterfuge. At least House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid want to get the supplemental appropriations bill approved before the Memorial Day break (25.May), however, as of the moment, the troops are left on the field of battle with dwindling resources.

Embedded in an exchange thread from a parallel dimension, a friend and contributor offered up an intriguing solution to this whole Defense of Marriage / homophobia thing. Rather than fighting over what marriage is or should be, or whether all citizens should enjoy the full benefits of freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, let us reset the baseline. The State can and should confine its interest to the public domain by sanctioning relationships between adult citizens in good standing, exercising their free will, and absent any communicable diseases via a civil union. From this action, a relationship would enjoy all the rights and privileges of State sanctioning in full. Then, for those so inclined, they can have their union blessed by their religion and clergy of choice within the constraints of the applicable religion. This simple compromise eliminates the confusion between religious-based moral values, and the bona fide interests of the State. We must find ways to avoid confusing the two domains, especially on this important question.

Comments and contributions from Update no.283:
"It will be hard to comment this time, but there's a lot of good stuff in this (Update) no.283.
"Blair will, or at least SHOULD go down in history as one of Britain's best PMs. He has been everything you have said he was, and more. He even had a good sense of humor when dealing with the other ministers. But he never wavered from his beliefs, views, opinions, when he felt HE was right. Even when it cost him in popularity. Mostly -- he WAS right. He will be missed.
"In the world of American Politics, WHAT the party in power does, the opposition party will find a way to discredit it, etc. BUT, when that opposition party gets in power then the very same things are ok and good for us citizens. And, as can be expected, the NOW outside party will complain loud and long. It's sad, but true.
"PORK is going to find it's way into legislation until Congress passes a bill which does not permit any add-in legislation to any bill which does not have anything to do with the main bill itself. That isn't going to happen!! Some legislators have tried in the past to correct that problem. Did not succeed. Nor will any who try in the future I think. There is too much at stake in bennies to the states or districts of legislators if they can sneak something in. Which means more votes for THEM next time they come up for re-election. I agree that people vote themselves into the national treasuries when they can, and it that it is the path to ruin.
"Re: Prosecutor firings: If I am not wrong, Bill Clinton fired ALL the prosecutors when he came into power. No Media folks are now reminding us of THAT!! But all serve at the pleasure of POTUS. So be it.
“There are other things I could comment on, but do not wish to get into any conversation which has as it's main theme that our problems, whatever they may be, are due to our having moved away from God. THAT is something I do have opinions about, but will not express them here.”
My response:
Unfortunately, I do not believe history will be kind to Tony & W. I do agree with your assessment. I have always admired Tony’s sense of humor, his political savvy, his mastery of influential political rhetoric, and his courage to stand up for what is right. Of all modern politicians, he has come the closest to the brilliance of Sir Winston. He deserves knighthood, but I suspect the Queen may not be able to see beyond the political rancor of the last five years. I genuinely hope I am wrong.
To be candid, modern American politics has a vile, bitter taste in comparison. I am not happy, have not been happy for many years, and I do not see an encouraging future given the diametric, parochial, calcified, partisan politics of today. The Democratic controlled 110th Congress has so far demonstrated itself to be as bad as the Republican controlled 109th Congress before it. I cannot see a single politician who is big enough, courageous enough, and savvy enough to lead us out of this pork-addicted, self-serving, myopic, political morass we have been in for the last 50 years. Politicians in Washington do not seem to see themselves as servants of the People, but rather as some elite class entitled to squander the treasury, and then demand more tax revenue to fill the void. As I recall, King George III had a similar approach, although he had a far more legitimate cause – the perennial conflict with France.
Bill Clinton handled the U.S. attorney appointments properly – demanded & accepted the resignations of all, and then reappoint as desired – common practice for “at the pleasure of” appointees. The sad part is, this would have been a non-issue if the administration had just done the same thing when W. was re-elected, or even after last year’s election. The travesty comes with the odiferous residue of what appears to be a political hack job poorly handled, followed by an even more inept attempt at covering up what was painfully apparent to even the casual observer. The question that keeps coming back to me is, who do they think they are fooling?
I know God and religion are hyper-sensitive topics. I suppose I am foolish enough to express my opinion in the interest of public dialogue and debate. There is a significant portion of American society that I believe would be quite happy making this Grand Republic a Christian theocracy. If true, we cannot afford to ignore or pretend there isn’t an elephant in the room. Thus, I, Don Quixote, sit upon my loyal steed and lift my lance for battle.
. . . with this follow-up contribution:
“I agree about Tony. He has been one of the best, since Winston, though Thatcher comes close. I hope knighthood. I'm not sure how much knighthood really means anymore, but I hope it for him.
“Whatever party controls congress is going to put in their pork to legislation they want to pass. Possibly the truly better the chance of passage, then the more attached pork. Up to the point where they think POTUS will just not stand for that much bullshit. ALL know how it works in Washington.
“NO measure, designed to eliminate PORK from bills has EVER passed. With all sorts of maneuvering by individuals to somehow put themselves on the other side of that. Pork is not a great thing, but Pork is what my people want if I can get it for THEM, say all congress-people! That can get ME re-elected, and give me an opportunity to (under the table in the dark alleys of politics) make a ton of $$$ too so that when I decide to go home, I do so very comfortably.
“If All U.S. district attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, then maybe all should tender their resignations when a new POTUS comes on-line. HE then can pick and choose. But the same could be said for all military officers too, and there and a LOT more of them. They all serve at the pleasure of the President. Should all tender their resignations? And wait to be accepted? And what would THAT mean for those officers kept? The whole thing can get ludicrous quickly.”

The article: “The Case for Bombing Iran” identified above instigated a thread that began with my comment:
[Podhoretz] is saying the same thing I've been saying for the last six years. Very few wish to listen . . . just as he notes in 1938. It seems history is destined to repeat itself . . . this time with even more devastating results, except this time the Homeland will be involved.
. . . to which came this follow-up:
“What will it take for this country to open its eyes and overcome the prevailing ‘can't we all just get along’ attitude? I think a lot of people are fooling themselves into thinking that this attitude is the ‘high’ road, and they perceive that taking the other road is a much more difficult and costly one to travel. I agree with you...most likely it will take another incident of major consequence occurring within our borders to pry eyes open and change attitudes and perceptions.
“Meanwhile, we'll be more interested in which radio talk show host is fired for having a foul mouth, and what Paris is wearing (if and) when she reports for her jail time.”
. . . and my response:
Sadly, your concluding observation is an accurate representation of our times. The majority of Americans do not take the threats seriously or cannot see the threat in any form.
“C-c-c-c-c-can’t we all just get along?” I call it the Rodney King syndrome = a magnificent, highly desirable state of blissful peace and wishful thinking. Unfortunately, there are bad men in this world who seek to impose, to dominate, to dictate, to reign over others. As along as we allow bad men to exist (rather than exterminate them), we shall not know peace . . . as illusive as unobtainium or transparentunium. History provides us the perfect lesson, and yet just as our ancestors did 70+ years ago, we chose to desperately search for the good in evil men, rather than confront those who wish to oppress us. What will it take? I am afraid even a high-yield nuclear detonation in New York, or Los Angeles, or Charleston, or Miami, will not be sufficient. There are substantial and powerful forces in the United States, and even greater numbers in the league of other nations, who will say the United States brought such destruction upon itself, just as the Jews instigated their genocide at the hands of the Nazis. We see the exact same forces at play today as we saw with Lord Halifax, Charles Lindbergh, Neville Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier, and all the others; they just have different names today. And, folks like me are called warmongers, negativists, baby killers, and a long litany of such labels. To think that Ali Khamenei or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is any kinder, gentler, better, or less evil than Adolf Hitler represents one of the more onerous forms of delusional thinking. Since my voice remains in the minority, I can only continue my efforts to illuminate, and pray the bad guys don’t choose the Great Plains or any target west of Kansas as their demonstration target(s).

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

14 May 2007

Update no.283

Update from the Heartland
No.283
7.5.07 – 13.5.07
To all,
ERRATUM:
Once again, I must confess my failure to get facts correct. If there is any consolation for an error, a self-catch is better than being informed by a subscriber. In Update no.281, I referred to the various dollar coins. Sacagawea adorns one version of the dollar coin . . . not Pocahontas.

Several contributors asked about our safety in the aftermath of the nationally recognized tornado in Greensburg, Kansas, the week before last. Please see below.

Congratulations must go to Nicolas Sarkozy for his election to the presidency of le République Française. He won 53.1% of votes with a reported 84% of French citizens voting – a proper percentage of the eligible electorate, I must add. Sarkozy succeeds Jacque Chirac, who held the highest office in France since 1995. Hopefully, Sarkozy will enable and encourage better relations with the United States, and greater unity within the European Community.

As new leadership comes to France, the veteran, able and dynamic leadership of the Right Honourable Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, comes to an end. I listened to Tony’s announcement at the Labour Club, Trimdon, Sedgefield, England, on Thursday morning – his intention to tender his resignation as prime minister to the Queen on 27.June. He served Britain as prime minister for 10+ years, and sacrificed his popularity to do what was right. We can disagree with his decisions and steadfast partnership with the United States, but I respectfully submit that we should unanimously agree that he conducted himself with dignity, courage, eloquence and honor. May God bless you, Tony – you are a good man of good intentions, and the world shall be a lesser place without the magnificent content of your character.

The House voted on a bill to redeploy of United States Armed Forces and defense contractors from Iraq within 90 days. [HR 2237] The legislation failed by a 171-255-0-7 vote (we still have two representatives unaccounted for). Another similar bill removing the timetable portion of the emergency war funding legislation reportedly passed the House later by a vote of 221-205. The text of the latter bill has not been posted by the Library of Congress, or I have not been able to find it, as yet. The bill goes to the Senate with a first blush that appears to be other than enthusiastic, and the President once again has threatened to veto the legislation. Congress has been at this for five months now, and the prognosis does not appear good. We are approaching the point where we must de facto withdraw from Iraq, or the President will take a Teddy Roosevelt “Great White Fleet” approach with the deployed troops.

I strongly recommend the following opinion column for your critical review.
“Banal Outrage”
by Kathleen Parker
Friday, May 4, 2007
Washington Post Writers Group
“What’s outrageous is the lack of fairness, civility”
Wichita Eagle
Tuesday, May 8, 2007; Opinion Column
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KathleenParker/2007/05/04/banal_outrage
I do not think I can do better than Kathleen on this topic. She speaks with credibility and authority.

The 9.May.2007 Patriot Post [v.7 no.19] quoted columnist Cal Thomas.
“With the defeat of Socialist candidate Ségolène Royal, the Conservatives have a unique opportunity to show France and the world that they can not only solve their economic problems, but also do something about the immigration invasion that has put their nation -- and all of Europe -- in jeopardy.”
I offer this quote, not because I am a fan of Cal Thomas, but as perhaps a near perfect example of unvarnished, uncompromising and LASER-tight polarized political thinking. Or, maybe it is just simple wishful thinking, like closing your eyes and rapidly chanting, "ghosts go away." Twenty years ago, I would have said, yea verily! Today, I am not so blind. To say it directly and bluntly, so-called conservatives in politics simply want their brand of big government. As we have witnessed in the United States, Republicans controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006, and the White House was occupied by a president who refused to veto these obscene spending bills for six of those 12 years. Self-professed conservatives who controlled this country spent more, and substantially increased the reach and power of Federalism. Socialism is strong in France. I doubt Sarkozy can turn that massive ship of state; the populace has grown too accustomed to feeding at the public trough. Nonetheless, I shall retain a smidge of hope and watch for the evidence.

From a friend . . . WE WILL REMEMBER!
http://www.operationmom.org/ToOurParents.html

The congressional testimony of United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales regarding the firing of a dozen U.S. attorneys has strengthened the stench emanating from this sordid political bias in law enforcement and the grotesque ineptitude of this administration. While this affair eventually came to national public attention, my awareness came from a vigilant friend and subscriber. [268] I have seen nothing illegal, since the U.S. attorneys are political appointees and serve at the pleasure of the President. However, for me, it is not the dismissal of the government prosecutors, but the handling of the episode that I find so disgusting and contemptible. Regardless of our political leanings or affiliation, the time has come to admit the sad administrative legacy of this president and his administration -- plus ça change, plus la même chose .

Comments and contributions from Update no.282:
"I was hoping your e-mail would have talked a little about the storms and to let us know that all is well with the Parliers. Since you didn't mention it I would guess the storms were some distance from you. I feel so sorry for those individuals and families that have lost so much, particularly the families that lost loved ones. We complain when the temperature reaches 90 in July."
My response:
We were in Austin, Texas, last weekend, to visit Melissa & Tyson and our two week old grandson -- Judson James -- when the rare F5 tornado devastated Greensburg, Kansas. The town lays astride one of the principal east-west routes in Kansas -- 100+ miles west of Wichita; we've driven through the town many times. This is tornado season on the Great Plains. This monster funnel was estimated at 1.7 miles in diameter when it hit Greensburg circa 21:45 Friday, and literally sucked the town off the map. While we mourn the loss of at least 10 lives, we are grateful the destruction was not far worse thanks to the early warning system and basements. Those of us who reside in tornado alley live with the reality of the localized and capricious nature of these spring storms. Melissa's family survived a similar F5 tornado here in Andover, in April 1991. I watched the radar and weather prognosis Saturday and Sunday. Jeanne and I decided to leave Austin early in an effort to beat the slow moving stationary frontal system to Wichita. We left at 18:00. The drive progressed quickly through Oklahoma City, then we hit the line of thunderstorms, just after midnight, and punched through the line just north of Stillwater. We arrived home safely at 02:30. And, I must admit to a bizarre fascination with these unique storms. Nonetheless, all is well with the Parlier family.

Another contribution:
"I find it interesting that no one, except a minor mention of it by the President during the debate, talks about the millions and millions of dollars that are pure pork spending put in the bill to secure that votes of a few Democrats. The spending has absolutely no bearing on the war, the funding of troops, nor anything very constructive. It is simply a way to buy votes and ensure that the President will veto the bill. So far I’ve heard no one speak out on the subject except a few talk show hosts. The media is silent (I should use the word “dumb”, it fits the media better) on the subject.
"The rest of your no.282 I agree with."
My reply:
Point well taken! Everyone has been so focused on the timetable that we ignore the pork. In my humble opinion, the penchant of members of Congress to attach earmarks to important legislation is a far greater threat than a good many other worries. Political philosophers have long predicted the envitable failure of democracies when the People find access to the treasury . . . they vote themselves the People’s monies. We have been immersed in that corrosion for some time now. How is a peanut storage facility in the Federal interest? How can a bridge to nowhere serve anything more than a very local, distinct group of residents? I suggested that a metric for our judgment of the new Congress was the reformation of the earmark process. [257, 266] So far, this Congress has proven itself to be just as bad as the previous Congress; they just seek to spend the public treasure on different nonsense. The Senate passed a sweeping reform bill – the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 [S.1] [267] that has languished amid inattention in the House. While the Senate version hardly goes as far as needed, the legislation does make the earmark process more visible to public scrutiny, and thus hopefully just a little less obscene. Unfortunately, the House appears to have little appetite for reform. Thus, we can expect the Congress will continue the enormous drive of previous congresses to spend wildly, without any identifiable restraint. Sadly, I am not sure it is possible to wean these folks from the public teat.

And, a last and extended contribution:
"I find it interesting how any true scholar of U.S. History can ignore or deny the Christian foundation of our nation and in multigenerational families. Anyway, my point is that I believe our domestic challenges are primarily a direct result of drifting away from the God of Christ Jesus. Further I do not believe we will ever have any success in dealing with 'terrorism' unless and until we as a nation return to our Christian foundation, and acknowledge that we are at war with all Anti-Christians. I believe the common bond of Atheists, Agnostics, Jews, Muslims (basically all Non-Christians) is an unspoken 'Jihad' against Christians; is of such intensity that like our present Democratic Congress that they will willingly totally destroy our nation simply to destroy every last professing Christian on earth. I do not buy into the profession that that segment of our Congress are simply loyal patriots that have a different point of view. Because they do not themselves have a sound Christian perspective, they totally lack the capacity to understand and believe the hatred that they, collectively, have for any remaining Christian society. I believe that we, as did the Ninivites, are nearing a point of God losing patience with us."
My reply:
We walk a fine line in this Grand Republic to affirm our religious heritage and the importance of religion in our lives, and yet uphold one of the essential founding principles that being the separation of church and state. The reasons for such a separation are readily seen in European history through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. The mixture of religious faith and fervor with secular or non-denominational politics has never been an all-inclusive, embracing environment; it is, more often than not, exclusive and exclusionary. Further, I believe religion helps give us our moral compass, our values for life, and as such, should be a largely private, intimate and personal endeavor. I am not one who denies the importance and significance of Christianity in the foundation and fabric of this Grand Republic, however, we are and always have been a nation of all free people – all races, all religions – not just Caucasian, Anglo-Saxon, Christians.
I shall respectfully disagree with the notion that our current conflict is Christians against all others. Human beings are rarely if ever so easily classified and categorized. Yes, today, we face a small percentage of radical fundamentalist Muslim extremists, who have donned the mantle of the Islamic faith to rationalize and justify their pseudo-religious-based hegemony, and have chosen the terrorism of mass murder as their weapon. However, the present War on Islamic Fascism is NOT a war against Islam; quite the contrary, it is a war for Islam, and Christianity, and for the very precious freedom for all citizens to worship God as they choose. The United States of America is not and never has been a Christian nation – rather a republic of all religions – the very essence of the First Amendment. While I continue to level my ire at this Congress and this President, I do not doubt the patriotism of the naysayers; I simply disagree with them. I would be less than candid if I denied my serious apprehension regarding politics in this country; however, I have felt this before, and I have faith we shall regain our footing.
Lastly, any philosophy that must rely on fear to withstand examination, criticism and ridicule cannot survive in a free and democratic country. If our faith cannot stand on its own, then I respectfully submit it is not as strong as we wish or surmise. Christians carried out the brutal and inhumane Inquisition to ratify their faith; Christians have grown intellectually beyond the practice of fear. Jews have held their strength by their faith alone for millennia. Unfortunately, Muslims are immersed today in their version of the Inquisition, and have not reached their age of enlightenment. We are the logical target of their wrath. It has been and remains my belief that one of the future benefits of the current War on Islamic Fascism may well be helping Muslims and the Islamic faith move faster and farther down the road to enlightenment. We shall see.
. . . round two:
"Thanks for your response and perspective; I am quieted by your profession of faith; it did not appear to me in your writings. I do agree with your observations regarding separation of church and state; but not to the exclusion of considering the Christian influence on our nation’s founding starting with Christopher Columbus; and I am opposed to excluding Christian icons from public displays. (On the other hand I am opposed and offended by Muslims and Jews wearing their religious garbs in public, as much as I am sickened by the sight of homosexuals hanging onto each other in public; I just don't know how to reconcile these feelings.) I am not sure I have the capacity to understand or verbalize well a position on suppression of convictions and belief. But my personal experience with Jews and Muslims, in particular, are that they are always totally intolerant with other religions (peoples/persuasions), and are verbally and physically violent with those of any other persuasions. They often say they are open to dialogue, but in fact they will not permit any discussion by others."
. . . and my reply to round two:
I do not intend or wish your disquiet. Perhaps a smidgen of explanation would be beneficial. And, please allow me a slight but related detour.
When I was first old enough to vote, I registered as a non-partisan, with no political affiliation, because I was in the military. I have voted my conscience for the candidates and issues that I thought best served the State. I steadfastly maintained my independence, initially as a consequence of my military service to the Republic, and then as a matter of conscience, I chose to continue my political independence. As I reasoned, I wanted to place my loyalty to the Republic well above any political party or other affiliation -- my choice, not a prescription for anyone else. Taken from another perspective, I seek to be all political parties and no political party; I also seek to be unpredictable, not assumed to be a supporter for any particular ideology. I say this to describe the backdrop before which I deal with religion.
First and foremost, my religion and faith are between God and me, and should be of no concern to anyone else. I do not feel the need to publicly proclaim or profess my faith to validate my beliefs. So, if I do not publicly state my faith, please do not misinterpret that lack of proclamation as a paucity of faith.
That said, please allow me to articulate the separation of church and state in a different light. I believe this separation means that government should remain neutral regarding religion, for the government must protect all religions or represent no religion. A perfect negative example is the theocracy of the Islamic Republic of Iran; the IRI is what happens when that separation is removed. This is not to say that government must exclude God -- God is God, beyond all religion or void of religion. He exists despite our feeble incantations and icons. And yet, if government allows or sanctions Judeo-Christian icons, then it implicitly endorses one religion over all others, and thus favors those who believe in the government-sanctioned religion to the exclusion of all others -- a violation of the separation of church and state. For me, religion is a private matter and must never be a concern of the State.
My personal experience with people of other faiths -- Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, agnostics, atheists, and others -- is quite different than yours, at least as I perceived your portrayal. I have found tolerance comes with respect for others, at least in those who have not been taught hatred. [I doubt I would find any tolerance or respect in Jeffrey Dahmer or Adolf Hitler.] I have also found people of so many races and religions to be generous, caring, and happy people . . . some of whom can be influenced and mislead by evil men, and some of those are even clerics or otherwise wrap themselves in the mantle of religion. History shows us that religion has been one of the most prevalent causes of war, conflict, violence and abuse. Human beings have used religion to justify persecution of all those who did not believe as they believed. The Nazis tried to exterminate Europeans Jews simply because of their religion, regardless of the content of their character or their contributions to the betterment of mankind. I cannot see that bigotry and intolerance as a beneficial behavior.
Lastly, I do not share your professed aversion toward homosexuality. What any individual citizen chooses to do in private is their concern and theirs alone – a private matter. Homosexuality has been a part of humanity since before recorded history and through the entire expanse of Christianity and the other revealed religions. We can argue the basis, but the bottom line remains a private matter. The government’s interest is in public conduct and behavior; morality defines our private conduct and behavior. Just as each of us expects the government and other citizens to respect our privacy, so too we must respect the privacy of others. And, every citizen deserves equal protection under the law regardless of any of the social factors, as I call them – age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, language, sexual orientation, or disability. None of the social factors are a matter of government interest, other than to protect the rights of every citizen. We are united by freedom, not by religion or politics or any other of the social factors. Our most fundamental freedom entitles us to whatever opinions, attitudes, beliefs, and yes bigotry toward any other citizen based on any one or combination of the social factors, as long as our beliefs do not cause injury, harm, or intrude upon the rights of those affected citizens. Thus, I truly believe homosexuals should enjoy the same rights and privileges of any and all citizens in good standing. To persecute homosexuals simply because of the gender to which they are attracted is just as wrong as the discrimination against any citizen simply because of the pigmentation of their skin.
I recognize my opinions are not popular and are not mainstream or even in the majority. Nonetheless, my views are my views -- good, bad or ugly. What you do with this information about me is your choice entirely, but at least you know me just a little better.
. . . round three:
"I would like to think that I have the capacity to and do allow and listen to the positions and views of anyone with the stamina and guts to express themselves on any subject, and to respect them for their beliefs. On the other hand, I doubt I could respect anyone who simply 'sits on their hands' and never has the interest, will or courage to have and express an opinion on anything. I would allow that I don't believe I nor any other human has the capacity to be totally honest, truthful, correct or perfect on any given occasion: in my mind that is a virtue that only God has. I believe that, unlike any other God, my God also has the capacity of not just goodness, but also is God of Mercy, which allows me, a less than perfect being to walk upright; not perfect but, subject to my Gods terms, forgiven. I do agree that 'what is good for the goose is also good for the gander' or something to that effect. Because I don't want to see our public venues and they like adorned with non-Christian Icons, then it is only fair that public venues should also not be adorned with Christian Icons. I do not, however, believe that is what the framers of our Constitution had in mind with respect to Separation of Church and State: our public venues, I believe have been adorned with Christian Icons since the very beginning of Colonial Times forward to this date. Accordingly, I doubt that strict constructionist can constitutionally expunge them (ever). However, it will take a stronger mind than mine to pull together the philosophy and rationale to support that belief. In the meantime, I will for myself resist to my death all efforts to suppress my (I suppose, First Amendment) Right to express my beliefs on any subject, including my aversion to feminist and homosexuals. I would also subscribe to a hope that no human being is devoid of any goodness; but I also believe I observe that short of some intellectual guidelines the human being is also in their raw natural untaught posture a unique creature incapable of doing any good thing. We are only good to the extent, I believe, that we have been impacted or taught goodness by external experiences. In contrast, some animals display absolute love, loyalty and goodness, and only revert to ugliness when treated with ugliness. On the other hand we all crave to be love and respected; so in our natural state we are quite vulnerable to have our intellectual void filled with radical and wrongheaded religions etc. God, I believe loves each and every one of his creations; and will, in justice destroy any of his creatures who ultimately reject him; but he has demonstrated that he is long suffering in giving each of us to find the will to love him in return, to those who willfully come to him I believe he promises to in his good time bring back to himself and protect forever, or something to that effect."
. . . my reply to round three:
Ah, the beauty and magnificence of a tolerant and intellectually-grounded democracy . . . We can agree and disagree while we respect each other’s freedom to hold our beliefs and to express our opinions on any subject.
One small point I might add centers upon a repeat I said in my previous message. God is God. He exists above all, regardless of whether we believe in Him and regardless of the language, incantations, icons and rituals we use to recognize and honor Him. And, there is only one God – the God of us all. There are no different gods, just different ways of recognizing Him.
I cannot pass one last comment. There would be no motive for feminism, if those citizens of the female gender were treated with equality and respect. I truly believe that one day, hopefully before I am rendered to ashes, there will be no racism, no feminism, no homophobia, no xenophobia, no religious parochialism, or any other thoughts and actions that segregate us and inherently place one group of human beings above another.
. . . round four:
"I suspect that my life experiences and observations of women in the work place, particularly as dominant role players as heads of household, and in the corporate world are not unique: I don't know of a single instance when the women of equal talent has ever not been give preference of her male competitor. Weak women who lose out to a better qualified male always claim foul based on their sex, but it is almost always an outright lie; similar to blacks claiming a race bias when called to task for their under performance.
“This lack of good decision making ability I observe in every military situation, particularly with a female pilot at the controls. In Desert Storm and now again in Iraq women at the controls have accounted for an inordinate number of fatal incidents involving women in command. Further numerous instance in unnecessary loss of life are occurring with soldiers try to retrieve their female soldiers. The recent incident of British sailors taken hostage by the Iranians is a case in point.
“I conclude that I think your assertion related to any on going abuse of women in this country is based largely on lies and misinformation. I think it has been some time since abuse of women in the home or work place has been a tolerated practice; but on the contrary, particularly with the judicial climate in California women are almost always and incorrectly presumed to be the victims. Today men are regularly and almost invariably vilified in news and entertainment media.
“A somewhat related lesson can be observed, in Mary Baker Eddies book; She was the founder of the Christian Science 'Religion': In my mind she is an example of what a female dominated society becomes.
“I think there is great danger in a neutralist philosophy. I totally despise Bush I; who could never make a decision on any thing, and Stood For Nothing Good. (He is a great example of: Judge not least you be likewise judged. His murderous performance as a Naval Aviator, I am sure, was a sin so great that it rendered him incapable of making any major decision.) Yet his playboy son has progressed as President to standing on firm and solid faith based ground, some what as did Ronald Reagan(?), making what I believe for the most part have been good decisions (given some caveats surrounding his decision to start the invasion of Iraq). We came to exist as a nation and have survive wars and had time to this point only because faith based men and women have taken their position on the battle lines, physically fight to their death to win the battles and create and save the nation. Neutralists only provide a rehashing of 'old bromides' adding nothing new to the mix and rarely if ever arrive at conclusions or operative plans of action. I spent about 10 years of my life with four different employers from 1959 thru 1972 as a literature Indexer and as the supervisor of military classified documents libraries: as an indexer and literature search I scanned about 1,000 documents a month. After awhile I became aware that probably 99% of the writing was simply a boiler plated repetition of earlier reports with very sparse new analysis or research and even more rarely new findings. (It is interesting that the Soviet Union had very little original research, but they were expert at scanning and picking up from the open (unclassified) writing published, literature, throughout the free world all the information they needed to develop superior war machines and operation systems that in many cases exceed any thing we developed here in the United States. I thank God for our past decision makers. I shudder to think about where the Murthas, Kerrys, Reeds, Fondas and Pelosis of the world if left to their goofy self-serving whims will take this nation. (I also puzzle at why we don't recognize and prosecute their sedition and treason for what it is.)”
. . . and my reply to round four:
Let it suffice to say, our experiences with women are not the same. My military experience occurred prior to the expansion of the role of women, so my knowledge is incidental and anecdotal. My experience with women in the commercial world has been and I am certain will continue to be replete with competent, capable and even exceptional and exemplary women. I have seen no evidence to suggest the performance of women is any different from men, i.e., I’ve seen good men and bad men, and likewise women.
Interesting comment re: neutralist philosophy. I am hardly neutral. I have opinions on most things. I backup my opinions with my writing, family debates, and of course my votes. I am not prone or predisposed to labels, but my centrist, moderate, independent politics are definitely not neutral. I am predominately quite conservative on national security matters, quite liberal on social issues, and very libertarian regarding government in the main. I am at an age where I feel freer to express my opinions – good, bad or ugly. I accept that some folks strongly disagree with my opinions, and some are even offended. I am sorry if I offend, but that is not my intention. This medium allows us to compare, argue, think, debate and find our state of balance.
. . . round five:
“I am comfortable with your conclusions. I have never really understood what it means to be Libertarian? This country made a jarring shift to a ruthless unregulated free enterprise when Richard Nixon broke loose from his earlier constraints, for example as Vice President under Eisenhower(?). From that point forward the entire world economy has been dominated by a Kissinger(?=spelling) mentality with predominately Jewish control over almost all world moneyed interests. International monopolies such as BP Petroleum and Mittal Steel have been permitted to monopolize virtually all of our strategic resources and now rampantly (as was totally predictable) and ruthlessly exploit each of us as consumers. This type of abuse was present coming in to the 1920's and early 1930's but at time was broken up and prosecuted by vigorous Government imposed restrictions against monopolies. The Nixon/Kissinger era produced a total abandonment of protection from the ravages of these newly imposed monopolies. In each of these instances the senior corporate offices and Board members were first awarded mega million dollar parachutes etc; and then surprise, surprise the companies filed bankruptcy. The ghosts of industrial grave yards still clutter the landscape here.
“[I listened to various conversations, and] one of the principals was and elderly Jewish man who was or had been a design engineer for General Motors, and in the mid-1930's and took a year sabbatical to go to Germany where he designed the Volkswagen air cooled engine for Hitler; which he was very proud of. Later I watched Discovery Channel presentations showing and discussing the Jewish principal designers of Hitler's Atomic Bomb project during a time when the Holocaust was ongoing. I was taken aback by the pride the Jews had/perhaps have of applying their expertise to Hitler's devilish works.
“My point is that I believe I have and can relate respectfully with anyone, peoples of all persuasions, but I also insist on being able to (I hope, respectfully) express my sentiments. I do agree that I think we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.”
. . . and my reply to round five:
Just one quick note . . . where you will find my disagreement is in your generalizations . . . religions, races, guns, whatnot, do not do bad things . . . individual people do. So, I shall respectfully object to the characterization of Jews, of women, or whatever in general. I’ve never liked labels and categorizations; I shall not start now.
Libertarianism believes in minimalist government, and by that I mean the closer to zero the better. They believe government should stay out of people’s private lives, period, and out of their public lives to the greatest extent possible. I cannot say I embrace libertarianism, but I am much closer to that political philosophy than I am the rampant, un-checked, near cancerous Federalism of the current Republican and Democratic parties. There are many social values that go along with this political notion, but most of those are quite sensitive, volatile and not particularly comfortable to discuss/debate.

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

07 May 2007

Update no.282

Update from the Heartland
No.282
30.4.07 – 6.5.07
To all,
ERRATUM:
I reported the Senate vote on the war funding bill last week in error. The final Senate vote was 51-46-3 (vice 51-47-2 as previously reported [281]).

As expected, the President vetoed the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007 [H.R. 1591 (S.965)] [277, 281]. The conjecture on remedial action seems to run the gamut from simply removing the offending paragraph [Title I, Chapter 2, Section 1315(b)(2)], or going directly after cutting off the war funding all together, or as some are suggesting, impeach the President and Vice President [281]. The process will be interesting. From my perspective, I want a quick resolution for the sake of the troops on the battlefield; they do not deserve this uncertainty for any reason -- either give the troops all they need to achieve the mission given them by the Commander-in-Chief, or withdraw now; do not leave them in limbo. Too many of my generation lived that nasty no-man’s-land dilemma. The day following the President’s veto, the House failed to override – 222-203-1-7 (291 being required); no need for the Senate to even try. You have to hand it to the House leadership; they knew they did not have the votes to override, and yet, they pressed forward. Gee, I wonder why? Of curious note, the only representative voting "Present but Not Voting" on the override was our good buddy Dennis Kucinich.

In a public speech following his veto of the supplemental spending bill, the President said, “. . . the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not no violence.” Beyond the double negative, the President seems to be attempting to define a better differentiation and qualification of events in Iraq. He concluded, “Success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives.” While his inarticulate effort may not make the pages of influential political rhetoric, the President is correct. Several studies allude to a per capita murder rate in Iraq that is lower than in some big cities in the United States; I cannot validate such analyses, but I suspect they are representative. Americans live with violence every day. We cannot find a news program without death of some sort. The key, as I have suggested before, rests in the differentiation of fatalities in Iraq – sectarian versus terrorist (external) violence. Further, by the President’s metric, some portions of Iraq are at or near that “comfortable” state.

Uncorroborated information circulated on Tuesday that Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, AKA Abu Ayyub al-Masri – the man who replaced Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq [236] – had been killed by Sunni tribesmen opposed to al-Qaeda’s meddling with internal Iraqi politics, or rivals inside the Iraq wing of al-Qaeda. We can only hope. In other positive war news, U.S. forces reportedly killed Muharib Abdullah Latif al-Juburi – a senior al-Qaeda operative and so-called minister of information for the imaginary Islamic Republic of Iraq. Al-Juburi has claimed participation in several al-Qaeda actions including the kidnappings of Jill Carroll and Tom Fox, among other obscenities to mankind.

The not-so-loyal opposition majority in Congress continues to search for new and creative ways to obstruct and complicate the President’s ability to “wage war successfully.” The latest serving comes to us from two U.S. senators -- Hillary Clinton of New York [a presidential candidate] and Dianne Feinstein of California. Our dear Hillary is reportedly co-sponsoring, with Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a bill to rescind the authorization for the use of military force in Iraq [PL 107-243]. As of this edition, I have not found the text of the purported legislation, so an opinion will have to wait. On the other hand, Dianne introduced a bill [S.1249] “to require the President to close the Department of Defense detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and for other purposes.” The immediate question is what to do with the detainees? Dianne proposes disposition of these battlefield combatants by one of five methods. Within one year, all Guantánamo detainees shall be:
"(A) transferred to a military or civilian detention facility in the United States and charged with a violation of United States or international law and tried in an Article III court or military legal proceeding before a regularly-constituted court;
"(B) transferred to a military or civilian detention facility in the United States without being charged with a violation of law if the detainee may be held as an enemy combatant or detained pursuant to other legal authority as Congress may authorize;
"(C) transferred to an international tribunal operating under the authority of the United Nations with jurisdiction to hold trials of such individuals;
"(D) transferred to their country of citizenship or a different country for further legal process, provided that such country provides adequate assurances that the individual will not be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; or
"(E) released from any further detention."
Well now, I think that just about covers it all, doesn’t it? Battlefield combatants are NOT criminals; they simply fought for the other side, were captured, and should be detained for the duration of hostilities. The point is, we do not want these jihadistanis back on the battlefield. Some of them do not even have countries that wish to claim them, since they fought for a stateless aggressor. Does Dianne think the war is over? Are we never going to capture another battlefield combatant? The naiveté and myopic political motivation of these folks are staggering. The actions of Hillary, Dianne, Dennis the Menace, Jack the Mack, and all the other naysayer politicians raises considerable doubt regarding our ability to "wage war successfully." Isn't it interesting that Usama bin Ladin so accurately predicted U.S. durability? Nonetheless, this is great sport . . . let's see how many ways and how tightly we can hobble our Commander-in-Chief -- the duly elected chief executive of this Grand Republic and the one person charged by the Constitution to protect all American citizens from harm -- even the ones who hate him. Am I one of only a few citizens who can see the insanity in this nonsense? Are the naysayers really that intent on self-destruction and imploding the United States of America? With that said and asked, I must say that I do not question the patriotism of the naysayers. I truly believe they love this country as much as any of the rest of us, however, I do seriously question their judgment regarding the War on Islamic Fascism, the enemy we face, and the wisdom of political partisanship in wartime.

And, as if that is not enough, the Democratic Party of California approved a specific resolution at their state convention last week that claims Bush and Cheney acted in a manner “subversive of the Constitution” by. . .
1) using false information to justify the invasion of Iraq,
2) authorizing “the torture of prisoners of war,”
3) “authorizing wiretaps on U.S. citizens without obtaining a warrant,”
4) “disclosing the name of an undercover CIA operative,”
5) suspending “the historic Writ of Habeas Corpus by ordering the indefinite detention of so-called enemy combatants,”
6) “signing statements used to ignore or circumvent portions of over 750 Congressional statutes.”
The resolution recommends congressional action up to and including impeachment of the President and Vice President. This initiative is so bloody naïve, ignorant, ill-informed, and otherwise juvenile as to render it laughable. Unfortunately, these folks are deathly serious. As this initiative so brightly illuminates, the strangeness factor will undoubtedly continue to escalate for at least the next 18 months as the silly season takes on more grotesque proportions and precious American troops continue to sacrifice at the altar of political expediency.

Perhaps a little history reminder might be useful. Franklin Roosevelt -- the nominee of the Democratic Party in 1932 -- won election on the hope that he would halt the economic disintegration of the country and return the nation to prosperity. He also promised to keep the United States out of the political intrigues simmering in Europe and the Far East. He held, espoused and supported the isolationist mentality of the nation's citizenry at the time. Roosevelt signed the Neutrality Act of 1935 into law on 31.August.1935. And yet, circa 1936 or so, the President felt the serious threat coming to a boil in Germany and Japan, and what that threat portended for the United States. Gradually, secretly, quietly, over the next five years, Roosevelt directly and repeatedly violated Federal law and did his best (given the serious constraints) to prepare the country for the war he saw as inevitable. When war finally came to the United States, we had some momentum toward readiness thanks in good measure to Roosevelt's courage, vision, insightfulness and ability to risk it all for our national security. Furthermore, I truly believe there were members of the political opposition who wanted Roosevelt out of the White House, knew or suspected what he was doing regarding war preparations, and chose to keep their opposition confined to a very private venue. My point being, those who most directly opposed the President and had the ammunition to damage him politically, chose to wisely place the security of this Grand Republic over their political aspirations. If this portrayal is accurate, how did we lose our will to do the correct thing for the good of the country?

The President has proposed legislation amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) [PL 95-511] [211] after the New York Times ill-advised revelations in 2006 [232]. I have not seen the text or details of his proposed changes, as yet. However, given the political mood in Congress, the debate on the President's proposal will surely be in the most contentious category. Sadly, this debate should have been conducted five years ago, but better late than never, I suppose.

United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, AKA Antonin the Impaler, wrote the Court’s opinion in an 8-1 ruling in the case of Scott v. Harris [548 U.S. ___ (2007)] [no. 05-1631] – the police pursuit case. There are larger lessons in this decision, beyond the explicit law. To set the stage, let us review . . . in March 2001, Georgia Coweta County Deputy Sheriff Timothy Scott heard the radio call about a fleeing vehicle, intercepted the suspect automobile, and gave chase to a speeding and reckless Cadillac driven by Victor Harris, then 19 years old. Deputy Scott used a Precision Intervention Technique (PIT) maneuver to stop Harris, causing him to leave the road, crash, and as a result left him a quadriplegic. Harris sued the deputy for excessive use of force and violating his constitutional right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The Court clearly found that the risk of Harris’ actions significantly exceeded those of Deputy Scott, thus the government’s interest of public safety exceeded Harris’ Fourth Amendment rights. In Scalia’s conclusion, he noted the potential adverse contrary consequence –
“Every fleeing motorist would know that escape is within his grasp, if only he accelerates to 90 miles per hour, crosses the double-yellow line a few times, and runs a few red lights. The Constitution assuredly does not impose this invitation to impunity-earned-by-recklessness.”
The lesson for me . . . if you run from police, you give them probable cause. Our actions define consequences. I laud the courage of Deputy Timothy Scott, and I have no sympathy for Victor Harris.

We had NO comments or contributions from Update no.281.

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