Update no.283

Update from the Heartland

No.283

7.5.07 – 13.5.07

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

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 :-)