25 June 2007

Update no.289

Update from the Heartland
No.289
18.6.07 – 24.6.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
I was invited to give the spring commencement speech for the combined Webster University and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University graduation ceremony. Both institutions are the extended campuses located on McConnell Air Force Base, here in Wichita. Most of the graduates obtained master's degrees, and were military personnel, civil servants, family members and others. My speech, for those who might care about such things, focused on several key phrases in my life.
"Knowledge is power" - Sir Francis Bacon
"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- Lord Acton
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary; it fulfils the same function as pain in the human body, it calls attention to the development of an unhealthy state of things"
-- Sir Winston Churchill
"Manage Things, Lead People" -- Admiral Grace Hooper
And, passion is the cement that binds the blocks in a strong foundation. Anyway, such are the philosophical meanderings of a humble mind. Thank you, Keith, for the opportunity.

Follow-up news items:
-- In the continuing sordid saga of the U.S. attorney firings, Michael J. Elston – chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty [284] – became the fifth senior Justice Department executive to resign his post. Death by a thousand cuts, it seems. [268, 270, 273]
-- The International Space Station managed to eventually and successfully reboot their primary on-board computers, precluding an evacuation and allowing Space Shuttle Atlantis to return to Earth. [287] Atlantis landed successfully on Friday at Edwards Air Force Base. Magnificent engineering . . . every time they fly.
-- The President’s unwavering loyalty to Alberto Gonzales stands in stark, vulgar contrast to the paucity of same for Peter Pace. [176] Such are the nuances of politics inside the Beltway and the cult of personalities. In Marine vernacular, Alberto must have a picture of his boss with a goat.
-- True to form, President Bush vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 [S.5] [287] on Wednesday, just as he did the similar bill in 2005. [241] The companion Hope Offered through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act of 2007 [S.30] [287], having passed the Senate, remains stagnant in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce with no identifiable prognosis for action. On the same day, the President released Executive Order 13435, titled: “Expanding Approved Stem Cell Lines in Ethically Responsible Ways.” Watching politicians play scientist offers some interesting entertainment.
-- The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act [281-3] has been renamed as the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592; S.1105), has passed the House [vote: 237-180-0-16], and been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for consideration. For those who may not remember, Matthew Shepard was a young man brutally murdered (1998) simply because his attackers believed he was homosexual.

A book for your "must-read" list:
Ricks, Thomas E. Fiasco. New York: Penguin Press, 2006.
I finally completed reading Tom’s book, cover to cover, word for word, including the endnotes, and my slowness in completing the read by no means reflects on the writing skills of the author, or the content and importance of the book. Fiasco covers the prelude to the Battle for Iraq and the first two years of our involvement. [252, 270-2] Tom offers detailed interviews at all levels and fills in many of the gaps in the public information. He is also quite critical of the administration and some of the general officers who just did not get it. My take for Tom's book:
1. Grossly inadequate intelligence, especially Human Intelligence.
2. Apparent single-mindedness of the administration.
3. Insufficient troops on the ground.
4. No plan, or a plan that did not recognize the need to fight a counter-insurgency.
5. Improperly trained military to fight a counter-insurgency.
Fiasco is fair, balanced and critical, as any book of this nature should be. Tom gave us a magnificent study of a very painful and difficult subject. Again, Fiasco is a must-read book, if you care about the history of the Battle for Iraq.

Interesting movie – “Breach.” If you know any of the history involving the betrayal of former FBI Special Agent Robert Philip Hanssen (2001), the movie adaptation of Hanssen’s last couple of months of freedom has much to offer . . . even though it is a fictionalization surrounding the public facts. The movie epilogue states that Hanssen is in solitary confinement in the SuperMax prison in Colorado and is only allowed out of his cell for one hour a day. That punishment is far too kind for a man who has done such damage to the security of the United States, but we must recognize that the government had to trade his life for the information he possesses. These are the times in which we live.

The success of the Hamas thugs in Gaza effectively yielded two Palestinian governments – Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas declared an emergency, dissolved the government, established an emergency cabinet, and called for new elections. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the U.S. intensions to release frozen funding to the Palestinian National Authority (Abbas). President Bush met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert this week. An intriguing thought came to me . . . imagine, if you will, the Palestinians signing a peace treaty with Israel, and collaterally, Israel, the U.S. and hopefully the E.U. recognizing the State of Palestine; thus, leaving Hamas hanging and isolated. Do you think they could say, Pyrrhic Victory?

Our litigious society continues to fall in the hog trough and it stinks. We have a Washington, DC, lawyer/judge suing a family owned dry cleaners for US$54M (yes, that is a big ‘M’ for million) in damages for misplacing (temporarily we must add) a pair of pants (yes, that is correct; one (1) pair of trousers). Yet, in the class of frivolous legal actions, the lawyer’s pants suit pales in comparison to ACLU v. Jeppesen DataPlan, Inc. The American Civil Liberties Union file suit under the seldom used Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) [AKA, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS); 28 U.S.C. §1350], enacted as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. 73), on behalf of Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian citizen,; Elkassim Britel, an Italian citizen; and Ahmed Agiza, an Egyptian citizen – all rendered into the CIA interrogation and confinement system. The heart of the ACLU’s ATCA claim against Jeppesen rests in the alleged flight and logistics planning services provided by the company in support of the CIA’s rendition operations – the same services provided to thousands of companies and individual aviators. The Jeppesen suit has a long way to go through the Judiciary, however I suspect this case is destined for the Supreme Court given the confusing and ambiguous legal state of the War on Islamic Fascism. The ACLU appears to be more about inducing collateral action, i.e., using the judicial process to cower corporations doing business with the government, rather than about serious damage claim litigation. Not surprisingly, the ACLU chose to file their suit in the federal district court of Northern California, and the within the jurisdiction of the consistently most liberal appeals court – the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. This legal action demands close attention for a host of reasons; and yet, I believe it to be just as frivolous as the lawyer’s pants suit, and hopefully, it is dismissed in the first court.

Executive Order 13292, formally titled: "Further Amendment to Executive Order 12958, as Amended, Classified National Security Information," issued 25.March.2003 . . . who would have thought a routine administrative order by the chief executive of this Grand Republic could cause such a stir. Section 3.2 directs the Executive branch to transfer their files to the National Archive. The Office of the Vice President has not complied, as yet, and declared he is not part of the Executive branch, and thus did not have to comply with Executive Order 13292, since the Vice President also holds the office of President of the Senate in the Legislative branch. Interesting argument, but what a lame excuse! Despite the faux-rationale for non-compliance, I see a far more onerous issue at hand here. Congress wants the Executive to be as exposed and transparent as possible – some for the public good, but mostly for political gain – and yet, they remain opaque, e.g., earmarks, and place themselves above the laws they pass for all the rest of us. The Executive Order has been in existence for four years, and yet there is a very real reason the Vice President’s non-compliance has flashed into flame now. Let us see the whole picture in this kerfuffle.

I do not know what it is I find so fascinating about judicial pronouncements. Perhaps, it is because they are the most direct statement of one of the essential branches of government, and often the only filter or bulwark defending the rights of all citizens against a willful majority. Some of these cases have profound political significance to all of us. Some have very limited and focused importance. Occasionally, these rulings simply spark my ravenous curiosity. Then, there is a news item unrelated to a court ruling that gets me to dive in. So we have just such a case. Jill Coccaro, now known as Phoenix Feeley, a 27 year-old, New York artist, was arrested on 4.August.2005, in a Rochester public park for her violation of state Penal Law § 245.01, i.e., being a female and exposing the portion of her breast below the top of the aerola. Turns out, young Jill knew more about state law than the arresting police officer. Consequently, the State of New York settled Jill's wrongful arrest suit for US$29,000, last week. Digging into the law, the court ruling that put the police officer crosswise with the law was New York Court of Appeals (the state supreme court) People v. Santorelli [80 N.Y.2d 875], decided 7.July.1992; the decision established the federal and state constitutional equal protection guarantees applied to the women in that case, i.e., what is good for the gander is good for the goose. The issues intertwined here are illustrative of the broader questions of governmental involvement in our lives and definition of the State’s interest in regulating public conduct. One side of the argument cites the State’s interest in maintaining some semblance of public decency and conduct. The other side of the same issue asks where the injury is to the public good. The court considered, even if just in passing, whether the female breast, unique from the male equivalent, is a sexual organ, and thus within the domain of the State’s interest. We have members of our society who prefer no exposed skin showing in public including hands and face. We have other citizens who believe we should all be naked. The balance point rests between the extremes, and successful arguments can be constructed for both extremes. Thus, we find ourselves debating where the line should be drawn, and it is this precise topic that brings me to raise this incident. In this debate, we must decide the proper balance between a citizen's freedom of choice and the bona fide interests of the State . . . therein lies the challenge.

Comments and contributions from Update no.288:
“Uproar continues this side over the treatment of British war injured personnel and their evacuation to hospital. Cited figures put our evacuation rate behind that of your boys in Vietnam. Hotly denied by politicians but over here very few of us believe politicians. They are seen mostly as a race apart from normal decent human beings who command little respect.
“We had some very good scones in a little village north of Adelaide, in fact they were quite splendid. The waiter was, shall I say 'limp wristed' and we all, including him, had a good laugh and extra scones! I delighted to hear that scones have penetrated your side even if Kippers, Brussel Sprouts and Marmite haven't. Or are you going to prove me wrong?”
My reply:
I'm sorry to hear of the less than adequate treatment of British veterans. The facts should be the facts. If the evacuation and survival rates for British soldiers are not comparable to the American rates, the causes should be investigated and corrective action taken. I know American combat field medical services treat anyone and everyone. I imagine British combat medical treatment is comparable. I just do not know about any potential differences in the evacuation process. The American military spends enormous amounts of money to save the lives of every soldier; my oldest son being one of those Marines. I hope the government gets things sorted out, and if there is anything your colonial cousins can do to help, I trust we shall do so.
We can find scones in some establishments. Brussel sprouts are quite common in the U.S.; I have had them since I was a kid; don't care for them much when they are overcooked. While I'm quite familiar with Kippers and Marmite, I doubt any American who has not spent some time in England would be even aware of the unique British foods and condiments. We still buy imported English tea, despite being the catalytic commodity of our collective history from 244 years ago.

Another contribution:
“Thanks for the pictures. That area south to S[anta] B[arbara] has been a real growth spot for the wine industry. They have over a hundred wineries and as you know are making some pretty good product.”
My reply:
I was amazed at the extent of new, well-managed, vineyards on both sides of the road even in the hilly country west of Paso Robles, and my amazement verged on shock at the massive vineyards in the Salinas Valley. The question I kept asking myself was, where is the water coming from? Certainly, the wine business must be doing quite well to have such extensive plantings in a relative dry area. We did not have time to stop to satisfy my curiosity and sample their products. Another time perhaps.

This contribution opened with a news article about Oklahoma State law – Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 (House bill 1804) – a sweeping illegal immigration initiative, to which I replied:
Perhaps we are baring witness to the opening salvos of a new civil war of sorts . . . the states v. the Feds.
. . . round two:
“I think that you are. Some states, liberal (Massachusetts) and conservative (Oklahoma and others) are tired of being dictated to by Congress to do certainly things, and then no money is provided to accomplish the objective. The second point is that Congress no longer responds to the concerns of the conservatives and those states are unwilling to put up with it any longer. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. The three major points as I see it are: gay marriages, immigration, and the emphases on global warming (cars and gasoline, manufacturing, electrical power, and use of the state's resources.)
. . . my response to round two:
You have offered some appropriate observations, it seems to me. None of us appreciates having our behavior, conduct or morals dictated to us, especially when others tell us what we must do and do not provide the resources to accomplish the dicta. I understand the societal or national significance of immigration and global warming; both affect virtually all of us, directly and indirectly, and on both sides of the issue. I do not understand how gay marriage fits into that league of societal concerns, as yet. Your thoughts on these issues are always appreciated.
. . . round three:
“I think that gay marriage affects 100% of the population. Not all, however, are concerned about it to the same degree, but nearly 100% are affected by it either economically in the case of benefits given or not given to same sex relationships regardless of formalization.
“Witness the firestorm that Disney was involved in when people of the same sex, living together, were granted the same benefits as couples who were married. The end result now is that any two people who tell Disney they are living together, now feel entitled to all the health and retirement benefits of a couple who is legally recognized as married. The legal nightmare that is evolving when these people are no longer "living together" is becoming a morass of entanglements.
“Most courts are unsure as to what is considered legally bound together and what is not, who is entitled to what benefits and how much, and how do you treat loss of mental competency in one partner. States have a vested interest in how these issues affect its citizens.
“The latest studies show over 75% of the population in the US considers themselves "Christian" in some form or another and another 3% are Jewish. I would guess that nearly 100% of the people who believe in religion in some form or another have heard about homosexuality-either for or against or non-committed. Marriage or partnership as a basic tenet in all religions is based on some form of male and female inter-relationships. Any discussion of homosexual relationships, either for or against, will be exposed to most people in the US, whether they are concerned or not. Many people are worried about the future of the family, and family means to most a male/female relationship-legally bound or not, and anything that is not familiar to them will be viewed with suspicion.
“Many people seem to have decided that governments should help them decide on what’s right and what’s wrong and since they feel most churches and the Federal government are not taking a strong stand on global warming caused by people and illegal aliens by the millions, citizens are turning to their state legislators, to whom they can personally talk, for help in clarifying issues. I do not think that governments should be the source of all wisdom, but the Federal government, especially Congress, is going out of its way to ignore the public, and people are turning to their state and local governments for help.
“Those are my reasons for feeling that gay marriage fits into the league of societal concerns such as global warming and immigration.”
. . . my response to round three:
As I read your words, there appears to be two areas of concern: benefits and family. You also raise the related issue of seeking solutions in governmental action. The New York Court of Appeals Hernandez v. Robles [1 no. 86 (2006)] [240] ruling referred to a study listing 316 tangible benefits to marriage. I have not found and thus not been able to review the reported list. However, I think it safe to say that benefits do exist for those citizens who seek a state sanction of their relationship. Intellectually, the State does have an interest in encouraging stable family units for procreation and raising children to be peaceful, law-abiding, productive citizens themselves. There are also intangible benefits such as recognition of a relationship and all that entails. The motivation for my opinions regarding marriage grows from several keys elements: 1.) the outright hypocrisy regarding the State’s protection of its interests, and 2.) the need to treat all citizens equally with respect to the social factors. I acknowledge that a citizen’s right to equal protection under the law is often in conflict with the State’s interests, and this is one of those areas of conflict. The court’s reticence to invoke equal protection for homosexuals reflects the struggle to reconcile the elements of tension in this arena. Very few state legislatures or the Congress appear willing to stand up to the reconciliation task. It seems much easier to fall back on tradition and ignore the realities of failure. As a result, I espouse our protection of the rights of all citizens in lieu of some notional interest that the State has repeatedly and continuously failed to protect. A large portion of our ancestral citizenry sought to maintain eugenic racial purity by subjugation, segregation and persecution of a minority group of other citizens. So, rather than discriminate against a small segment of our citizenry, I suggest we defend the rights of all citizens and boil down the State’s interest into proper public concern and exclude the private behavior that should be beyond our intellectual outrage.
We can easily extend this familial debate to that of lawful immigration and national security. I do not see much difference. I have used the analogy of defending my home to that of defending the nation. The realities are the same. I believe some of those who come to this country seek citizenship, to participate in the American dream. Another portion seeks economic improvement for their families. And, a relatively small element comes here for nefarious reasons from petty crime to Islamic fascism. The challenge of the current debate rests in encouragement of the first two groups while eliminating the third group. A similar argument can be constructed extending the economic and societal disparity worldwide . . . one of the environmental factors that lead to radicalism. One purpose of government is the solution of societal, community, public problems. Where we go crosswise with our Founding principles occurs when we allow moral projection into the private lives of citizens to distract and cloud our bona fide public interests. The Judiciary is the worst or most wrong branch to deal with societal change. The Legislative branch is the proper venue for community change. And yet, we have not yet found a stable, supportive and sustainable condition for legislative conduct. Thus, the court is thrust into the role of reconciliation between improper legislative action and our most fundamental Founding principles, which we have yet to protect for ALL our citizens. Just as I believe that border security, a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, and protection of the rights of all citizens must come first, I also believe that we can sort out how to define and protect the State’s interest(s).
. . . round four:
“Your analogy of immigration and security to the home is exactly what I was poorly trying to express when dealing with gay marriage. People are tired of the Feds doing nothing and have turned to the states for action. The liberal states are trying to seek local liberal solutions in all three areas (immigration, homeland security, and gay marriages) and run up against a fairly strong conservative constituency and the conservative states are trying to react to the three areas in a strong conservative fashion and end up bucking some courts and a vocal liberal press.
“When people are frustrated by lack of action by the Feds and can't get clear definitive action by the states, they look backwards in history to a time of comfort and that's what they wish for and ask for, ergo, "The way it used to be." I believe that poorly defined change is worse to people than no change at all.
“Until some clearly worded attempts at positively solving each of the three areas are proposed, no meaningful discussion will take place; all talk will skirt the issues and talk about tangential problems. As Don Adams used to say in Get Smart, ‘It's the old rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic bit.’”
. . . my reply to round four:
Well said. And, states should define the public environment and public conduct they wish. I write this week about the NY woman who got $29K for false arrest; seems NY allows women to go topless in public . . . equal treatment for men & women. Some states have the right to raise the bar on public decency, as it should be. The hard part comes in defining the line between public & private, and between citizen’s rights & state’s interests. We have a long way to go in proper governance and respect for individual rights. Federalism has long been off the tracks. Perhaps this is the beginning of the process of reigning in Federalism. We shall see.

Another contribution:
“Re Gonzales: Former Presidents have fired the entire lot of Federal DA's. (Or at least one has). To then install their own choices. So why is THIS firing of 9 or so all that different and newsworthy.
“All high tech countries will use oil and oil-based products for as long as they last-----and likely will not get really serious about alternatives until well beyond the crucial time to do that.“The various Muslim sects, like Sunni, Shiite, etc, etc, do not interest me nor do I care if they fight each other for the next 200 years. BUT----I do care about our troops being put in harm's way, where some get killed and some gravely wounded almost every day, to try and mitigate or moderate or influence in any real way how peoples of so vastly different beliefs go about their lives and power struggles. They have a LOT of oil! That is why I think. We want to ensure access to that oil at hopefully a reasonable price.
“So Pvt Smith, LCpl Davies,Sgt Mendoza, and Lt Branson all have to die in that fight. And many more of their buddies and fellow fighters will be scarred for life from wounds received in a war they did not start but did agree to fight in because of love of country, and a LOT of other much more mundane reasons. But they did go out to the pointy end of the sword when they did not have to go there. We owe them!!!
“And just what will the USA ACTUALLY do to honor them, take care of them? My guess is that it will change from time to time as political parties win the Congress and White House, and then set their own most important agendas. We may well find that our best and bravest get left behind in the dust of "other" political stuff. Won't be the first time.
“I can't effectively address the McVey vs. other categories of terrorists. So I won't.
“I too am sorry Pace did not last. I think it was not because of his actual ability but maybe because of how he decided to play that very delicate game up there in the hallowed halls. Many have been there. Some survived, for varying reasons. Others did not---also for varying reasons. That's how it is up there.
“None of it would be for me. I avoided Wash DC entirely all my career, and may well have cut off any chance of going further than I did. But I'm glad I did what I did.”
My response:
Asking for the resignations of direct staff and appointees is quite common in government and academia. Perhaps even other presidents have selectively fired U.S. attorneys for purely political reasons. That is not the issue here. It is the way it was handled, the attempted cover-up, and the implications by the conduct of the administration that justice is political. While it very well may be, I resent being slapped in the face with it; thus, my opinions.
My point in my opinion on oil & technology was perhaps not thoroughly stated. I believe we will invent, develop and use new technology to replace fossil fuel systems when it makes economic sense, and we appear to be close to that point. Doing so may increase the disparity between 1st & 3rd world countries, and thus increase the violence in the world.
Some cultures have used violence to settle disagreements for many millennia and still do. I have no problem with them killing each other, if that is their culture. But, when they export that violence or inflict injuries on innocent third parties, then I have a problem. I do not want our troops involved in sectarian, internecine violence, but in Iraq & Afghanistan, we are talking about some portion of the violence, perhaps even the majority, being caused or induced by outsiders, i.e., al-Qaeda in Iraq. It’s messy, but I think we must do our best to help Iraq defend itself and keep foreigners out. We are walking a very thin line, and I’m afraid the patience of the American People is wearing even thinner. Yes, indeed, we owe our troops enormously for the dirty job they have been ordered to perform. But, I still believe it is essential and necessary.
Peter Pace got the short shaft, but that is life at those levels. I think it was his statements on political topics outside his profession and assignment that were probably his final undoing. Democrat control of Congress did not help. Nonetheless, he took the high and honorable road. May God bless him for his service to this Grand Republic.
The closest I got to service in Washington was my tour at Pax River, and that was plenty close enough for me . . . way too many trips into NavAir and HQMC. Fortunately, I was just a little peon in the back of the room.

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

18 June 2007

Update no.288

Update from the Heartland
No.288
11.6.07 – 17.6.07
To all:
This Saturday, 16.June, the Parlier Family picnic convened in Cambria, California, near San Simeon and the famous Hearst Castle. Jeanne and I accompanied my Mother – now, the matriarch of the family – on the journey to our family conclave. We flew into Monterey, rented a Lincoln Towncar for our driving comfort, and headed off down the Cabrillo Highway – California Route 1 AKA the coast road. To my amazement, neither Mom nor Jeanne had experienced that portion of the old twisty road, like Via Aurelius along the coast of Northwest Italy. Since Mom had not been to Carmel in quite some time and Jeanne had not seen this part of California at all, we decided to have our lunch in the village of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Mom guided us to the Tuck Box Tea Room on Dolores Street, a fairy tale little building with an English heritage and excellent scones.
[Mom&JeanneTuckBox 070615.jpg – After Lunch at the Tuck Box]

We did stop to see Great Aunt Lucy’s home; may God rest her soul. Unfortunately, lunch put us a little tight on our schedule for a planned dinner with some of the family Friday night, so we were not able to stop at the numerous vista turnouts for dramatic images of the coastline; so, no scenery images to show. If you have never driven the coast road of California between Monterey and Santa Barbara, you must put it on your list of things to do. We did manage to get a few images of the coastline and beach at Shamel Park in Cambria.

[CA coast north 070616.jpg – California coastline at Cambria looking north]
And, of course, I must have an image on my lovely wife Jeanne on the beach, actually the south portion of the beach at the park.
[Jeanne on beach 070616.jpg – As the file name suggests]
We tried to gather up the four generations of family in attendance for a photograph to record the event. This is the best image I have on our camera. Many of the children are off playing, some of the adults were tending the children, and yours truly took the photograph.
[Parlier Family 070616.jpg – Parlier Family picnic – June 2007]
Other photographs were taken; however, none of those are available for the Update. Thus, these images will have to suffice. Next year . . . Oregon . . . so they say. As it is for most of us, what a treasure it is to see aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, and all those who have joined our family. Life is good.

As forecast, Senator Charles Schumer of New York introduced a non-binding, sense of the Senate resolution [S.J.Res.14] proclaiming no confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The vote (53-38-1-7) failed to achieve the 3/5 majority necessary for passage. This little episode was political theater, plain and simple. Even if it had passed, there would be little, if any, consequence beyond the silly season of presidential election politics. I remain quite critical of Gonzales' abysmal mismanagement of the U.S. attorney firing fiasco, but this nonsense by a congress that has far more important tasks at hand leaves me disgusted even more.

An odd thought in the on-going debate of our consumption of fossil fuels, i.e., petroleum (oil), bubbles to the fore in a wide variety of venues – dependence, international politics, global warming, economic oppression, et al. A finite quantity of natural petroleum exists. Synthetic petroleum has been around for decades; the Germans relied heavily on synthetic oil as the Allies progressively choked off their supply of natural petroleum. Bio-fuels, primarily ethanol-based fuels, seem to be quite the rage now and appear to be a worthy alternative as is being demonstrated in Brazil. And, in normal, routine conditions, supply and demand drive the market place. Consider, if you will, what might happen as oil supplies diminish, become harder to extract, or disappear outright. The technologically advanced countries will invent new fuel systems that do not use a drop of natural oil. Where will that leave the less technologically advanced nations? An interesting question to contemplate, don’t you think?

Sixteen months ago, the sacred Shia shrine in Samarra, Iraq – the Golden Dome mosque – was bombed. [220] On Wednesday, the holy site was attacked, again, this time destroying the last remaining minaret from the original structure prior to the 2006 attack. I believed then as I do today that attacks like these are the operations of al-Qaeda in Iraq. There is only one objective I can see – ensure sectarian violence maintains a roiling boil to hold and consume Americans and our allies. Al-Qaeda needs to deflect Sunni operations against them, to otherwise occupy the Sunnis defending themselves against Shia reprisals. Time is running out.

The hits just keep coming. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling in the case of al-Marri v. Wright [4CCA no. 06-7427] -- yet another habeas corpus judicial pronouncement that appears destined for the Supremes. Here, the appeals court reversed a district court judgment in a 2-1 decision, finding that Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri -- a legal, resident alien, university student -- had been unconstitutionally detained as an "enemy combatant." The Qatari native was apprehended peacefully in Peoria, Illinois. Several issues concerned the appeals court including al-Marri’s detention by military authorities vice civil law enforcement. However, the heart of the court’s judgment hinged upon the definition of an “enemy combatant.” When we compare the majority’s rationale with the dissent’s reasoning, the ruling offers the best contrast, so far, of the consequences associated with that basic definition, and in the broader sense, of not defining our enemy in the War on Islamic Fascism as well as not obtaining a declaration of war on the stateless, transnational, Islamic, fundamentalist jihadistanis. The enemy is not just al-Qaeda or the Taliban, but rather all those fundamentalist radical Muslims who espouse violence to attain their objectives; these enemies include clerics, politicians, children, businessmen, students, and even pregnant women. By not precisely defining our enemy, we allow the wider inclusion of worldwide terrorism in general. Terrorism has existed for the millennia of human history and exists across the globe. Case in point, Timothy McViegh was a domestic terrorist (1995). There were misty conspiracy rumors floating about regarding accomplices including even more fuzzy foreign connections. However, to my knowledge, links beyond those proven in court were never alleged or proven. The McVeigh case found the proper conclusion via the criminal justice system, and incarceration of McVeigh as a detainee like al-Marri would have been wrong. On the other hand, if McVeigh had acted on behalf of al-Qaeda, as appears to be the case with al-Marri, Padilla, et al, then he would have been an agent for a foreign enemy and should have been treated as an "enemy combatant" as Herbert Hans Haupt was in ex parte Quirin [317 U.S. 1 (1942)]. [170] To be fair, the counter-case often cited – ex parte Milligan [71 U.S. 2 (1866)] – must not be overlooked or ignored, and it was Milligan that the majority favored in the al-Marri case. Similarly, we must answer the question: is a resident alien, computer hacker in association with or acting on behalf of al-Qaeda, either directly or indirectly, simply a common criminal or an enemy combatant on a modern battlefield with a theater of operations being cyberspace? Beyond the definition question, we have a more pragmatic and burdensome question; what if Usama bin Laden directed his army of adherents to enter the United States, commit simple or common crimes, to saturation our criminal judicial system, and ultimately to contaminate a body of disgruntled and disenfranchised convicts? The sad reality reflected in this case illuminates how in the paucity of a clearly defined war footing we suffer a Judiciary that has no choice but to assume civil jurisprudence. The court’s ruling is replete with legal references that do not recognize the extraordinary war powers of the Executive or the compromised status of aliens inside the United States, or even citizens, acting as agents for our enemies. The 4th Circuit addressed the legal issues in this case as a routine squabble between the government and a resident alien, rather than between a wartime government charged with defending the nation and a foreign national in this country acting on behalf of a stateless, transnational organization sworn to our destruction. This is not the court’s error, but rather the Executive’s failure. As a consequence of these ambiguities – of being at war but not clearly recognized as at war or with an identifiable enemy – the administration has placed inordinate burden on the Judiciary. This is a case that graphically demonstrates some of the consequences of not having a full declaration of war – ambiguity abounds. Sadly, when we set aside the serious legal issues, the government’s conduct in this case could pass for an episode of the Keystone Cops. Far worse than the implications and consequences of the al-Marri case, my reaction is an admixture of remorse, anger, disgust and resentment, as our power, focus and treasure is squandered in such an inept manner. And, the administration ignorantly wonders why the support of We, the People, continues to wane. One last thought in all this . . . blind loyalty to George W. Bush does not constitute competence in any of the vast array of professional skills demanded of proper Federal governance. How much more punishment must we endure? Lastly, I must commend U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, sitting on the Circuit Court by special appointment, for his succinct and cogent dissent in the al-Marri case, with which I respectfully and sincerely agree.

In an unusual departure from precedent, I offer the following anecdote attributed to senior comedian George Carlin:
George Carlin's Solution to Save Gasoline:
“Bush wants us to cut the amount of gas we use.
“The best way to stop using so much gas is to deport 11 million illegal immigrants!
“That would be 11 million less people using our gas. The price of gas would come down.
“Bring our troops home from Iraq to guard the border. When they catch an illegal immigrant crossing the border, hand him a canteen, rifle and some ammo and ship him to Iraq. Tell him if he wants to come to America then he must serve a tour in the military. Give him a soldier's pay while he's there and tax him on it.
“After his tour, he will be allowed to become a citizen since he defended this country. He will also be registered to be taxed and be a legal patriot. This option will probably deter illegal immigration and provide a solution for the troops in Iraq and the aliens trying to make a better life for themselves. If they refuse to serve, ship them to Iraq anyway, without the canteen, rifle or ammo. Problem solved.”
-- George Carlin
Truth is, we have heard citations of more than a few immigrants who volunteered to take up arms on behalf of the United States, and having served honorably, they are now full citizens of this Grand Republic. George’s comedy sketch is not that far off.

Comments and contributions from Update no.287:
"Scooter will likely get his pardon before GW leaves office. Meanwhile he is likely NOT going to Attica, Sing Sing, Rikers on Staten Island, etc. But he won't make it out near as fast as Paris Hilton did.
"I also am sorry Pace did not measure up in Sec Def's mind. I may have said back when he was nominated that Bush figured him to be one to go along but that I bet he would not. I may have been wrong on that – or – Pace tried to straddle the fence. That's always a most difficult thing to do. Anyway, he's out of there; likely now to retirement.
"In MY opinion, if Sunnis are fighting al-Qaeda then they have there own motives in mind. Likely not ones WE would approve of.
"I generally go with Powell on what he says. So I will this time too."
My reply:
I don’t know that I disagree with Colin Powell in this instance. However, unless there is a clear action plan for holding the detainees out of action for the duration of this war, then I must strongly disagree. Further, I am not in favor of allowing detainees access to our criminal judicial process; they are more akin to POWs than criminals.
Risky step . . . arming the Sunni Iraqis. However, if they help rid Iraq of foreign fighters, we can leave. If they choose to turn the guns on each other, that’s their business. We shall see how it turns out.

Another contribution:
"[Pace] writing a letter of reference for Scooter Libby has been cited as one reason, perhaps the straw that broke the camel's back. No matter what one's opinion on Libby, the feeling was that someone in General Pace's situation should not have written such a letter. That combined with comments he had made on gays- not just on serving, but on his personal opinions with regard to gays - and his not knowing how many had been killed in Iraq during a Memorial Day event made reconfirmation hearings a potential ordeal.
"Also, many military in this town are not happy with him - especially in his relationship to Rumsfeld. Many Marines I have talked to are very disappointed in Pace. You are right - Gates did what he had to do. At least there will be a Marine at deputy ChJSC, Hoss Cartwright, a Marine aviator."
My response:
I think you hit the nail squarely. Sometimes generals forget they are just human beings like the rest of us, and they forget they are representatives of the civilian politicos. Best they stick to the professional stuff.

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

11 June 2007

Update no.287

Update from the Heartland
No.287
4.6.07 – 10.6.07
To all,
In an evolving format change, we start with follow-up news items:
-- On Tuesday, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr., former chief of staff to the Vice President and now convicted felon, was sentenced to 30 months in prison plus a US$250,000 fine for his federal perjury conviction. [199, 203] The White House has indicated that the President will not intervene at this stage of the judicial process, but would not exclude a pardon at some future date. Thus, we can notch up one more example on a long, infamous list of how the cover-up is far worse than the crime.
-- Secretary of Defense Bob Gates announced his intention of replace General Peter Pace, USMC [USNA 1967], as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. [199, 205, 212] Peter allowed his personal opinions and beliefs to enter into his professional conduct a few too many times that he became more of a political lightning rod than he already was due to the war. I am sorry to see him end his career like this, but frankly, I think Bob did what had to be done.
-- The President nominated Admiral Michael Glenn Mullen, USN [USNA 1968] -- Chief of Naval Operations -- to replace General Pace as the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The President also nominated Marine General James E. Cartwright, USMC -- Commander U.S Strategic Command -- to be vice chairman, replacing Admiral Edward Giambiastiani, USN [USNA 1970], since Admiral Mullen's nomination would create an imbalance of services on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
-- The Senate vote on cloture (to end debate) on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 [S.1348] failed by a vote of 45-50-4, which puts the bill further away from passage -- status quo ante.
-- Space Shuttle Atlantis finally launched into space, enroute to the International Space Station – always awesome to watch these events. I really like the on-board video -- fascinating shots.

Further, an interesting article for your critical review:
“France: Sarkozy’s old familiar song --
“How to reinvent and reinvigorate the rig”
by Serge Halimi
Le Monde diplomatique
Published: 2.June.2007
http://mondediplo.com/2007/06/02france
-- An intriguing assessment of American and French politics. This rather lengthy article is well worth the effort.

Unfortunate but encouraging news from Iraq indicates Sunni Iraqis in western Baghdad have engaged in pitched battles with al-Qaeda in Iraq operatives. If the growing trend continues, perhaps some Iraqis have decided enough is enough and are taking aggressive action to eliminate the bad guys who are killing indiscriminately on all sides of the sectarian divides. The sacrifice of our children’s generation continues as we watch with critical vigilance for signs of improvement and stabilization in Iraq.

A federal grand jury finally handed down an indictment of Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana on 16 charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money-laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. You may recall that “Dollar Bill” Jefferson sparked a constitutional crisis last spring after a warranted search of his apartment and congressional offices. [233, 240, 252, 258] The cogs of justice may turn slowly but at least they turn. We have not seen all the evidence against him as yet, but the signs are not positive for ol’ “Dollar Bill” Jefferson, even after his re-election last year. Judging from his performance to date, I suspect “Dollar Bill” does not have the backbone to standup before the bar, admit his guilt, and take his punishment as Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham of California did. [208] We shall soon see what kind of man Jefferson is; I hope I am wrong. And, we thought the Democrats would be different. Well, perhaps they are . . . different names . . . same corruption, graft and largess.

General Colin Powell, USA (Ret.) -- former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- spoke his mind on NBC's "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert. He said the U.S. prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, was "a major problem for America's perception" in the world, and that "if it was up to me, I would close Guantánamo - not tomorrow, this afternoon." Unfortunately, I did not see the whole program. Colin added that he would not let “those people” go, but I did not hear what he would do with them. Did anyone see/hear the whole interview? What to do the detainees is a critical action if we are to close the detention center.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (2CCA) issued a controversial 2-1 ruling in the case of Fox Television Stations, Inc., v. Federal Communications Commission [06-1760]. In the court’s decision, several explicit recitations were offered for the issue at hand – punitive assessments as a consequence of broadcasting what the court calls “fleeting expletives.” The 2CCA decided that the FCC exceeded its constitutional authority to issue heavy fines to the broadcast networks for “fleeting expletives” by entertainers. Set aside the stroll down memory lane of FCC efforts to constraint our freedom of speech, we have a potentially pivotal judicial pronouncement. I suspect the Bush administration will not be able to leave alone, so we are likely to see this issue before the Supreme Court. Profanity says far more about the speaker than the words could ever be injurious, and offensive is hardly public harm. The exception is the impact on children and the concomitant imposition upon parental rights. If parents allow their children to buy and listen to profane and obscene rap music, then it is their choice and prerogative entirely. Broadcasting such music over public radio and television frequencies when children could reasonably be assumed to be listening without parental supervision, then such speech may cause harm, and thus is appropriate for prohibition. However, the Golden Globe or Billboard Music Awards at issue here hardly qualify as children’s programming. Societal disdain is quite appropriate in such cases, but using the instruments of State to enforce our sense of propriety or offense hardly seems proper for incidents where no harm is done. Society and government have a responsibility to maintain a threshold of public conduct and that includes speech when children are likely to be listening. The 2CCA got it right. Perhaps now, we can begin to move back toward a more reasonable and stable middle ground and away from the extremes of either political direction. An interesting side note: the movie “Saving Private Ryan” featured almost exclusively as a counter-rationale to the imposition of speech restrictions.

This past April, the Senate passed two bills regarding federally sponsored embryonic stem cell research. I must admit to struggling with the language in one of the bills; I have made no progress in the last month regarding a proper interpretation, so I thought I would offer some partially formed views hopefully to elicit other contributions and opinions. The first and more conventional bill – the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 [S.5] –requires “the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, and limits such research to stem cells that meet the following ethical requirements:
“(1) the stem cells were derived from human embryos donated from in vitro fertilization clinics for the purpose of fertility treatment and were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment;
“(2) the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded; and
“(3) such individuals donate the embryos with written informed consent and receive no financial or other inducements.”
The second bill – the Hope Offered through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act of 2007 [S.30] AKA the HOPE Act – sponsored by Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota offers an intriguing compromise. The language of the HOPE Act at least opens the door to federal embryonic stem cell research with some peculiar constraints. The essence of the bill requires “the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop techniques for the isolation, derivation, production, or testing of stem cells, including pluripotent stem cells that have the flexibility of embryonic stem cells (whether or not they have an embryonic source), that may result in improved understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions, provided that such techniques do not involve:
“(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
“(2) the destruction or discarding of, or risk of injury to, a human embryo of embryos other than those that are naturally dead.”
Several keys words/phrases in the latter legislation offer some hope of compromise, and yet remain excessively restrictive. “Pluripotent stem cells” means capable of producing two or more distinct mature cell types; these cells are sometimes referred to as adult stem cells. A zygote (ovum + spermatozoa) is the ultimate pluripotent stem cell. Replication occurs in the first days of cellular division with cellular differentiation beginning circa 14 days or so. Adult pluripotent stem cells are many generations down the cellular differentiation tree, and while they have considerable value, they cannot represent the universality of true embryonic stem cells. All this is well and good; however, the phrase that stops me cold in the HOPE Act text is “those that are naturally dead.” I know what the English language means, but I do not know the significance in medical research terms. I have sought an explanation or scientific interpretation, but have failed so far to obtain one. As a layman, I do not know how dead cells might be beneficial in understanding the process of cellular differentiation and division. Further, “naturally dead” suggests exclusion of the very processes we are trying to study, and thus, appears to be counter-productive or exclusive in a back-handed manner.
Late in the week, two important events occurred. The House voted on the S.5 bill directly after two months in stagnation; they passed S.5 by a 247-176-0-10 vote, sending the bill to the White House, which has threatened a presidential veto (again). Both the House and Senate votes on S.5 were short of the 2/3 required to override a veto. The S.30 version remains stagnant in the House. Also, the Press reported the findings of three teams of scientists who claim to have stimulated mouse skin cells to divide as pluripotent stem cells. Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University developed the new technique -- inserting just four genes into a skin cell. The researchers caution against premature exuberance, however the signs appear positive. I need to do more reading on this technique and understand the potential. Stay tuned.

Comments and contributions from Update no.286:
"Your commentary on Senator Brownback's article is far more detailed than mine. All I wanted to do is draw attention to the misuse of the word ‘belief’ whenever evolution becomes a matter of public discussion. To say one has a belief in evolution is similar to a belief in gravity. If I don't ‘believe’ in gravity, do I therefore lose my toehold on the planet?
"Belief lies in the realm of the metaphysical. It is beyond human knowing understood as an empirical experience. I believe the origin of life in the universe derived from the actions of a being so far beyond the comprehension of humankind that human science can never approach understanding or connection with this originating force. By making this statement, no one can prove me wrong--at least on this planet in the year, 2007. Proof does not lie in the revelatory books of the three major religions. Not the Talmud, the Gospel, nor the Koran prove anything other than human gullibility to the pronouncements of human understanding of a deity.
"All scientific evidence points to a recent emergence of human life on this planet. Does this make us any less valuable as a species? No. We may be the culmination of a god's design or we may be another step in a series of improvements or we may be the architect of a destructive force. I do not have the wisdom to ascertain the mind of a deity. Those who claim to know the mind of god are either delusional or beyond the evolutionary progress of current science.
"The Williams case? [285] Sorry, Cap, but you know my rejection of a right to privacy in Constitutional cases. What you argue falls squarely within the precedent of Griswold, but that controlling decision was wrongly decided as is true of all of its legal progeny. If you truly accepted an unlimited right to privacy, you would object to all searches and seizures conducted by all federal and state legal authorities even in cases of national security. I don't care to depend on the Court to make that decision. Barring an amendment, I would rather the states or the Congress take up the issue."
My response:
I certainly ascribe to your observations on faith, belief, and science. Religion does not seek reason. The ideal is blind faith; i.e., let the clergy define reason – gives them maximum control. I chose a perspective of history to illuminate the same point. Another reflection in a novel manner is Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code;” even in modern times, murder is perhaps acceptable to protect the theological foundation. The whole basis of heresy as a crime grew from any contradiction of “God’s word” as interpreted by frail men in fancy robes. No need to dwell here. I like your points, as always. [Good novel, by the way.]
Likewise, I know you do not wish to be embroiled in the privacy debate; you’ve stated your position and belief. I am the one who continues to struggle with this notion. I asked your opinion on the Williams case not so much for that aspect, but rather the relationship to the “State’s interest.”
The preamble certainly implies that We, the People, granted specific authority to the Federal government to act on our behalf, not the other way around. The 9th and 10th Amendments appear to add to that assumption. If so, authority not expressly enumerated is retained by the People; is that true or not? I am not in favor of an activist Court legislating from the bench, however, in some cases, the Court remains to only bulwark against oppression by a willful majority, and even then, the Court does not have an unblemished history. I believe a fundamental (above the Constitution) right to privacy exists as noted above and for the simple fact that there is no other limit or boundary to the State’s power beyond self-restraint, which we have seen disappear in the last few decades, e.g., the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Conversely, as the 11CCA wrote in Williams, the Court is quite reticent to make too strong a case for a citizen’s privacy due to unintended consequences – prostitution, incest, et al. Further, I have never supported an inviolate or unlimited privacy right; the State can and must be able to penetrate the boundary when the interests of the State are threatened, e.g., insurrection, injury, et cetera. Thus, as I tried to say in my opinion, the question hinges upon the State’s interest(s). The sale of sex toys hardly seems to qualify . . . at least the 11CCA did not specify or articulate the State’s interest(s) in supporting the sale prohibition vice use of said devices. Failing to establish the State’s interest, the district court judge got it right, and the 11CCA failed. I guess we’ll see what the Supremes have to say. As I said, I struggle with the nature, strength and substance of the boundary between public and private, as well as the mechanisms by which minority rights are protected. If there is no fundamental right to privacy, what are the limits of State power? If not our property line or front door, our skin . . . our organs, our stem cells . . . our thoughts? One other aspect that bothers me in all this arena of debate, and I tried to briefly articulate in Update no.285, the ability and capacity of the State to intrude on a citizen’s privacy was infinitesimal just decades ago. If we don’t face this question, we may soon find, if we have not already done so, that we have passed the point of no return regarding any semblance of boundary between public and private – the State can act at will anywhere, anytime. Furthermore, the State has repeatedly failed to address the entitlements crisis (Social Security), the border crisis, the earmark pork crisis, et al; I doubt very much the State will find the will to limit its power. And, under what authority does the Legislative branch have to supersede the 9th Amendment, i.e., define powers for itself not enumerated in the Constitution? Rhetorical question, sorry; they’ve certainly done it already and been supported by the Supremes, e.g., CSA & Commerce Clause. Just as you suggest there is no “unlimited right to privacy,” is there any such notion as privacy given the void of specific reference in the Constitution? Are there no fundamental rights? If not, is there no limit to the power, reach, and intrusive ability of the State?

Another contribution:
"I thought you would like to know about this important new public information institution, the Creation Museum:
http://www.creationmuseum.org/
"This wonderful place in Kentucky provides a forum for those who seek to refute the hogwash spouted by pseudo-scientists about such absurd concepts as evolution and paleontology. Where else can you find out the truth about the Ice Ages being a side effect of Noah's Flood? They clarify the fact that Adam, Eve and the dinosaurs lived in harmony in the Garden of Eden.
"Things like this explain much about history, such as how tens of millions of Germans could look the other way when nonsense became law."

Another contribution:
"The board in the Kokesh case recommended to give him a general discharge- as opposed to an OTH."The one thing that concerns me a bit about this case is that while he wore a (utility) uniform in the protest -- it actually was an acting demo -- he took off all insignia. I was a JAG and recall that we had a general, but informal, rule was that we didn't prosecute when people did demonstrations or political events in uniform parts without insignia. Field jackets, blouses, etc. without insignia, patches, ribbons or medals were not considered grounds for prosecution. The real problem was the wearing of a full uniform with ribbons, badges, etc. at a demonstration or partisan political event.
"Further, one sees politicians with military in uniform at events all the time-- and many of these events have to be considered 'political'. During the last election cycle, a Colorado female Congressional candidate got in hot water for having a couple of Marines in full (Blues) uniform get up on the stage with her during a political event. If were are going to punish a discharged Marine for wearing a uniform (w/o insignia) at a demonstration, then we should also do the same for active duty Marines who wear full Blues with ribbon & badges (& covers) at a partisan political event. The pol should also be punished, but I don't think there is a law on the books. Active duty service personnel are often used as props in partisan political events--in full uniform, no less-- and nothing happens. We then punish a reservist not on active duty for wearing a utility uniform- w/o insignia- at a protest. I am more concerned about the former, in that it is one more step on a slippery slope to politicizing the military."
My reply:
In this context, I am very much old school. Whether the uniform is complete with regalia is irrelevant to me. If a reasonable person could easily interpret the “uniform” as legitimate, then they transgressed. When a citizen speaks as a citizen, without larger representation, then they carry with them the full weight and power of the First Amendment. I believe we can say whatever we wish as long as we do not cause injury by our words. Once we identify ourselves are part of some larger organization, e.g., employer, uniform, ministerial frock, et cetera, our First Amendment rights begin to narrow – the higher unit has rights too. I condemned Bill Clinton for abuse of power with an intern, although there was technically no law as such. I condemn these yayhoos for the same reason; however, in the case of the Marines, the service apparently believes they violated UCMJ. I assume from your comments as a JAG officer, you do not agree.
I am not sure about your CO representative example. Were those Marines there to support the event or the politics of the representative? If the latter, they have violated both specific law and traditional political neutrality of the military, and should be punished appropriately. But, if they were neutral and simply a stage presence, then I am not sure about the violation . . . other than association by assembly. And, I don’t think the politico violated the law, but the Marines may have; after all, it is the uniformed military that is expected to be neutral; she may have compromised those good Marines without them knowing, and if so, therein lies an ethical transgression. A neutral and subservient military is vital to the very existence of this Grand Republic and must be devoutly maintained. I criticize the President as a citizen, NOT as a Marine.

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

04 June 2007

Update no.286

Update from the Heartland
No.286
28.5.07 – 3.6.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
"Death to America!"
-- Is it a statement of juvenile anger and frustration, or is it a statement of intention?
-- What are we to assume about people who publicly shout such bellicose rodomontade?

We have a follow-up news items from previous Updates:
-- The long awaited emergency appropriation bill – Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007 [H.R. 2206; PL 110-28] [277, 281-5] – was signed into law by the President the next day (25.May.2007) after passage by Congress. I guess I blinked.

Several interesting and apropos commentaries were sent along to me, and I offer them for your review and consideration.
“Those Who Cannot Remember the Past”
by Fred Thompson
Thursday, May 17, 2007
http://www.townhall.com/content/9d1ca10b-3802-415b-bc5a-63e402fa1c21
A similar view told from a different perspective -- those who choose not to learn from history are destined to repeat it.
British citizen Pat Condell gave us this vidclip commentary on Islamofascism uploaded on 13.April.2007.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=418_1176494781%20
Spot on, I’d say, and a refreshingly articulate and direct videologue.
And yet another contribution:
“Honor, Duty, Country?”
by William F. Buckley
Friday, June 1, 2007
http://www.townhall.com/content/d474f89a-f15e-46b6-ad99-53ea291f5a87
I do not like comparisons to the Vietnam War, however, as Bill Buckley clearly and concisely states, the parallels toward the conclusion are eerily similar. We, the People, have a choice. We can choose to win or lose. Which do you choose?

I make no bones about my disapproval of Senator Sam Brownback’s social opinions and voting record; and yet, every once in a while, I must recognize dear ol’ Sam’s capability. This is such an occasion. Sam wrote a New York Times Op-Ed piece titled, “What I Think About Evolution” and published 31.May.2007. I admit to reading authors/writers who express similar views as me to somehow bolster my arguments, but I try hard to read opinions diametrically opposed to my views to understand as well as sharpen my opinions. It is in this context that I read Sam’s Op-Ed column. To his credit, Sam offered a cogent, articulate and persuasive defense of his opinion on the relationship between creationism and evolution. I urge anyone who cares about this topic to read Sam’s words. He said in part, “Limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason.” He goes on to add, “The question of evolution goes to the heart of this issue. If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.” I believe that is the essence of his argument. With Sam’s eloquence as a backdrop, I shall be so bold to offer an alternative view.
Several millennia ago, Egyptians, Chinese, Mayans, Greeks, Romans, et al, made their attempts to understand and explain forces and events within their environment. Religion evolved as part of that process . . . to help our ancestors understand what was not understandable at the time. The revealed religions added far more compelling rationale . . . they were the direct word of God. As I have stated numerous times, religion is but our feeble attempt to recognize God. Regardless of the language, rituals, icons, and trappings, God is God. Where I differ with Sam rests in the snapshot of life, and this question that diminishes our ability to see and learn. Five hundred years ago, the men who interpreted “God’s Law” nearly executed one of humanity’s greatest scientists and thinkers for the audacity to suggest the Earth was not the center of the universe. The majority of the Judeo-Christian sects have grown beyond Leviticus, the flat-earth edict, and the heresy of criticism. Science and courageous human exploration have helped us understand that the Earth is the third planet from a modest star in a vast universe of billions upon billions of stars that come in a myriad of forms stretching back 13.7 billion years. Yet, as Sam implies, religion helped us have faith in what we do not yet understand, both within and beyond ourselves. But, to suggest religion is infallible flies in the face of a vast body of evidence to the contrary. As is the nature of the human species, we shall continue to probe the molecular and atomic constructs of life itself and to spread our wings as we reach beyond our planet, beyond our solar system, and beyond the Home galaxy. As we do so, we shall learn more about how things work. As we learn more, the relationship between religion and science will change as it has done throughout human history. To think that today’s interpretation of creation/evolution is some definitive, sacrosanct, inviolate axiom of life is irrational and directly contradictory to recorded history. The bottom line should be (although today it is not) a recognition and acknowledgment that religion’s view of science today is most likely as wrong as it was several centuries, numerous millennia ago, and will evolve with human thought as it has done through mankind’s cognitive existence. We do not and perhaps cannot understand all that is life and the worlds around us, and that is where our faith best serves the furtherance of science. We must not take a hard position regarding the contrast between faith and science; the demarcation and clarity must remain fuzzy, flexible and pliable to grow as science extends our knowledge. If we allow calcification, we shall suffer the same embarrassment the Christian church faced when Ferdinand Magellan’s lone, surviving ship Victoria and 18 surviving crew returned to Sanlúcar de Barrameda, after their three year voyage circumnavigating the spherical ellipsoid we call Earth, and when science proved unequivocally that the Earth orbited the Sun. I laud Sam’s effort, but I respectfully suggest he rethink his position in the harsh light of history.
A contributor and friend read the same Brownback Op-Ed column and did not wait for the Update to offer an opinion.
“I suppose one of the difficulties for the faithful is that they either posit or, because of the framing of the debate, respond to a ‘belief’ in evolution. Belief indicates a ‘faith’ (acceptance without reason) in a particular precept without any direct proof of that belief. Belief is the province of religion.
“Evolution is not a product of belief. It is a product of acceptance within the scientific community as a reasonably derived hypothesis stemming from rigorously controlled scientific experimentation.
“Faith or belief, on the other hand, by definition requires the suspension of scientific analysis, as we know it in modernity. The faithful accept without question among others the following: Virgin birth; the Resurrection; the Trinity; Heaven and Hell; an Eternal Soul; Redemption after death; the Perugia. I could add to this list, but suffice to say, there is no scientific proof of any of these precepts, all of which are the product of human imagination.
“Scientific proof exists of micro and macro evolution. It does not diminish my acceptance of geological evidence nor does it diminish my belief in a supreme being. Contrary to Brownback's assertions, neither proves the supremacy of humankind. Rather, an examination of evolution and faith should demonstrate how humankind has deviated from the hard truths of evolution and the moral truths of religion. As a species, we have wreaked havoc on the planet and failed to adhere to the most basic of spiritual truths.”

Since we are on the topic of religion, I would like to reiterate my previous opinion regarding the separation of church and state.
[59, 87, 90, 124, 132, 138, 153, 155, 158, 174, 186, 194, 219, 243, 250, 273]
Pope Benedict XVI has stated that the church cannot remain on the political sidelines. [219] I have no problem with the church and clergy taking political positions including running for political offices. They are citizens after all. Where I object erupts when clergy don the mantle of religion, as if they are acting on God’s behalf, and expect the favors of the State and We, the People, afforded institutions of religion, e.g., tax exemption, sanctuary, et al. If they wish to become a de facto political party, then so be it. The separation of church and state can readily be extended to mean one or the other, not both. Either you are clergy or you are a politician. They cannot and must not have it both ways.
After I wrote the paragraph above and before this week’s Update was distributed, the Washington Post published this article:
“Separation of Church and State and Tax Exemptions”
by Alan Cooperman
Friday, June 1, 2007; Page A04
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W5RH02EA64079059C0E3931E342310
Cooperman’s article illuminates the political activism of the Bill Keller Ministries of Florida. While the Post must maintain neutrality on news stories, I do not suffer the same constraint. Cooperman’s article adds more fuel to the fire and adds further validation to the Founding principle of separation of church and state.

The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, announced his intention to conduct a formal congressional (presumably public) review of CIA operations in the detention and interrogation program. Prima facia, congressional oversight remains an essential, required and continuous activity to ensure balance in government conduct. Regardless of our opinions or views on detainee treatment, public examination of means and methods during wartime can never be a positive or contributory action. And worse, the Rockefeller rumblings remind me of another Senate committee 30 years ago – the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, AKA the Church Committee. In the aftermath of the Watergate scandal and the waning days of the Vietnam War, Senator Frank Church of Idaho chaired the committee to investigate a wide range of intelligence activities. Fourteen comprehensive reports were issued and significant legislation came to fruition that seriously constrained intelligence operations, both foreign and domestic. While the intentions of the Church Committee and the derived legislation were noble, the consequences led the U.S. intelligence community away from the messy, dark world of Human Intelligence (HumInt) to the clean, sterile, seductive medium of electronic intelligence. I truly hope we do not continue down this path to what might become a Rockefeller committee and even further constraints on the intelligence community. Congressional oversight is important to us all, but public expurgation during wartime only serves our enemies, guiding them to more effectively attack us.

Three inactive reserve Marines face military disciplinary action as a consequence of wearing their uniforms during a Washington, DC, anti-war protest rally. Two of the three were members of a notional 13-man squad created by a group called “Veterans Against the War” that carried out a guerilla theater protest on Capitol Hill. The Marine Corps took exception to their protest. Of course, the wailing naysayers claim violation of their 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech rights. Once those misguided men donned the uniform of a U.S. Marine, they gave up their freedom of speech; they were no longer just citizens; they were Marines. I trust the Marine Corps will mete out the proper punishment for these yayhoos. If they had not been in uniform or presented themselves as Marines, they could have protested all they wished, to their hearts content. They made a bad choice; now the consequences are due.
In another postscript to my opinion, Washington Post writer David Montgomery reported on a public statement by Veterans of Foreign Wars national commander Gary Kurpius. He said, “What the Marine Corps is trying to do is hush up and punish these individuals who served our country.” Kurpius has missed the point entirely and is flat wrong. This situation is not about denying freedom of speech, but rather about demanding discipline and respect for the uniform and the service -- plain and simple.

Well, how about this! Robert Alan Soloway – a 27-year-old, Seattle man – was indicted by a federal grand jury on 35 counts of mail fraud, wire fraud, e-mail fraud, aggravated identity theft and money laundering. He was arrested, charged and arraigned. Although I try to avoid criminal exposes in this forum, this indictment brings unique pleasure that these anonymous, cyber-terrorists unleash vast volumes of worthless trash and viruses on all of us. If convicted, I suspect Soloway will not suffer the punishment he deserves; we can only hope he finds the prison-yard love-buddy he deserves. Sometimes prison justice seems more appropriate than the meager droppings of our constrained criminal justice system, case in point, Jeffrey Dahmer. I have faith Soloway will get his justice as well.

This whole immigration reform business seems to be taking on tragic tones. Beyond the physical reality of our porous borders, our abused border states and communities, and the threat to our way of life all this represents, I am deeply troubled by the conduct of the Executive and Legislative branches of our Federal government. After numerous misfired attempts at legislation, a group of senators announced a surprise compromise that they ballyhooed as the last great chance for immigration reform. The Library of Congress published the text of the bill – the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 [S.1348] – as is their charter to perform. A flurry of press conferences, floor speeches, committee activity, and of course talking-head pronouncements ensued; then, our representatives went quiet. The record shows that S.1348 stalled in committee, a couple of weeks ago. The Press reported a new version – S.2611 – superseded the prior version. The Library of Congress has reported the latest bill as publication pending for the longest time I can remember, which of course, makes me quite nervous. And, with all the associated chatter of amnesty, tuberculosis patient penetration, and such, I imagine the Border Patrol has their hands full with an overwhelming flood. If my supposition is correct, we shall have physical proof and demonstration that we should have dealt with security first, and then followed with the more politically attractive reformation process. Mort Kondracke suggested that if the legislation addressed the enormous and inordinate financial and societal burdens borne by the border states and communities, performing a federal function, there might be more support for this invisible legislation. Nonetheless, I am uneasy about this process and the potential consequences of such broad action without a nearly impenetrable border zone. Without proper security, all the rest of this is simple political wrangling for parochial gain.

On Friday, a Brazilian judge issued an indictment of two American pilots -- Joseph Lepore and Jan Paladino -- and four air traffic controllers on manslaughter-related charges for the mid-air collision over the Amazon jungle in September 2006. [252, 261] We still have not seen sufficient facts to draw any conclusions, however one important fact . . . pilots rely on air traffic controllers and radar in positive control airspace (18,000 feet altitude and above). On the negative side, pilots are required by electronic and manual checklists to test and verify the operation of their TCAS equipment; apparently, one or both crews failed to do so. Criminal charges coming from an aircraft accident remains a very serious step that could have far-reaching negative impact on aviation safety. This case is a long way from over.

Comments and contributions from Update no.285:
“Regarding the Nobel peanut farmer, it is impossible to accept condemnation of this administration from one who presided over the worst in my lifetime. Moreover, Rosie should keep quiet if she cannot take it back.”
My reply:
I left my opinion open. My opinion of the worst administration in history . . . the Carter administration (1977-81). I was an active duty Marine aviator. Those were very troubled times.

Another contribution:
“Minneapolis courts (perhaps MN Supreme Court) have ruled that Moslems do not have to pickup nor transport anyone carrying liquor or smelling of such. The airport must provide foot washing facilities for Moslems prior to their prayers-5 times a day. Checkout clerks at Target-and most other stores-do not have to handle any product made from pork or that was in close proximity to pork.
“If you picked up pork and then were told that you cannot check it out by a Moslem, all the food you have gathered must be checked out by non-Moslems since you have touched pork.
“Now ask some of the correspondents that participate in your updates how being nice to Moslems will result in them treating you nicely.
“Celebrate the many thousands who have given the ultimate sacrifice so we can ‘live in peace’ and have freedom of choice in the way we live.
“People do not realize that this is a war for generations and will determine the freedoms that exist in all the freedom loving countries. It is step 1 in the War to destroy the infidels and God help us if we try to treat them as we would like to be treated.
“NOTE: just pissed off on the stupidity of people who think we are at fault for the sins of the world.”

And, another opinion:
“As I remember Mr. Carter's term in office it was not the best of times either. I seem to remember it as a pretty lame presidency. However, he is entitled to his opinion.”

An update on the RMS Cutty Sark fire:
“The most recent reference to the Cutty Sark disaster is in to-days Daily Telegraph (May 29th).
“Title: Cutty Sark can be saved after fire
“The Cutty Sark can be saved despite the fire on May 21, the trustees said last night. But it will cost an additional £10million to repair the boat which was undergoing a £25million restoration project. Some of the ships iron frame buckled in the blaze and the decks were wiped out. But more than half the ship was in storage. Police investigating the fire have yet to decide whether it was arson.
“I will post any further statements of note as and when they appear in the press.”
My response:
[Thank you] for the Cutty Sark update. Please keep us posted, as you are able. Always sad when history is damaged like that.

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