Update from the Heartland
No.286
28.5.07 – 3.6.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
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 :-)
"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 :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment