27 August 2007

Update no.298

Update from the Heartland
No.298
20.8.07 – 26.8.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
We watched our oldest grandchild play several football (soccer) matches over the weekend. The pitch was adjacent to the Colonel James Jabara Airport (KAAO), and it just so happened, a weekend airshow flew demonstrations both Saturday and Sunday. What a challenge it was to focus on the match with various airplanes flying in front of us and overhead. Toward the end of Aspen's championship match, we received the following text message from our youngest son: "1600 miles, four states, a national park, an Indian reservation, swimming in a waterfall pool, two warnings for excessive speed, and the largest steak I have ever consumed, all in 48 hours, now that is a road trip." Ah, yes, ain't it great to be young.

A friend sent this video clip . . . the Marine Corps Hymn as you have never heard it like sung before.
http://www.e27marines-1stmardiv.org/videos/Marines_Hymn.wmv
Bless their little hearts.

The follow-up news items:
-- A few months ago, I praised the U.S. Mint’s production of the new, gold, Washington dollar coin [281]. I acknowledged an error in referring to the Sacagawea dollar as the Pocahontas version [283]. Now, it seems, humble pie is on my menu. Just four months hence, after lauding the Mint’s nice, shiny, gold finished, dollar coin, I must confess I spoke too quickly. With only modest use, the new Washington coins tarnish rapidly to the same, dull, penny-brown, color as the Sacagawea dollar. Perhaps unbridled hope was too much that the U.S. Mint had solved the coating and luster retention problem. We are still ordinary.
-- Space Shuttle Endeavour (STS-118) landed safely at Cape Canaveral a day early, due to Hurricane Dean and despite the heat shield tile damage [297]. The crew completed their shutdown of the vehicle, debarked, and immediately took a look at the re-entry shield, ceramic tiles that caused such a commotion after launch. Experience with tile damage on previous missions as well as the incredibly detailed on-orbit assessment of the current version [297] helped them determine that a repair was not needed; and, they were spot on. The proof of their assessment landed without incident.
-- Michael B. Mukasey, writing for the Wall Street Journal, offered an interesting observation of the Jose Padilla conviction [297]. He wrote, “[Padilla] will be sentenced – likely to a long if not a life-long term of imprisonment. He will appeal. By the time his appeals run out, he will have engaged the attention of three federal district courts, three courts of appeal and on at least one occasion the Supreme Court of the United States.” This is one of many reasons I have argued for so long that battlefield captives should not be given access to the criminal justice system. Can you imagine thousands of Padilla’s flooding our courts?
-- The dreadful toll of the Qahtaniya [297], now stands at 500+ dead, 1,500+ injured – men, women and children, not soldiers, innocent human beings. This is the enemy we face.

Some of you may wonder why I spend the time to read court rulings. The simple answer is, because I can. Only a few years ago, I would have had to go to a distinct law library or subscribed to special mailings of court rulings, all of which took considerable time and reduced the relevancy. Today, the higher court rulings are available on-line virtually the day they are released. Congressional legislation as well as similar bills in many states are accessible on-line. So many folks want to focus on the sins of the Internet – child predators, pornography, et cetera – and yet, I choose to stand as high as I can and shout as loudly as I can that the Internet has become perhaps the single, most powerful tool for democracy since the Gutenberg Press. While the titillating and lascivious elements of the Internet garner headlines and attention, let us not lose sight of its extraordinary power for good.

The Central Intelligence Agency concluded an internal review of intelligence collection and analysis processes prior to the 9/11 attacks. I have not read the report; I doubt I ever will be able to read it; and, according to various news sources (Washington Post, New York Times, et al), the CIA report heaps criticism on the collection and analysis process. Well, duh!! The intelligence system failure has demonstrable proof in the lives lost that day. Yet, to point the figure at George Tenet is a travesty. Certainly, he bears responsibility and should be accountable for the intelligence failures of those days. However, the roots of this particular intelligence failure sought their grip in the soil 50+ years ago during the depths of the Cold War when the ends justified the means and our leaders compromised ethics and morality to defeat our adversaries. Adding rich manure to the growth of the bramble bush, we can point to the abuses of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and my usual target, the Church Committee [84, 111, 133, 142, 215, 286, et al]. We, the People, bear some of the responsibility for electing individuals who did not understand the intelligence business and still do not understand it. Every administration from Eisenhower to Bush (43) bear responsibility. We still do not have the intelligence services we need, and the prognosis for remedy is not encouraging.

This interview triggered my opinion:
"Outlook: The Quagmire on Drugs - The Narcotics Trade Thrives, 36 Years and Billions of Dollars into Fight"
Misha Glenny
Former BBC Reporter; author of "McMafia: A Journey through the Global Underworld," scheduled to be published in April of next year.
Washington Post
Monday, August 20, 2007; 12:00 PM
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W7RH02B68E51A059C0E3931205FC30
The failure of the U.S. war on drugs has been as predictable and inevitable as the sunrise in the East . . . from day one. The failure is not for want of effort by the Federal government; quite the contrary, the expenditure of national treasure on this folly pales almost any Federal effort held along side. The reason for the failure and extraordinary wastage of resources is actually quite simple – freedom. What on God’s little green Earth makes us think or believe the outcome of this version of prohibition would be any different from its 1920 predecessor. The parallels are deep and precise. As long as individual citizens seek and enjoy “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” guaranteed by the Constitution, free people will seek to exercise their discreet, distinct and sacred freedom of choice. Ingestion of psychotropic substances harms no one other than the individual just like alcohol, tobacco, gambling, et cetera . . . unless they take their intoxication into the public domain or neglect children or others in their care . . . again, just as with other intoxicants like alcohol. My parents’ generation and extended into our generation failed to recognize this reality. Fortunately, our grandparents’ generation was quicker on the uptake; it took them 13 years to undo the tragedy of the 18th Amendment and Prohibition. The question to our generation . . . how many more years of abuse, wastage, and violations of our freedom shall we endure before we right this wrong. The Controlled Substance Act of 1970 must be repealed, and American drug policy and enforcement drastically reformed. We created a vast, dangerous, criminal subculture by denying our citizens freedom of choice just as our ancestors did 87 years ago. We can still correct this travesty before relinquishing the reins of government to our children. I shall hope and pray we eventually see the light and quit this foolishness.

I have tried to avoid discussing the Michael Vick dogfighting case in this forum, just as I have sought to avoid Barry Bonds and all the disgusting athletes gone wild. Vick will reportedly plead guilty on Monday to federal interstate commerce for the purpose of dogfighting and avoid the other serious charges including gambling. He faces up to five years in federal prison. I hope the judge gives him the maximum sentence possible, and he never plays football or reaches public awareness again. Why do I say this? My answer is multi-fold. Abuse of animals is one of many telltale signs of serial killers and abhorrent social behavior. He will not get the punishment he deserves due to his plea deal. And, he has yet to stand up and take accountability for his bad decisions.

Comments and contributions from Update no.297:
Well, not many contributions this week; in fact, only this query regarding an non-attributed essay about Barak Obama:
"This came to me and I was wondering if you heard about any of this ... suppose it's true??? Didn't want to forward it around until I got advice from the expert!!
[The essay title was: "Who is Barak Obama?" I choose not to forward it as noted below.]
My response:
The basic facts are correct. I cannot corroborate the religious background information with any reputable reference material. The source of the essay is not identified, and non-attributed writing, especially of this nature, I find quite suspicious. The tone, content and interpretation of the subsequent ‘exposé’ leads me to only one conclusion – IMHO, it was written by a political opponent and probably a religious bigot. I remember the brouhaha regarding John F. Kennedy and his Catholic faith in the late 50’s and lead-up to the 1960 election; this diatribe reminds me of that ridiculous nonsense. Even if he is a closet Muslim, when did we become so religiously polarized that we exclude anyone not a Bible-thumping, card-carrying, mainstream, Christian sect evangelist? To me, this is a sad indictment of a fundamentalist portion of our society. Lastly, even if the contention was true, the President is not a king . . . despite what W’s political opponent spew; there are constitutional checks and balances to anyone including the President. In short, the essay was a juvenile hatchet-job.

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

20 August 2007

Update no.297

Update from the Heartland
No.297
13.8.07 – 19.8.07
Blog version:
http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Every citizen in a democracy has specific duties or obligations to ensure a free and open society. Among those duties are paying taxes, voting, jury duty, and in my opinion national or community service. The only one I was missing was jury duty . . . until now. This week, I finally began serving my last remaining obligation -- jury duty -- to think I reached my age without receiving a notice to serve before this week. After checking in and waiting for the lawyers and judge, two-thirds of the pool were called to the box. All of us listened to the interview questions and answers. Several potential jurors were disqualified. Of those remaining, half were selected to serve in judgment of an elderly woman charged with felony residential burglary and theft. I was dismissed at midday and enjoined to return next week for the same routine.

The follow-up news items:
-- Former Wisconsin governor and secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson became the first casualty of the extended primary season after his poor showing in the Ames, Iowa, Republican straw poll. More to follow, I am certain.
-- Space Shuttle Endeavour (STS-118) launched to orbit in support of the International Space Station with the former, back-up, teacher-in-space Barbara Morgan, who has been a full-time, NASA, mission specialist astronaut for nine years. Barbara was the back-up astronaut for Christa McAuliffe who died in the Challenger disaster (28.1.1986). Endeavour experienced an external tank, foam impact on ascent. The application of technology to evaluate the impact damage is nothing short of awesome – a precise, three-dimensional, LASER survey of the roughly three inch square gouge. NASA decided not to repair the wound, and Endeavour is now scheduled to return a day earlier than planned due to Hurricane Dean.
-- Big News . . . the Bush administration signaled their intention to declare the Islamic Republic of Iran’s, elite, Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. Better late than never . . . should have been done at least 25 years ago.
-- On Tuesday, 14.August.2007, circa 20:00 local time, four massive, suicide, truck/car bombs – 1.) a water truck dispensing fresh water, 2.) a fuel truck dispensing diesel fuel, 3.) a car in a crowded marketplace, and 4.) a car at the crowded bus station -- exploded near simultaneously in Qahtaniya, Nineveh Province, Iraq, just to the west of Mosul. The first two devices along with the time of day guaranteed a maximum of civilians attracted to and near the vehicles. Over 250+ innocent, peaceful, Yazidi-Iraqi citizens were killed; more than that number were injured. This brazen, barbaric and obscene attack has all the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda operation intended to garner maximum news coverage and incite sectarian, internecine violence. The objective from my perspective . . . amplify the voices in the United States calling for withdrawal from a simmering civil war. The inhumanity of these senseless terrorist attacks is nauseating to all peace-loving people.
-- A high speed train enroute from Moscow to St. Petersberg was derailed by a terrorist bomb. Fortunately, no one was killed, but 60 innocent civilians were injured. The Russians have not yet identified the perpetrators, but my guess . . . Chechen brand, jihadistanis.
-- Oh happy day! Jihadistani Jose Padilla and his two co-defendants, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi, were convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas and two counts of providing material support to terrorists. Jose Padilla, AKA Abdullah al- Muhajir – the captured al-Qaeda operative and cause célèbre of the uber-Left [107, 134, 184, 226, et al] – produced quite a disturbance in the American judicial system, and I suspect we have not heard the last of the protestations in his name.
-- Then, as a separate item (I refused to include it in Padilla’s conviction above), the New York Times editorial staff proudly admonishes us, “It would be a mistake to see the guilty verdict against Jose Padilla as a vindication for the Bush administration’s serial abuse of the American legal system.” Oh, but of course! Is there any doubt the Times editors believe, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that we have never been at war with Islamo-fascist terrorists?
-- The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments this week in the latest legal challenge to the government’s not-so-secret-anymore, electronic, surveillance program. The Appeals Court should issue its ruling in a few months and will most likely join another case – ACLU v. NSA [291] – undoubtedly headed to the Supreme Court. Since the Protect America Act of 2007 [296] does not remove the option of litigation in these cases, we will most likely see an array of these cases challenging various aspects of the controversial but vital program. I have tried before to put this program in perspective; please allow me to try again. Debating the virtues of this intelligence collection program in courts or the Press is quite like holding a public debate on the morality of the atomic bomb in July 1945 – foolish in the extreme. To allow critical, intelligence, means & methods into the public domain via the Judiciary, the Press [210], or any other conduit verges on suicidal, in my humble opinion.

If you have not seen the video clip of the Cape Buffalo herd confronting a pride lions to save a calf, here is another opportunity. The link below is the extended version. For those who do not want to watch nature’s incredible processes at work, this is probably not for you. Yet, I must say, this is an exceptionally awesome and unusual scene, and the poster for “never give up.”
I have leveled considerable criticism at the New York Times on a variety of topics, but most notably, their opinions regarding intelligence means & methods, the Battle for Iraq; the War on Islamic Fascism in the main left me diametrically opposed. Then, we had the O’Hanlon and Pollack article [295] that left us a thin sunbeam on a cloudy day. This week, we have two more Times articles on the war.
“Wrong Way Out of Iraq”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: August 13, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/13/opinion/13mon1.html?th&emc=th
Making deals with indigenous Sunni tribes against al-Qaeda in Iraq has helped to suppress al-Qaeda operations, but may well be setting up heightened violence in a civil war with Iranian-sponsored Shiite militias. I cannot say whether the current strategy will work in the long-run, but at least it is a different approach. The next article is a lengthy view of the Battle for Afghanistan:
“How a ‘Good War’ in Afghanistan Went Bad”
by David Rohde and David E. Sanger
New York Times
Published: August 12, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/world/asia/12afghan.html?th&emc=th
Both articles paint a dreary picture of both Iraq and Afghanistan that is quite reflective of Tom Ricks’ “Fiasco” – the consequences of war on the cheap, in my humble opinoin. Both articles are balanced and accurate (to the best of my knowledge). I also agree with their conclusions. And then, we add a relevant article from Germany's Der Spiegel.
“Baghdad Babylon - Hope and Despair in Divided Iraq”
by Ullrich Fichtner (in Iraq)
Der Spiegel
August 10, 2007
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,499154,00.html
An independent view is often helpful. So, it is here as well. There are positive and negative signs all around. This is war.

In the category of interesting court cases I occasionally run across, I present to a discerning audience the case of U.S. v. Aukai [9CCA no. 04-10226]. On 1.February.2003, Daniel Kuualoha Aukai arrived at the Honolulu International Airport intending to take a Hawaiian Airlines flight from Honolulu to Kona, Hawaii. In the process of ordinary airport screening, a meth pipe was discovered in Aukai’s possessions, triggering a subsequence of detailed searches that yielded 50 grams of methamphetamine crystals. As virtually all of today’s commercial flying public would recognize, Aukai experienced a normal pre-boarding security screen. Nonetheless, Aukai claimed his Fourth Amendment rights were violated – against unreasonable search and seizure. Interesting argument, Danny-boy; sorry, no float. The 9th Circuit rejected Aukai’s appeal argument; and, I most assuredly agree. I do not often find humor in these court cases, but this one was the exceptions; I had a hard time containing my laughter. Now, that said, here is where I must ask, where is the public injury or harm in Aukai’s possession of methamphetamine and paraphernalia? Beyond the foolish challenge to the airport screening process, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 made Aukai a criminal. His possession of a controlled substance caused him to act suspiciously, and the legal and proper screening search as a result of his behavior produced the felony possession charge he was ultimately convicted of and sent to prison. If meth possession had been legal as it should be, Daniel would have gone on his way that day, and no one would have been harmed – this is the travesty of our foolish and enormously destructive war on drugs.

For all the criticism I heap upon Donald Wildmon’s American Family Association (AFA), along comes one of those tidbits I agree with him. It seems the High Point Church of Dallas, Texas, refused to allow their building to be used to conduct a memorial service for homosexuals, and a homosexual rights activist group has raised public protest against the church’s blatant discrimination. As much as I advocate for equal treatment under the law for all law-abiding citizens regardless of their age, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion or disability, a church is not public property or a public organization. It is a sanctuary for parishioners who embrace the principles and edicts of the church. Clearly, some churches and some religions do not take kindly to homosexuals, and in this instance, their right to discriminate for whatever reason they wish is protected by the Constitution. My advice to homosexuals, or rather all those who are not married, monogamous, heterosexuals . . . seek those who embrace diversity and tolerance of others not like them, and let the bigots enjoy the peace of their bigotry.

Then, after just defending the AFA, I must return to my wicked ways. Seems ol’ Don found a video clip from the so-called Christian Institute in the United Kingdom regarding the attention of the government applied to a retired couple who complained about the local council’s embrace of diversity. AFA now holds up this Lancashire, England, episode to disparage the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592; S.1105) [281-3, 289] still in the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration, and of course, he advocates for resistance to the proposed law. As long as groups like the AFA persist in their efforts to make homosexuals (or any other minority group) untermenschen, we will need special federal protection for those groups. I reject Wildmon’s ascertains and urge support for S.1105.

During my research relative to the obscenity/censorship item in last week’s Update [296], I reviewed a number of Court decisions including a crucial and perhaps pivotal Supreme Court case – Jacobellis v. Ohio [378 U.S. 184 (1964)]. Placing the findings into the context of last week’s discourse, a different but related perspective came to me and might prove useful to place these issues into our larger societal context. So much of any obscenity debate can be boiled down to a few key elements: 1.) public versus private conduct; 2.) personal preference; and 3.) the proper performance of government. The personal preference factor tends to color all other aspects of the debate, but in a free society – if freedom is to have any real or tangible value – we must separate our personal beliefs, choices, wants, needs, desires and wishes from the public domain of the law and society. In this case, the movie theater proprietor – Nico Jacobellis, manager of the Heights Art Theatre in Coventry Village, Cleveland Heights, Ohio – was accused, tried and convicted of disseminating obscene material, to wit, the French film called "Les Amants" ("The Lovers") that portrayed an objectionable (some might say natural) love scene toward the end of the movie. I raise this case as particularly illustrative of the key elements noted above. A conventional movie theater, as in the Jacobellis case, is a quasi-public place in that it is not a subscription, membership, or closed club; however, a fee is paid to enter. A patron of such establishments makes a free and conscious choice to pay the fee, walk in and sit down; he also chooses to stay. No one has forced him to watch the movie. No children have innocently found themselves in the theater. The law at the time sought to restrict access to such forms of expression for all citizens. If a citizen disapproved of such expression, the proper response should be avoidance, not prohibition by law. If a community objects, it should have been some neutral, unbiased, informative descriptor to allow patrons to judge for themselves whether they wished to enter or allow their children to join them. But, no, the law sought that decision for every citizen regardless of a citizen’s right to free and private choice. In the first of the Supreme Court’s string of obscenity rulings – Butler v. Michigan [352 U.S. 380 (1957)] – Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter, writing the Court’s opinion, said, “The incidence of this enactment [the law at issue] is to reduce the adult population of Michigan to reading only what is fit for children. It thereby arbitrarily curtails one of those liberties of the individual, now enshrined in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, that history has attested as the indispensable conditions for the maintenance and progress of a free society.” Disapproval of content where there is no public harm, or personal objection or offense where a citizen is given the opportunity of free choice cannot and must not be the basis for public law. Reading, watching or listening to what any citizen deems as obscene . . . quite like gambling, or prostitution, or ingestion of psychotropic substances . . . are free choices by informed and responsible citizens, in which there is no public harm. Thus, each of us should make our choices and leave other citizens to exercise their freedom of choice as they wish. As a closing note, Jacobellis was the case where Associate Justice Potter Stewart, writing a concurring opinion, said regarding the movie in question and obscenity in general, “But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that” – ah, the eye of the beholder, what an intriguing concept.

Comments and contributions from Update no.296:
"Thanks for not going on about Barry Bonds. Every time I turned on ESPN or the Baseball Channel on my XM that's all I freakin' heard about . . . that and how we should all bow down and kiss the NY Yankees' asses.
"To an extent, I don't find myself on the side that Barry Bonds cheated. It takes more than just pure strength to hit a HR (though it does help). While I'm no expert, I look at it from the point he's putting something into his body that will help in the short term, but lead to all sorts of problems in the long run, as seems to be the case with so many pro wrestlers dying before they reach the age of 50. Plus, how many high school and college athletes will look at Barry's accomplishments and decide the only way to succeed in sports is to pump this crap into their bodies? Another unfortunate side effect is the belief by many in this country that if one does it, they all do it. I think it's safe to say that with nearly 800 players in MLB, each with different personalities and beliefs, not everyone does it. Baseball should have done a better job handling this when all this started to surface. But Bud Selig, like the UN, dragged his feet, made a quick statement about it every now and then, and hoped the problem would go away. Plus he probably figured anything he came up with would be shot down by the MLB Borg, I mean, Players Union. He had to be dragged before Congress before the dipstick came up with even a half-assed policy regarding steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. On top of that, Barry Bonds is, plain and simple, an a-hole. Give me someone like Cal Ripken, Jr. any day, a Hall of Famer who, by all accounts, is a very modest, soft spoken man who has done great things for youth sports. Listen to his show Weekend mornings on XM. Very enjoyable.
"To the wackos who have a problem with Redbook offering sex advice . . . no one is forcing you to buy the stupid magazine. Just like no one is forcing you to watch internet porn or buy Grand Theft Auto games or listen to Motorhead or eat meat. If there is an activity you don't like, don't do it! Go ahead and speak out about how you think it's bad. That's fine. It's when you want to enact laws about it that I really start to have a problem."
My response:
As I said, Barry Bonds is beneath any expenditure of my time. In my book, he is entitled to do whatever he wishes to his body, and I am entitled to ignore him. I would probably feel differently if Barry had stood up like a man and said, yes, I did x-y-z to improve my performance, to make the game more exciting and entertaining, and to bring fans back to the ballparks after the 1994 players' strike. Playing games with words to skirt his accountability is no different from Slick Willy Clinton’s “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is,’ is.”
I have mixed feelings regarding substance abuse in Major League Baseball or any other sport or entertainment field where the profit motive will lead players/actors to self-destruction. Our entertainment is not a valid rationale. How is this any different from gladiators in a fight to the death? These guys are shortening their lives for our entertainment.
Freedom of choice is a powerful right we tend to take for granted. The really sad part of all this rampant "moral projection" we face . . . so many people seem perfectly willing to take away everyone else's freedom of choice to validate their moral values. And, what is worse, the rest of us are quite content allowing a powerful and/or vocal minority take away other folks freedom of choice as long as they don’t come after ours. Then, what is even more disgusting than that, so many of those who seek to live everyone else's lives are not as morally pure as they profess in public. I am reminded of that famous Shakespearean line, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Another contribution:
"Good on you for reading Le Monde Diplomatique. Has a lot of interesting stuff -- as does Le Monde. Régis Debray is a French intellectual . . . originally a supporter of Che, but has wisened up a bit. Good stuff and concur on your take."
My response:
You run in interesting circles, my friend. A lot of folks were supporters of Che's, like our dear ol' friend, Father Fidel. Glad to see Debray has seen the light.

A relevant contribution from a different threat that began with recounting some of Slick Willy Clinton's history:
"Being a career Military guy I have seen this MANY times. It IS sickening. But It's History, and apparently the American people did not care about that aspect of his background enough to defeat him for the Presidency-----TWICE.
"Maybe because we were, as a Country, just trying to put the Vietnam War and all it's many varied 'things' behind us. THINGS meaning almost totally BAD things. But by this time Vietnam had been over for 'X' years.
"Let's just go on since we cannot change what has already happened.
"So they got 'BILL CLINTON' as their next President, and Hillary as 1st Lady. President Bush #1 did not believe his advisors who told him what things he should emphasize in his bid for a 2nd term. He kept harping on 'Stay the Course -- We are doing fine.' He was out of touch with what the American people were REALLY concerned about. Bill Clinton was NOT out of touch. He trashed Bush #1 in the election. And Bush went back to his ranch in Texas flabbergasted that he could have lost. But he'd been told EARLY ON. Apparently did not believe it.
"IN MY OPINION THESE TWO CLINTONS ARE A COUPLE OF THE BEST POLITICIANS THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN. Notice I did NOT say best suited for their new jobs.
"They did their thing for an amazing 8 years. The most allowed by law. Thank God!!!
"But----
"NOW, his wife, the former First Lady, and now a U.S. Senator, (having figured out the best way to MAYBE gaining the White House back in her OWN RIGHT), is running for the Presidency Herself. AND has a very good chance of winning the White House. Thus, if it happens, putting herself and Bill back in very familiar grounds for at least 4 years. Possibly 8 years.
"But putting the American people, and to a great extent the World -- where???
"Don't Poo-Poo this message please. It can happen. Maybe easier than you think.
"Why? Mainly, I think, because our now Pres[ident] Bush has so screwed up his own Presidency. He started out great. After 9/11 he took the offensive and set after the enemy as the enemy was defined to him. He took our country to a war which may have been ideologically good, needed, BUT which his best advisors, except a very few who would follow him to almost to Hell, and then try to wiggle out from under their commitment, advised him against.
"A good Leader always listens very carefully to his Troops, and is ready to truly follow their advice. They are on the front lines -- not him. They are experienced in war -- usually not him. They have been chosen, over time, due to expertise and experience to lead the Military. Not him. That does not mean he WILL follow their advice, but he SURELY will give it his best consideration and maybe ONLY when he knows something very significant in a much bigger 'picture,' IF he is the normal President. Or at least the one we would like to have as our Commander-in-Chief.
"Another 4-8 years of Clintons in the White House? Think about that. Think about that very seriously."
My reply:
As much as I have hammered Slick Willy Clinton, he pales in comparison to Jimmy Carter in terms of damage to this Grand Republic. And, if the Republicans present another far-right, moral-projectionist like W., Hillary will get my vote. I have no desire to endure a polarizing entity like W., period. However, since I have no influence over the party primary and selection process, I shall keep my powder dry until the parties make their selections.

Another timely opinion:
"Sometime in the next month, there will be the September 'come to Jesus' meeting and report from the Bush White House and General Petraeus regarding the results of the ‘surge.’ Considering the lack of candor from this administration, and their recently disclosed efforts to 'manage'" the analysis of General Petraeus, I am not terribly sanguine that the American public will hear the truth any more than they have since the initial invasion.
"As you know, I have opposed the neoconservative inspired invasion of Iraq from the beginning. Disregard all of the rationales offered to the American public--weapons of mass destruction, ties to al-Qaeda and September 11, 2001, Sadaam Hussein's destabilizing influence on the Middle East, establishing an example of democracy -- and understand that Bush's advisors suggested that we needed to have a permanent presence in the Middle East, with whatever pretext was necessary, to influence Islamic nations in the pursuit of American interests. Wise men, intelligent men, well-educated men (and they are mostly men) ignored the lessons of history when this invasion was planned, because, for the NeoCons, history had come to an end (see Fukuyama). The U.S.A. needed to establish its dominance while the rest of the world could not challenge us. Our time to alter the world for the good was limited. In this perspective, 9/11 was a good thing. It created an enormously strong coalition comprised of the American people (rarely united), and a host of nations (rarely supportive) that backed the United States in our response to the attack by al-Qaeda.
"Admirable goals in many respects. It is in the interest of the United States and every country in the world, even those who support Islamic fascism, to stop the blood-letting. In myth and history, the pyrrhic victory satisfies only the most rabid followers of ideologies/theologies. One can claim only a hollow victory when all the participants are dead or rendered irrelevant. To spread the ideals of pluralism and tolerance and popular participation in government are admirable, but to use the instruments of war to do so are tantamount to a rapist's notion of love. It also mistakes the instrumental implementation of democracy as an end when it is simply a means to an end. Democracy brought Hitler to power. Democracy has given Hugo Chavez a voice. Democracy in the Middle East gives power to Hamas and Hezbollah.
"America has not shown great skill in the twists and turns of diplomacy, nor in the ability to empathize with the 'other guy.' We are both complacent and arrogant in our approach to other nations and to those that disagree with us. Concomitant with our complacency and arrogance is our refusal to recognize that our policies are WRONG! Continuing to support the present Iraq government will only exacerbate the resentment of people in Iraq and in the region. It is time for a redeployment of our troops while the people of Iraq determine the direction of their nation. It is time for the United States to 'put up or shut up' -- to allow the instrument of democracy to take its course without our direction, and to show faith in our pronouncements. It is time to allow Iraqis to find their own path to government, which may be anathema to the United States. But it will be the Iraqi choice, not one imposed from the outside, unless, of course, the United States has set in place the influence of outsiders through our occupation.
"The 'Battle of Iraq' as you have eloquently stated, is only one part of the struggle against Islamic extremism or any extremism. We have been so distracted by this 'battle' that we have lost sight of the War. Every intelligence assessment suggests that the Battle of Iraq has diminished our capacity to fight the larger War, or has amplified the capacity of our opponent to counter our efforts. It is time to call it 'quits.' We need to retain a presence in Iraq, but we also need to turn the majority of combat/police operations over to the Iraqis, who are far more affected by the suicide attacks and the incompetence of their government than we are. Give the Iraqis a chance to police their own neighborhoods and stop treating them like dimwitted cousins. It is their country. We took out Sadaam Hussein and gave them a new beginning, and demonstrated with our lives, and our dollars, and our efforts that we will support them."
My response:
Thank you for expressing your opinion on the Battle for Iraq. I share your views to a certain extent. I have also expressed my opinions from the get-go. We are approaching that point of enough-is-enough, if we’ve not already passed it long ago. I shall make no attempt to rationalize or support the choices and decisions of the present administration. I still believe Iraq was a near perfect choice of battlefield. However, in short, Bush, Rummie, Wolfie, and the others caused far greater loss and injury in the Battle for Iraq, by their decisions, principally trying to fight the War on Islamic Fascism (including the Battles for Iraq and Afghanistan) on the cheap. As a lesson, and there are many lessons from this fiasco, if any administration is not prepared to wage war successfully and completely, then we should not pull the trigger, and we should quietly suffer the abuse of those who intend to do us harm or do harm to others. If we only allowed leaders who are good people, we would never need a powerful military. But, as long as there are bad men who seek power over others, then we must maintain the most powerful military in our time and not shy away from using it. That said, we have done the best we can with the conditions Rummie set. There is no doubt in my little pea-brain that al-Qaeda has inflicted enormous pain and suffering on the Iraqi people to achieve their objectives in their fight with the United States. Iran and Syria sought their own hegemonic objectives in the cesspool that the Battle for Iraq has become. Thus, just as the South Vietnamese people suffered terribly in the aftermath of our withdrawal from RVN, so now, the Iraqis will suffer more as we withdraw. Such are the miseries of life. W. shall bear this cross for the rest of his days. Yet, there is good in this battle, despite the mismanagement of the administration, but only time shall tell the story of history on whether Iraq survives as a nation and the roots of democracy have grown sufficiently to sustain the country.

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

13 August 2007

Update no.296

Update from the Heartland
No.296
6.8.07 – 12.8.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The title of the new law turns bold blue. The President signed the Protect America Act of 2007 [PL 110-055 (S.1927)] [295], a week ago Sunday. We have modified procedures for electronic surveillance of our enemies. This law improved and updated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA): [PL 95-511], but it is a long way from the capabilities and efficiency our Intelligence Community must have to support our warfighting capacity against the Islamic fascists. The uber-Left is, of course, outraged that Congress even modestly added to the President’s ability to wage war successfully . . . not surprising, after all, since they believe this war is just a manifest creation of George W. Bush’s megalomaniacal ambitions. Unfortunately and regrettably, the new law leaves open several doors for continued litigation similar to ACLU v. NSA [6CCA nos. 06-2095/2140] [291]; we have no reason to believe the uber-Left will desist in their efforts to hobble the President – not George W. Bush – the office, not the man. This test is about the President’s – any President’s – primary constitutional responsibility to defend this Grand Republic and “wage war successfully,” when necessary. Again unfortunately, the arrogance and missteps of the Bush administration, and the political egocentrism of Congress will most likely lead to a weakening of the President’s primary task, and increase the internal corrosion and the external threat. We have more pain ahead.
-- The New York Times editorial staff finally said what many of us have been worrying about and/or fearing for the last eight months. “Selective Prosecution” was the title. The Times is encouraging the House Judiciary Committee to investigation the administration’s use of the U.S. attorneys to selectively prosecute individuals and groups for political gain. The U.S. attorney fiasco flared into our awareness last December with the firing of eight plus U.S. attorneys for what appeared to be political reasons [268 & subsequent]. A few years ago, I would have said baloney to such allegations. Today, I must say, where there is smoke . . . I am with the Times on this one. The President created this mess by allowing the implication of politics to color the prosecutorial process; so, let’s get all this odiferous garbage on the table and let the chips fall where they may.
-- Last week, we discussed the continuing saga of ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson’s effort to evade justice as well as the tightening noose around bad ol’ boy ‘Ted’ Stevens [295]. (You may recall that Ted was the benevolent benefactor of congressional largesse with the infamous ‘bridge to nowhere’ in Alaska.) Anyway, also last week but not yet reported, Congress passed the Commission to Strengthen Confidence in Congress Act of 2007, AKA Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 (S.1) {vote: Senate: 83-14-3; House: 411-8-0-13}; the bill is expected to be signed by the President. Seems impressive at face value, doesn’t it? Would anyone like to guess who one of the House ‘nay’ votes was? Give up? None other than earmark and largesse king-of-the-hill ‘Rollin’ Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania. What a shocker that was! Anyway, beyond all the snickering, does anyone expect this law will change the obscene spending habits of Congress or strengthen our confidence in that questionable body? On this topic, I am reminded of the wise words of Associate Justice Louis Brandeis – “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants”; in this sense, the new law should have some benefit . . . but, requires persistent vigilance by the Press and attentiveness by the citizenry.
-- I rendered my opinion of the DC Circuit’s decision in the case of United States v. Rayburn House Office Building [295] – ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson’s evasion of the law proxy. The Wall Street Journal editorial staff chose to ignore the ‘Felony’ exception in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, as well. I still think the DC Circuit was wrong, and I believe the Supreme Court will so recognize that the Constitution does not protect any citizen including a Member of Congress from felony prosecution and all its associated processes. The Constitution never intended to make Congress a haven for criminal conduct, just as the White House provides no sanctuary for such conduct either.
-- The fear mongers have won again. Not quite half of Sedgwick County, Kansas, citizens voted in the local special election this week and rejected gambling in the county including slot machines at the dog track [292]. The owner of the track indicated that he will close the facility as it is no longer profitable. This vote was not about facts or even projections; it was about emotion and moral vindication. The really sad part, and perhaps even disgusting element of this special election, was the all-too-common low voter turnout; county election officials reported 43% of the eligible voters (actually a high turnout for U.S. standards) took the few extra minutes to register their opinion. Once again, voters have reacted on emotion and personal preference rather than upon the general character of the public domain, i.e., they disapprove of gambling, rather than should we prohibit gambling for everyone? A vote is not an opinion poll but a statement of law – a huge difference.
-- I will pass on Barry Bonds. I am not a fan of artificially enhanced human performance.

On Wednesday, The Times (of London) reported that the outbreak of Hoof & Mouth Disease (HMD) in two small herds of cattle in Surrey may have been sabotage. The specific HMD virus in these cases is unique to two local laboratories – the government’s Institute of Animal Health and a private company, Merial, located at the same site near Pirbright, Surrey. The British health, police, and counterterrorism authorities are still considering potential causes of the latest outbreak from accidental to bioterrorism. The economic devastation of this type of event is staggering. Sadly, in today’s troubled world, we must consider the worst until the definitive cause is determined.

I have never been drawn to or aligned with Noam Chomsky’s views of society, politics or relationships, and yet, I have genuine respect for his intellect. The article noted below is in an interview format.
“Democracy’s invisible line”
by Noam Chomsky and Daniel Mermet
Le Monde diplomatique
August 2007
http://mondediplo.com/2007/08/02democracy
One of Chomsky’s thoughts struck a chord with me. Noam talked about the tools and instruments of power used to influence a population, and specifically the Nazis’ employment of marketing and advertising techniques developed by Eddie Bernays and others in the 1920’s. Chomsky said, “[Media manipulation] is always used to impose an ideology. Violence is not enough to dominate people: some other justification is required. When one person wields power over another – whether they are a dictator, a colonist, a bureaucrat, a spouse or a boss – they need an ideology justifying their action. And it is always the same: their domination is exerted for the good of the underdog. Those in power always present themselves as being altruistic, disinterested and generous.” I believe all of us can cite personal life examples that validate Noam’s observation. In this context, our protection against such manipulation is a free, open, aggressive Press and broad, rapid communications, i.e., the ability to compare, contrast and evaluate diverse sources and inputs to arrive at an independent opinion. Curiosity, inquisitiveness and debate are essential instruments to maintain our liberty and freedom. Apathy and complacency become the willing conduits for the powerful to impose their will upon the rest of us. Let us remain vigilant, attentive and demanding.

I shall draw your attention to another Le Monde article, and an interesting and worthy view of the Israeli-Palestinian issue:
“Palestine: a policy of deliberate blindness”
by Régis Debray
Le Monde diplomatique
August 2007
http://mondediplo.com/2007/08/05palestine
Once again, the title is certainly descriptive, and appropriately so. I have never been a supporter of the Israeli settlement policy implemented after the 1967 war and aggressively pursued since the early 1990’s; I have seen it as a recipe for perpetual conflict. It was bad enough that the British Balfour Declaration (1917) gave explicit consent to a future Jewish homeland in Palestine and the end of the British Mandate over Palestine (1948) codified the division of land by artificial means. We can blame the artificial, and perhaps even capricious, partitioning of Palestine, but the subjugation of the Palestinian people has not and will not serve the Israelis well toward finding peaceful coexistence. My opinion: a combination of the 1967 and 1973 ceasefire lines should be the basis of a negotiated border; the World should recognize the State of Palestine; a transition period between affirmation and confirmation of the new State should allow individuals and families the opportunity to relocate; and after confirmation, anyone remaining in the sovereign territory of the respective nations shall be citizens and residents of that State and fully subject to its laws. I recognize my opinion will not please some Israelis, but tough; “That’s my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

“Why Terrorists Aren’t Soldiers”
by Wesley K. Clark and Kal Raustiala
Op-Ed Contributors
New York Times
Published: August 8, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/opinion/08clark.html?th&emc=th
General Wesley Clark, USA (Ret.), a former Democratic presidential candidate and NATO supreme commander, joined his current colleague to write a disappointing statement on the classification of the Guantánamo detainees. Clark/Raustiala cite the recent 4th Circuit Court of Appeals detainee habeas corpus decision of al-Marri v. Wright [4CCA no. 06-7427] [288]. As for all of us, Clark and Raustiala are entitled to their opinion. What I find truly disappointing in Clark rests with the implication in his words that he believes we are not at war. I do agree with him that the battlefield combatants, AKA detainees, are NOT soldiers, and do not deserved to be dignified by such recognition. Conversely, they are NOT criminals; they are below criminals; these detainees are stateless, uniform-less, purveyors of death who subscribe to no body of recognizable law. Once again, Wes Clark appears to have fallen victim to myopic, blinder’ed, political partisanship above the need to keep captured combatants from returning to the battlefield during the course of an active and hot war. Flooding the judicial system with these guys is not a solution. The title of their article is spot on; the captured jihadistanis are NOT soldiers or simple criminals, and do not deserve recognition under the law within civilized society; to do so would be to grant them legitimacy.

Our self-appointed, national, moral conscience, AKA the American Family Association (AFA), has been quite busy this week. Given my mood after the insult of the gambling vote in Sedgwick County, I am feeling a bit combative and un-quiet. Donald Wildmon’s hot buttons this week were Internet pornography and sex advice in Redbook magazine. He wants obscenity laws enforced on Internet content because children are exposed to pornographic material while they are on the Internet. And, apparently, Redbook magazine has gone too far, too many times, regarding sex life advice and other hedonistic topics. Production, publication and distribution of pornographic material for private consumption of adult citizens have been and should be protected by the First Amendment. Various federal, state and local obscenity laws from the Comstock Act of 1873 and subsequent have attempted to regulate sexually explicit material. We can all appreciate the aversion some of us and perhaps most of us have to sexually explicit or pornographic materials; sexual relations for other than procreation is a sin, after all . . . so say some clerics. Yet, regardless, such materials, whether sinful or otherwise, are largely private. The State has a legitimate and proper responsibility to regulate public display of such materials, but interruption or interference with conveyance for private use remains tantamount to censorship. Obscenity or the offense of pornographic material rests in the attitudes, morals, beliefs and desires of the individual; what is obscene to me may not be obscene to you. Thus, the question comes to exposure rather than existence; a highway billboard can hardly be considered a similar medium to a painting or photograph in one’s home. Once again, we face the relevant question: does a group of my friends and like-minded citizens have a right to decide whether a photograph on the wall of your home is obscene and perhaps criminal? As long as every citizen has the opportunity to exercise their discreet freedom of choice regarding pornography, then every citizen should and indeed must respect another citizen’s freedom of choice, perhaps to the contrary. Why isn’t the freedom to choose, or not choose as the case may be, sufficient to satisfy society rather than prohibition by law, peer pressure, or societal disdain? As an adult citizen of some maturity and travel, I have legal access to many vices – alcohol, tobacco, nudity, gambling, hedonistic sex, pornography, prostitution (in some locales), et al – and yet, I freely choose not to succumb to those sinful pursuits . . . well, perhaps an occasional dribble of alcohol from time to time, among others. Several extractions from Supreme Court decisions seem appropriate. Associate Justice Potter Stewart noted, “Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” Ginzberg v. United States [383 U.S. 463 (1966)] Wise words, I should think. Rather than restricting the exercise of our Freedom of Speech, or any other of our established freedoms, we should focus on our actions in the public domain rather than every citizens private choices. Associate Justice Louis Brandeis stated, “The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness.” He continued, “They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” Olmstead v. United States [277 U.S. 438 (1928)] Justice Brandeis was not referring to the government’s pursuit of happiness or even society’s or the pursuits of the majority of voting citizens; he meant every individual citizen’s personal choices and their concomitant right to the privacy of their choices. Donald Wildmon, like so many of our countrymen, confuses public and private conduct, and his personal moral values, beliefs and desires with those to be imposed upon every private citizen. He has every right to voice his opinion just as I am doing now, but where he invariably crosses the line comes with his advocacy of using peer pressure, or even worse, the instruments of State to project his moral values into every household in this Grand Republic. I do not disparage his private choices; I wish he would respect mine. I hurt no one. I offend no one in the public domain. I simply seek my happiness and wish to be left alone in the privacy of my home. When will they ever learn? To close this thought and since Louis Brandeis appears to be a feature of this edition, I offer one last sample of his quotations.
Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.”
— Associate Justice Louis Brandeis (1856–1941), Whitney v. California [274 U.S. 357 (1927)]

Comments and contributions from Update no.295:
"Saw your comments in your latest update on the O'Hanlon and Pollack article. However, I add my skepticism to their optimistic and, frankly, cherry-picked article. They omitted large parts of Iraq, and their citations were not helpful. As noted in Michael Ware's interview below, they are overlooking the fact that what successes they cite are being based on actions that cut our long-term goal of a unified Iraqi government. And now, both Pollack and O'Hanlon are backtracking and qualifying their article in interviews since its publication.
"O'Hanlon and Pollack are described as "military experts" but neither served a day in uniform. I have seen O'Hanlon in action when he was at the Brookings Institution and he came to Moscow to discuss the Russian military. He had pre-conceived ideas and was critical of anything that was against them. Pretty arrogant, and to put it bluntly, plain wrong. But he was an expert from an Ivy League school and one couldn't tell him anything.
"Michael Ware, an Aussie journalist for CNN, has been in Baghdad, was interviewed about the article shortly after its publication. He notes that the successes cited in the article have been achieved at the expense of our long-term goals.
"Cooper: [We have] Michael Ware, who has been there in Baghdad and all across Iraq almost nonstop since the fighting began. Right now, he's embedded with American forces in Diyala Province, coming to us through a nightscope camera. Because of the danger there, they're not allowed to turn on any camera lights. Michael, you just heard the vice president saying he expects General Petraeus to report significant progress when he gives his assessment come September. What do you think of the vice president's evaluation?
"Ware: Well, Anderson, there is progress. And that's indisputable. Sectarian violence is down in certain pockets. There are areas of great instability in this country. They're at last finding some stability.
"The point, though, is, at what price? What we're seeing is -- is, to a degree, some sleight of hand. What America needs to come clean about is that it's achieving these successes by cutting deals primarily with its enemies. We have all heard the administration praise the work of the tribal sheiks in turning against al Qaeda. Well, this is just a euphemism for the Sunni insurgency. That's who has turned against al Qaeda.
"And why? Because they offered America terms in 2003 to do this. And it's taken America four years of war to come round to the Sunnis' terms. And, principally, that means cutting the Iraqi government out of the loop. By achieving these successes, America is building Sunni militias. Yes, they're targeting al Qaeda, but these are also anti- government forces opposed to the very government that America created."
My response:
I cannot and will not claim to be a military expert. I am but a humble citizen who has opinions . . . based on my experience, my knowledge and my thoughts. I have served this Grand Republic in uniform on the pointy end of the sword, as many of our classmates have; that gives me some authority, but nowhere near enough for this discussion. Nonetheless . . .
I could sense the conflagration about to erupt when I read the O’Hanlon & Pollack article in the Times. It is certainly no surprise that everyone is taking O’Hanlon & Pollack to task. I have seen neither and do not know either journalist. As I said, a moment’s respite in the storm. And yet, from day one, I have rejected both extremes . . . the President’s all-is-right-with-the-world view as well as the Times’ sky-is-falling perspective. There are too many reports from the field reporting successes . . . little and big. Nonetheless, I am no Pollyanna green-horn who fell off the turnip truck yesterday. We can see the pacification of the hinterland and the isolation of Baghdad. CBS’s 60 Minutes had an interesting segment on the Kurdish North. Tom Ricks’ “Fiasco” fairly well established the basis for what we have now; and yet, General Petraeus is making headway; let’s give him his due. That said, there can never be a military solution; the best the military can hope for is some stability to allow the moderates and security forces to establish some indigenous control. I think the reality of inept immobility of the Baghdad government has slapped us all square in the face. As such, I suspect we are headed toward a confederation of sorts; I can hardly use the phrase ‘weak federal’ with this discordant and intransigent group; thus, the evolving effort with the local tribes.
At what price indeed! We could say the whole of Iraq was not worth one American life, but I think that attitude leads to an isolationist, entrenched, defensive mentality destined to yield a far higher price down the road. I hold W, Rummie, Wolfie, and the other politicos responsible and accountable for the fiasco, as Tom put it, of the first four years of this battle. I have long held the opinion of overwhelming force. I can document my worries about the inadequate force structure for the Battle of Iraq back at least to Update no.72 (7.4.03 - 13.4.03), but I vividly recall listening to General Shinseki’s testimony before Congress (Feb’03) and saying “He’s right, and he’ll probably lose his job for it.” My estimate was 500K to 1M men on the ground to control post-invasion Iraq; I was gobsmacked, as our British cousins say, to hear Rummie slough off Shinseki’s position and offer up a number 1/3 of Shinseki’s estimate. I am no fan of this administration and the enormous cost in lives lost and damaged, by the ridiculous notion of superiority that led Rummie & Wolfie to their war on the cheap position. I talked about the need for general mobilization in late 2001, and probably conscription – never a popular idea. Regardless, the ineptitude of the politicos and the poor performance of the military leadership in those first years of the Battle does not alter my belief that W. chose the correct battlefield for this fight . . . just the wrong players to fight the fight. It would have cost far less if we had the proper number of troops on the ground and a proper plan to deal with the inevitable insurgency at the conclusion of the invasion.
. . . with this follow-up:
"I agree with your points -- although you are being modest about claiming expertise on the military. I just am fed up with people being touted as military experts who have never served and are arrogant towards those who have served. And having seen O'Hanlon's arrogance -- and ignorance -- close up, I just exploded.
"I recall the line Army Chief of Staff General Vessey uttered while testifying before the Senate right after a think tank maven had expostulated for some time about a grotesque plan to reorganize the military. General Vessey ventured to the senators that "they should be very cautious about taking military advice from somebody who had never used a slit trench."
"Below is an interesting observation from an observer:
"The optimism of O'Hanlon and Pollack is at odds with the conclusions of Brookings' own Iraq Index project. It reported July 23 that 'violence nationwide has failed to improve measurably over the past two-plus months,' and that - contrary to their enthusiasm about the provision of electricity and other essentials -- 'the average person in Baghdad can count on only one or two hours of electricity per day,' far less than they had under Saddam. More ironic still, the person in charge of the Iraq Index is Michael O'Hanlon!"
. . . with my follow-up:
I’d say John Vessey summarized my feelings quite succinctly and accurately. I shall accept unchallenged your observations of O’Hanlon. As you reacted to the O’Hanlon arrogance, I react to the negativism of so many who report on the battle.

Another contribution:
"I am totally down with your one contributor who said if the terrorists really want to scare us, they should nail some small town USA place. Everyone expects the next attack to be NYC, LA, CHI, someplace like that. Imagine the sort of shock and horror they could inflict by setting off a truck bomb at the Frontier Days Rodeo in Prescott, AZ or a similar event in another small town. Let's face it. Who thinks terrorism when you live in a town of 30,000?"
My response:
Vigilance . . . an attribute we should all exercise continuously regardless of where we live; after all, we are at war.

A different contribution:
[This contributor sent the following URL link discussing John McCain's financial disclosure statement.]
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/MutualFunds/McCainsWifeControlsFamilysRiches.aspx
"I like McCain. For his integrity, loyalty to causes he believes in, and personal demonstrated courage. THIS is about $$$$.
"My point is that while it may or may not be true of John. Many people get into politics for the $$$ it may bring them, often in entirely legitimate ways, if they can just get elected.
"There are almost NO 'poor' Senators and Congressmen. Even if they had little actual wealth when they first ran for office."
My reply:
I could not agree more. Well said, spot on, and to the point. The disclosure information is far more than I recall any other candidate giving; and, far more than I've ever made in my non-private disclosures. Some of it is quite sensitive, I'd say. We could be surprised by his primary performance, but I suspect the uber-Right faction of the Republican Party cannot accept the kind of man he is. The Nation shall be lesser for it.
. . . with this follow-up:
"At this moment I believe that of the Republican candidates (the only ones I would vote for), McCain is likely the best qualified to be President. Giuliani is a great manager and personable leader who is riding his fame as the man on the spot during 9/11 to a possible place in history as President. But I do not think that ANY way his credentials qualify him for the job. Romney is handsome, personable, likeable, and has at least run a State. But his religion most likely will be his killer. Would not be for ME but I think it will be for him. Regardless of his abilities. Though Remember we elected John F. Kennedy over all the cries about HIS faith as a Catholic. Then it turned out he was a pretty damn strong President for the short time he got to exercise that Presidency, though he could not keep his dick in his pants. Nor could any of his brothers (we don't know much about the oldest who got shot down in WW2).
"So -- I am not decided, BUT will vote Republican I'm sure. I WILL Vote!! Otherwise I cannot bitch. And NOT for a Democrat unless one suddenly emerges out of the bushes who is unlike any since possibly Harry Truman.
"I cannot imagine either Hillary or Obama being in the White House -- though I admit it is a Definite possibility. God!!! And then there is Edwards.
"The Dems are riding a wave of Public sentiment, (totally understandable with the record of our current Pres) and taking all the advantage of that which they can. They are doing well too. Maybe Gloating. But doing well, in MY opinion, at the expense of the best interests of our Nation. That expense will become VERY expensive in terms of our place in this world because the Democrats just either do not understand, or do not care, about World Realities. WR is a term I just coined, but it is very pertinent. World equals this planet. Realities equals the entire history of the evolution of the species and the survival of the fittest----the Best able and equipped to lead/take over/ command/ whatever.
"No Democrat currently running for President meets the criteria to lead out country in my opinion. I am not sure right now that any Republican does either, other than McCain. but I'm not sure he would take us on the right path.
"Not that I myself know the right path. I guess only Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck do.
"We are in trouble. So all I can say is DO vote, but do so with the Utmost concern and thought about what may come about because of Your vote.
"YES -- your vote DOES count."
. . . and my follw-up:
I remain demonstrably neutral and non-committal. I see goodness in about half the candidates from both parties . . . even Hillary. It is the extremes of both parties that scare the bloody hell out of me -- Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, et al. In Kansas, only voters registered in a particular party are allowed to vote in primaries; so, I must wait to the general election to make my selection. And, I have not missed voting in a general election since I became eligible to vote, and I do not intend to miss any now. I have voiced my opinion of John McCain; my opinion remains unchanged; in John, we share a common view . . . at least in the part you have offered.
One additional thought . . . Jimmy Carter was the most anti-military president in my lifetime and every President from Jimmy to and including George W. contributed to the burgeoning of Islamic fascism; at least W. had the balls to confront the bastards after the worst attack on Americans in 66 years. The security and safety of the American People and this Grand Republic are the President's primary responsibility. However, using the fear of war to carry out a domestic social agenda and divisive party politics is not acceptable.
. . . the third round:
"Same here as to voting in Primaries.
"Generally speaking, the extremists do not scare me because I believe they cannot win.
"I agree pretty much with what you say about Carter, and all your stuff after that. The present Bush started out fairly strong, then got whiff of how much power he really did have and began to go overboard in what he did and how he ignored advice from his advisors and others. SO -- he has, in MY mind, screwed himself as far as any great legacy is concerned. Maybe 50-100 years down the line we will have to re-think that. I won't be here to do that."
. . . and my reply to round three:
The extreme candidates like Dennis the Menace don’t scare me either; they are quite humorous and great entertainment. However, the extremes of each party (the power brokers) have far more and disproportionate influence on the primary process, which in turn virtually destroys moderates like John McCain. Given a race between John McCain and Hillary Clinton, I think we could safely predict the outcome, barring a major goof. The broadest contrast might be Dennis Kucinich and Sam Brownback, in which case, we would have a far more polarized country than we already have; and for moderate, independents like me, a definite vote for the lesser of two evils.
Yes, I think W. started out with good intentions, but those around him stoked his sense of secrecy, autonomy and ultimately led to his arrogance after 9/11. Franklin Roosevelt had unprecedented power for a President, and yet, he continued to work hard to garner support even among his most ardent opponents. Winston Churchill sought and led a coalition war cabinet including all the major party players – the equivalent of having Hillary in his cabinet. Even Bill Clinton tried to include Republicans in his cabinet, e.g., Bill Cohen at SecDef. Unfortunately, W. began believing his own press releases, and none of his chosen lieutenants would tell him his new clothes left him naked.

Another contributor passed along this observation from an unknown source:
"President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq. Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII. It is not. Back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression."
My response:
All true and accurate. There are several elements to his failure:
1. Failure to seek and obtain a full declaration of war.
2. Blind loyalty to men who were wrong for the job + time.
3. Failure to mobilize the Nation for war.
4. Allowing war on the cheap or measured response.
5. Allowing, perhaps even encouraging, a pervasive arrogance of power, i.e., he was a war President and no longer needed to find compromise with Congress.
6. Almost intentional alienation of the opposition party virtually guaranteed a hostile Congress.
I could go on, but those are the big ones in my eyes.
. . . with this follow-up:
"Tough job as President ... wonder how any other one would have handled the 911 situation. Hopefully, we won't have to find out in the next years to come!"
. . . with my follow-up reply:
Toughest job, perhaps.
Interesting speculation. I would like to think others of an earlier generation as well as our own would have taken the same action, but I strongly suspect they would have also quietly found the means to build a coalition government, publicly united against our enemy – that is the real power of political leadership.

[A contributor offered this quote from Thomas Sowell in Patriot Post Vol.07 No.32 -- 08 August 2007]
“The real problem is that the political incentives are to spend the taxpayers’ money on things that will enhance politicians’ chances of getting re-elected. There may be enough money available to maintain bridges and other infrastructure but that same money can have a bigger political pay-off if spent building something new instead of maintaining and repairing existing structures.”
"COMMENT: politicians seem to be able to turn any disaster into a reason to raise taxes: Minnesota just spent 2 million dollars on rerouting a proposed light rail system around some walking paths that aren’t being used but 'will be in the future.' Minnesota has several million dollars in surplus and is building new stadiums, playing fields, and light rail – all with surplus tax dollars but they might have to raise gasoline taxes to pay for bridge repairs."
My response:
We don’t always get our priorities straight, and so many of the states look to Big Daddy Warbucks to bail them out. It is a genuine mess.

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

06 August 2007

Update no.295

Update from the Heartland
No.295
30.7.07 – 5.8.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Thank you all for the words of kindness and condolence regarding Rocky's passing; they are truly appreciated.

The follow-up news items:
-- The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) announced the results of their investigation of the Comair Flight 5191 crash on 27.August.2006, in Lexington, Kentucky [247-248] -- pilot error. Numerous entities persist in their efforts to spread the blame for the accident. We seem to have a penchant for larger, broader, more nefarious culprits, often with a flavor of government conspiracy, and yet, in this case, as the NTSB accurately reported, this was pilot error due to complacency, plain and simple. The accident and the innocent fatalities are sad commentary to what can happen when pilots are distracted (self-induced in this instance) during the critical flight phases of takeoff and landing.
-- The Senate and the House passed the Protect America Act of 2007 (S.1927) "to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 [PL 95-511] (FISA) [156, 211, 218, et al] to provide additional procedures for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence information and for other purposes." (vote: Senate: 60-28-12; House: 227-183-0-23) We can all appreciate the seriousness, complexity and sensitivity of the issues presented to the very essence and substance of our freedoms by our enemies and the nature of the modern battlefield. However, creating a bureaucracy to constrain the Intelligence Community will not help them win the War on Islamic Fascism. Then again, I suppose we should be thankful Congress at least tried to bring FISA to the current environment. There is a better way to protect our freedoms from an abusive government and provide our Intelligence Community the tools they need to wage war successfully; this law will not do the trick.
-- The unusual, unruly rancor in the House chamber this week offers perhaps the best punctuation on the obscene party politics that has characterized the performance of Congress in the last 40 years. These men and women, although I hesitate to use such respectful terminology, have no interest, concern or willingness to do what the Constitution set them up to do – find the compromise balance point. No sirree Bob thunder; these yayhoos are consumed by party loyalty, rigid ideology, and total disregard for the general welfare of this Grand Republic. The House performance this week makes John McCain look all the better, but the extremists in the Republican Party will fall on their swords to prevent his nomination . . . hey, wait, maybe that’s not such a bad idea. Nonetheless, as I have stated numerous times [151A, 208, 213, 255, et al], we should throw the whole bloody lot of them out and start over.

The whole World bore witness to the tragedy of the I-35W Bridge collapse in Minneapolis. We have five confirmed fatalities so far, and I suspect there shall be more as they work their way through the debris and the vehicles in the river. I have driven over that bridge numerous times, although none is recent years . . . and, as many of us could say, there but for the Grace of God go I. Congress quickly allocated US$250M for the recovery and clean-up process, with more to come for reconstruction. The Wichita Eagle published a table listing and extensive article on the condition of bridges in Kansas; I suspect other newspapers across the country are doing similar exposés. Perhaps some good can grow from this tragedy . . . Congress just might abandon all the crap and get serious in regeneration of our deteriorating infrastructure. We can only hope. May God bless all those touched by the bridge collapse and especially the families who have lost loved ones.

In a surprising and odd twist of journalistic revelation given the years of discouraging and corrosive news, a ray of light shines through the clouds of gloom offered up by the New York Times.
"A War We Just Might Win"
by Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack
New York Times
Published: July 30, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?th&emc=th
The article produced quite a disturbance in the Force. Regardless of your opinions and attitudes toward the Battle for Iraq or even the War on Islamic Fascism, the O'Hanlon & Pollack article adds a little color in the long slog to stabilize Iraq and eliminate the terrorists plaguing the country. Please read the O'Hanlon & Pollack article. Then, as if to dampen that little hope, Associated Press Writer Kimberly Hefling, in her report the next day titled: "Mullen cites limited progress in Iraq," chose rather dark words to describe the confirmation testimony of Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Glenn Mullen, USN, to be the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Oh well, the moment was good while it lasted.

Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama of Illinois publicly stated that he would take the fight in the War on Islamic Fascism into Pakistan, if necessary. The statement has a ring to it, as I have espoused; however, the qualifiers are significant, and it is one thing to talk tough in a campaign and something all together different to find the correct balance between lethargic diplomatic progress with minimal cooperation, and alienation of a marginal ally. At least he is talking like he should. Whether Barack would actually order such operations remains questionable; the exigencies of Office have a way of dampening such ardor. Yet, I shall give Barack credit for the appropriate bravado. To no one's surprise, the Pakistani government registered their displeasure with Barack's appropriate but ill-advised public remarks.

It seems ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson, AKA Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana, indicted on 16 charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money-laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act [233, 240, 252, 258, 287], may have finally won one. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on an objection by the House offices in the case of United States v. Rayburn House Office Building [USDC DC no. 06-3105 (no. 06mj00231)], giving ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson some constitutional relief. The precipitating event came when District Court Judge Thomas Hogan issued the search warrant for the subsequent FBI raid on his residence and congressional office; Judge Hogan believed sufficient probable cause for a felony prosecution outweighed the ‘Speech and Debate’ Clause protections enjoyed by Member of Congress. The Appeals Court took a different view and focused exclusively on the separation of powers question and the ‘Speech and Debate’ portion of Clause 1. It seems quite odd to me that the court cited the ‘Speech and Debate’ element, but ignored the ‘. . . except for Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace’ qualifier. The Appeals Court ordered “the return of all legislative materials (originals and copies) that are protected by the Speech or Debate Clause seized from Rayburn House Office Building Room 2113 on May 20-21, 2006,” and barred the associated FBI agents from disclosing any of the seized material or participating in the criminal prosecution of ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson. An immediate question erupts from the decision . . . who decides what is privileged, non-privileged, and more precisely what is subject to discovery in the felony prosecution? Former Speakers of the House Foley, Gingrich and Michel filed amicus curiae briefings in this case, suggesting alternative means of conducting a warranted search of the official domain of a Member of Congress. I did not have access to the amicus briefings by the former Speakers, however from the reflection in the public court documents, it appears Congress is far more interested in protecting themselves than in abiding by the same laws they pass for all the rest of us, or even at a bare minimum, the laws applicable to them. By this constitutional debate within the Judiciary prior to ‘Dollar Bill’s criminal trial before a jury of his peers, the basis of the case will be considered. I think we can safely surmise ol’ ‘Dollar Bill’ will milk the debate and the process as long and to the greatest extent possible, and he will have the quiet support of the Democratic Party (in their quest to taint George W. Bush as often as possible, i.e., partisan politics at work). While great care must be taken to protect and preserve the separation and balance of powers between the three branches of government, Congress, as created by the Constitution, was never considered to be and should never be a haven to criminal conduct. In this case, the Executive carefully and deliberately sought the independent sanction of the Judiciary out of respect for the special conditions of the object of their criminal investigation. Nonetheless, I think Judge Hogan got it right and the DC Circuit misfired; as such, this case appears destined for the Supreme Court, which will undoubtedly add another 6-12 months to ‘Dollar Bill’s prosecution process and I suspect eventual conviction on most if not all charges.

As an interested and related side note, the FBI raided the in-state home of Senator Theodore Fulton 'Ted' Stevens of Alaska as part of a corruption investigation. In fact, all three state congressional representatives received similar visits, but Ted is the most prominent of the three. And, we all thought Republicans were above corruption, more morally grounded . . . no wait . . . that was Democrats . . . oh gosh, I am so confused.

A number of public and private sources question my use of the term ‘moral projection’ within the various debates we have regarding the conduct of government. To me, moral projection entails using the law to impose a set of moral values and standards upon every citizen, as if to validate our moral values, our lifestyle choices, our attitudes toward other people and relationships . . . because we believe this way, everyone must believe this way, because our morals are correct and best. That said, moral values are critical to the conduct and intercourse of any stable society. Indeed, moral values are essential and vital to proper, peaceful, and orderly public activity. The difference in this context is the establishment and maintenance of moral values within the public domain, and the ‘projection’ of moral values into the private lives of free citizens. Moral projection suggests and implies the extension of those values beyond the proper domain for their existence. Freedom is freedom, nothing less!

Last week, the Patriot Post ("Welcome to Washington, Dr. Broun;" vol.07 no.30; 27.July.2007) announced the special election of Dr. Paul Broun to fill the vacated House seat for the Georgia 10th District. A particular element of the announcement caught my attention. According the Patriot article, Broun pledged to carry a copy of the Constitution with him at all times, and to apply four tests to his House votes:
1. Is it constitutional and a proper function of government?
2. Is it morally correct?
3. Is it something we really need?
4. Is it something we can afford?
Sounds great, doesn't it? The first criterion leads us directly to the tortured interpretation of the Constitution. We shall eventually know whether Broun is a big government federalist or an individualist moderate. I suspect the former, but I could be wrong. Then, we arrive at the real lynchpin in legislative action -- morality. The term "morally correct" is fine regarding public conduct; I am quite comfortable with general morality in defining public law, after all that is the basis of our body of laws and has been since Hamarabi and Roman law. Where such judgments go crosswise comes in the projection of legislative morality into the private domain -- imposing law upon private conduct. Thus, as we have discussed many times, my worry hangs upon the propensity of any legislature to define private, non-injurious, activity of individual citizens, i.e., classic moral projection and the ultimate federalist. The ‘need’ and ‘afford’ elements of Broun's legislative criteria will be driven by his particular penchant for pork barrel largesse. Thus, while Broun's legislative criteria have an appealing resonance, the devil is in the details. If his definition of a "proper function of government" remains essentially the refinement of our public professional and social interaction, then he may well become a genuine progressive; if not, he will most likely be just another corrupt politician bent upon self-aggrandizement.

A little intriguing entertainment . . . an incredible morph'ed video clip of 80 years of women in films. My, my, the power of human imagination. Enjoy!
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2007/women-in-film-p1.php

Comments and contributions from Update no.294:
"[Y]ou need to hand out a crash course on American politics. I do not understand however if you do, then all's well!"
My comment:
I know American politics can be quite dreary, and other times as disgusting as . . . well, imagine the most nauseating scene. Sorry to bore everyone with this crap, but it is the crap we have to live with. I would never claim to understand why these bozos do the things they do, but as they say . . . better the devil you know.

Another contribution:
“I thought I'd pass on the latest communiqué from the NASA administrator, Michael Griffin, regarding the ‘Alcohol’ situation here at NASA. My brother happens to be a Psychiatrist contracted by NASA to do these evaluations so he is very close to the situation here. He's pretty tight lipped due to privacy issues but he has shared with me that it is a very serious matter behind closed doors. The thing I can't understand is they (Astronauts) have access to booze while they are sequestered prior to a Shuttle flight. Who came up with that great idea? To think about it thou I think I'd need to have a drink before someone straps my butt to a million lbs of thrust and shot me into space.”
My reply:
Personal opinion . . . some of this is just added scrutiny of modern communications. As Griffin notes, when they started turning over the Lisa Nowak stone, they found some ugly bugs. I doubt NASA would sanction alcohol in the sequester facility, but I imagine alcohol has been smuggled in for decades. There are still pilots who believe they can fly under the influence. Not me. I've always been very careful with alcohol and flying.

A different contribution:
“The Mars Rovers amaze me. Though I'm not sure why we go there when I thought we already knew there was not a lot there. Maybe there WAS a lot there a long time ago?
“As long as terrorists exist they will try to figure out NEW ways to get by our security measures. Whether those security measures are located at some international airport, a dock at a major seaport, a high level national political or military building, OR at the Safeway Food Store in Podunk, North Dakota!!!! I bet that LAST place HAS no real security measures in place. So I think it would be a perfect target.
“Why Podunk? Easy answer -- To show that they CAN get to ANY part of America.
“The very important stuff/places they Need to hit truly, though that is not so easy anymore since more watched.
“But also, and much easier, are almost innumerable very important targets (from a psychological standpoint). Small-town, USA. Who would ever guess they'd do that? And why? Why? To REALLY put the fear of Allah and Jihad in those poor people who feel so secure and not a part of this whole war.
“IT is EASY to do !!!! At least the first few attacks would be. A bank, a grocery, church or hardware store. Maybe the local Les Schwab Tire center. That would likely be More than enough to throw a REAL scare into those of us all around the country who live in these out of the way places ( which is a LOT of Americans), not liking what is going on in the big cities, but feeling secure in our small, out of the way, towns.
“Good plan on the part of the terrorists? I happen to think so, though I hope it does not happen.
“Rural America feels safe, mostly. We believe All attacks will come to major/important places. And that WE are not important. If the terrorists are smart? ----- WRONG!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!
“SO, if I were the enemy -- I'd attack the non-important places and thus REALLY scare the citizenry! It lets EVERYONE know that there is NO way to protect every last square inch of America.
“My opinion. I hope to Hell that the bad guys never think of it.”
My response:
As many of us know, there is no such thing as perfect security; and, any security system can be penetrated given the will to do so. The Regimental Colonel of the Royal Welch Fusiliers told me in 1971, that the regiment’s mission was not to ‘defend’ Hong Kong, but simply to make the People's Liberation Army work for it, if they chose to take back the territory by force; fairly well says it, I think. Like you say, al-Qaeda might be well-served to strike at the soft underbelly rather than the hard points. Sadly, I suspect the uber-Left would yawn and say “So what” if such a strike occurred. Given the mounting strength of the uber-Left, I doubt anything short of a direct attack on them and their children will sway them from the defeatist, withdrawal mentality.

Another contribution:
"I agree with your legalization of drugs idea. Just wonder how it could ever be set up. Could there actually be a person or business LICENSED to sell say marijuana or cocaine? Would it be a walk in store? I mean they did it with alcohol and perhaps it was strange at first when they first started opening liquor stores. It just makes me giggle to think of driving by a real DRUG Store ... that sells drugs. I imagine the drugs would have to be FDA approved. And there would have to be laws, as with alcohol, for driving while stoned (DWS) ... or I guess it would still be called DUI, with limits of how much a person could legally consume and drive. Then they would have to come up with measurement tools that could assess those limits. It does sound like an administrative nightmare really."
My response:
Re: legalization of drugs. My answers:
"How could it ever be set up?"
>>>>> My proposal: exactly as alcohol and tobacco . . . licensed production, distribution and sale.
"Could there actually be a person or business LICENSED to sell say marijuana or cocaine?"
>>>>> Yes, companies would be licensed to produce and sell any substance that does not cause harm, e.g., arsenic would still be prohibited for human ingestion. I could argue that the most destructive forms of certain substances would not be available, i.e, black tar heroin, crack cocaine, etc. But, defined dosages of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, methamphetamine, etc., would be packaged for modest price sale.
"Would it be a walk in store?"
>>>>> Yes, just like a liquor store, perhaps even use liquor stores.
"It just makes me giggle to think of driving by a real DRUG Store ... that sells drugs."
>>>>> Drug stores could sell them too. The point is to regulate the quality and the dosage, and sell them at relatively low cost. Like other substances, you would have to prove you are 18 or 21 years of age.
"I imagine the drugs would have to be FDA approved."
>>>>> Yes, since they are ingestible substances.
"There would have to be laws, as with alcohol, for driving while stoned (DWS) ... or I guess it would still be called DUI, with limits of how much a person could legally consume and drive."
>>>>> Intoxication is intoxication. Driving or doing anything in public while under the influence of any intoxicant including psychotropic substances. Like all intoxicants, they are intended for private use, and yet, like alcohol can be used in public, so too could drugs. I don't see smoking marijuana would be any different than smoking tobacco.
"They would have to come up with measurement tools that could assess those limits. It does sound like an administrative nightmare really."
>>>>> Yes, but most police are already trained to recognize the distinctive signs of substance abuse and intoxication. Like I said, public intoxication is public intoxication. There is much more to this process, but I thought I'd start by answering your questions.
. . . with this follow-up:
"sounds like you have well thought out the potential of drug legalization and how it can be accomplished, but I bet it will never happen .... in our lifetime anyway. Could be wrong !!"
. . . and my reply:
Yes, I have given things like legalization of drugs, gambling, prostitution, abortion, all the sensitive sinful issues, a lot of thought. But, alas, being the true Don Quixote-esque character I am, I persist despite the fact that I think you are right. Apparently, I am one of the few voices speaking up for a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and as such each citizen’s right to partake of the sins of their choice as long as no one is injured or harmed. Yet, as you say . . . not likely in our lifetime.

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