28 January 2008

Update no.320

Update from the Heartland
No.320
21.1.08 – 27.1.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- As you know, I try to avoid criminal prosecution cases; however, there are always exceptions; so it is this week. I note with some pleasure the sentencing of Jose Padilla [AKA Abdullah Al Muhajir] [107, 134, 159, et al] to 17⅓ years in Federal prison. He deserved a far harsher punishment, but this shall suffice for now.
-- A week ago Sunday, a teenage boy, proffering an open box of candy, walked into a group of Iraqi-Sunni, Issawi tribal members near Fallujah, al-Anbar, Iraq, and detonated his concealed explosive vest, killing four and wounding nine. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to who pumped up that boy-suicide-bomber to carry-out his dastardly deed?
-- Discussion continues to percolate from time to time on the supposed “lies” President George W. Bush and his administration told regarding the threat posted by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. I am reminded of history. Was Germany a threat to the United States of America in 1940? Many famous and powerful Americans at the time answered with an emphatic no! In fact, some of those characters advocated for siding with Germany. Did President Franklin Roosevelt “lie” to the American People as he attempted to articulate the threat as he saw it in Germany? Many accused him of such. Is the public ‘desire-to-know’ worth the risk to our intelligence means & methods? Absolutely not, which is why I continue to protest the repeated New York Times’ abusive actions? For the record and in my most humble opinion, President Bush has understated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 2002, and the Islamic Republic of Iran today. If I am correct, how can we be so foolish?

The New York Times has an on-line feature called, bloggingheads.tv, that presents interesting tête-à-tête, webcam, debates between two “experts” on a variety of topics. Previously, I noted a discussion on embryonic stem cell research [315]. This week, I illuminate two blogginheads videos; one on international sex trade:
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=588a2dc1e04102d5542db2a9fac6c7085bc1e08e&8ty&emc=ty
and, the other video clip on Orwellian government surveillance:
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=824ec9ddec63712d1ab510853000c5c372805677
Render your opinions, if you will.

The Senate is considering S.2248 [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2007, or FISA Amendments Act of 2007]. The President has indicated he intends to veto the bill, if it does not include some form of immunity for the telecommunications providers. On this one, I support the President's position. Placing companies at risk because the administration may have exceeded its authority seems grossly unfair, unwise, and otherwise self-destructive. Too many law suits have placed commercial companies at risk, primarily because seeking restitution from the Federal government is so bloody hard. I can understand, accept and appreciate the concern about precedent and the law of unintended consequences. The solution may rest in limited, discreet immunity, by perhaps several constraints. We already have numerous law suits related to the wartime operations: ACLU v. Jeppesen DataPlan, Inc. [289]; Doe v. Gonzales [USDC, SDNY 04 Civ. 2614 (VM) {2007}] [301]; Mayfield v. United States [USDC DO civil no. 04-1427-AA] [303]; and others I have not found yet. None of these court actions are good for the defense of the United States of America. I hope Congress can find the wisdom to move passed this parochial political kerfuffle.

Just because the urge strikes me, I shall offer some thoughts on the nature of education. Children are born with genetically coded, autonomic reflexes that instruct them to breathe, command their hearts to pump blood, and to cry when hungry or discomforted. Beyond the instinctive responses, children are predominately a blank sheet of paper upon which their life-story will be written. Their education generally comes from four broad source categories: home (parents & family), church, school, and society; each area possesses unique responsibilities and contributions. To my way of thinking, the first, foremost and ultimate source is the parental home -- teaching our children to walk, to eat properly, to clean themselves, to talk, and all the other basic functions of life. The difficulty here is the vastly disparate involvement, participation and contribution from parent to parent, regarding the education of their children. The church can offer additional moral training consistent with the family's beliefs, but it is all too often more concerned with indoctrination of future parishioners than in the improvement of children. Then, since we have compulsory education for our children, the schools inherit whatever deficiencies, anomalies, or whatnot; and faced with the common ground along with the need for peace, stability, and a conducive, learning environment, the schools must act to iron out the rough spots -- prime example: the King Middle School, Portland, Maine contraception brouhaha [308]. Schools are often caught in no-man's-land. Then, we add the enormous power of peer pressure -- the need for children to be accepted by their 'friends.' We, including me, criticize schools and governments for failing to deal with our unruly or destructive children; in so doing, we are abdicating our responsibility and ignoring our accountability. While some parents may be quite comfortable abdicating to government and as long as We, the People, tolerate such abdication, we have only ourselves to blame. Perhaps, we tolerate relinquishing our responsibility because we do not wish our performance to be judged, so we seek to avoid condemning others. Whatever the reason(s), we must turn back all these foolish laws that establish the government as parents and enact laws that hold parents accountable for the conduct of their children – the parents are the ultimate source. As we do so, we must find the means to protect and nurture our children, even and especially when children are not wanted. In my humble and unqualified opinion, criminals are created by parents who abuse or neglect their children, who do not teach discipline, moral values, and their place in society. Until we make the hard decisions, find the appropriate solutions, we will continue pasting meager band-aids on symptoms rather than treating the underlying root cause of societal diseases.

For those who subscribe to the Patriot Post, please pardon this repeat. Based on recent Patriot Post editions, I suspect we are going to spend a lot of time talking about religion and politics in this election cycle. I wrote about religion becoming the contemporary racism (319); but more appropriately, to use a redneck colloquialism to put this in proper terms, if you ain’t Christian, you ain’t s**t. Perhaps this is a necessary stage in the evolution of this Grand Republic. This week [Patriot Post, Vol. 08, No. 04; 21 January 2008], Mark Alexander attributed the following quote to Burt Prelutsky:
“One of the obvious differences between Democrats and Republicans is the role that religion plays in their presidential campaigns. For instance, every Democrat, while pretending to believe that ‘separation of church and state’ actually appears somewhere in the Constitution, must also insist that religion plays an essential role in his or her life. But just about the only time you see them going to church is when they’re posing for the cameras while addressing a black Baptist congregation. What’s more, when questioning these people, the liberal media kindly limits itself to a yes or no question regarding the existence of God. However, when the candidates are Republicans, you might get the idea that the members of the MSM were boning up for their theology exams. Is Huckabee too Christian? Does he actually believe the universe was created in six days? When he was a governor, did he go out of his way to commute the sentences of felons because he was a sucker for anyone who announced he’d found Christ in the slammer? Is Giuliani, who contributed to Pro-Choice organizations, flying under false colors as a Catholic? Does Romney really believe that Satan and Jesus are brothers, or at least third cousins, once removed? Why is it, I wonder, that nobody is asking Barack Obama about his religious convictions? From what I’ve gathered, they’re far more fascinating than Mitt Romney’s.”
FYI, MSM = MainStream Media. Now, I must admit I do not know who Burt Prelutsky is, and I am certain he does not who I am and probably could care less, even if he did. Yet, his opinion jacked up my blood pressure a smidge. This religious litmus test for political office ought to scare the bloody hell out of all good and patriotic Americans, and yet, most Americans seem to be oblivious or quite content with such tests. So now, to be a viable candidate one must be a mainstream Christian (I say that since many so-called Christians believe Mormonism is a cult and not part of the Christian faith, and heaven forbid a Muslim should be so audacious), male (heaven forbid, again, a woman should lead us), church-going (as if that is some physical demonstration of religious belief), heterosexual (and probably married, since that is another test, although adultery is tolerable since that is better than homosexuality), and of course, at least for Prelutsky, he must be Republican (as if that is some secret code word for a brother-in-politics who signed the blood oath that government shall dominate the lives of all of us peons). I shudder to think where the turning point is, out ahead of us; we are certainly not there yet. The rise of the uber-Right, fundamentalist, evangelical, so-called Christian pseudo-politicians along with those who actually stand for elected office began in earnest somewhere between the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Roe v. Wade [319]. Like all other societal mood swings – the Inquisition, the Victorian faux prudishness, the Roaring 20’s, the free-love hippy era – this period of politicizing religion and evangelizing politics will be rejected, but not until we see this movement for what it is – megalomania, pure and simple. Until then, I am afraid we shall have to endure the injury, abuse and disgusting oppression in the name of their religion (cuz it certainly ain’t mine). Further, and even more fearful, the Burt Prelutsky’s among us are far more prevalent than the few Cap Parlier’s – so it is, so it shall be. One day, America shall awaken to what is happening; I just hope I live to see the awakening.

Come think of it, with this kerfuffle between Slick Willy and Barack, and the not too distant race and gender topic, what does it say about our citizens as voters when they cast their votes based on any of the social factors (age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, language, political affiliation, physical characteristics, and disability). Well, OK, language might be problem, except W. is not exactly a master of English oratory and rhetoric, and he is a two-term president. Then, there are those who vote based on appearance. The salient question is, what do any of the social factors have to do with performance? Again, one day, we shall realize the social factors have no bearing on performance. Another, well . . . there are limits to everything -- a six-year-old could hardly lead an infantry division, and the Constitution states that only a natural born citizen can be President. Character, strength, courage, commitment, vision, inspiration, oratory, ad infinitum -- these are NOT traits defined by ANY of the social factors. Leadership is not unique to any of the social factors. Sir Winston Churchill was certainly not the best or even a good specimen of humanity, and yet he was arguably the greatest political leader in the last 100 years. Franklin Roosevelt endured significant disability to be an inspirational and visionary wartime president. To paraphrase a famous American, I have a dream that one day this nation will judge our leaders by the content of their character rather than the number of social factors that match our wishes.

As some of you know, either directly or by deduction, I am not a fan of or prone to any of the incessant eMail chain letters I receive from all quarters. Nonetheless, one of the many 're-send' chains sparked my attention, not for the potential exception to my rule, but for what the story represents. This particular sample featured this photograph:
[Marine prayer.jpg]
The image is of Marines in prayer, apparently, at a Corps birthday ceremony. So the story goes, the ACLU objected, citing the Marines as Federal employees, on Federal property during work hours, and thus, according to the ACLU, violating the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The story continues that a Marine officer, speaking for the Commandant, responded to the ACLU’s charges with a simple, direct, unambiguous, expletive-enhanced rejection. My point for recounting the story, even if not factual, is the persistent debate regarding the separation of church and state. While I am an absolute, unwavering advocate for Jefferson’s observation, this is yet another example of political correctness gone dreadfully wrong. There is a mischievous part of me that hopes the story is true, and that the ACLU files suit, just so I can revel in a judge slapping the ACLU in the face along with a stern admonition for insulting the court and the Corps. And, I must say, if this story is true, no wonder citizens of faith get so fired up about these religion expunging exercises.

Comments and contributions from Update no.319:
"It is sad to think a G-suit could have saved the Blue. Let's see if this initiates a change for the better."
My response:
Hopefully! Unfortunately, machismo has a tendency to produce those results.

Another contribution:
"Would you try to image verifying and agreeing on signatures? Remember the 'hanging chads?' We still do not have agreement on what is a countable vote and what is not.
"The present primaries and the next elections will deal with electronic voting and there will be no end to the court cases. There are already many rumors of election fraud or irregularities. Can you imagine the chaos around signatures?"
"If you have been watching the History Channel or the Military Channel lately, you would have seen and heard of many instances where it was clearly spoken that, '…no prisoners were taken, or We sealed off the caves and we knew women and children were in there but there was no other way to ensure our safety.'
"We, as a nation, have become too soft in dealing with enemies in war and with murderers outside of war; the Muslim fanatics have not and I am afraid that through appeasement and being overly concerned about 'not appearing politically correct to ourselves and the rest of the world,' we are more and more in danger of losing the greatest war we might ever be engaged in – the war against Muslim fanaticism and terrorism."
My reply:
Well said on both counts.
The signature ‘honor’ system has been in existence all my voting life. We still hear whining about the 2000 election fiasco. And, we constantly hear these incessant rants about electronic voting. We moved trillions of dollars electronically. I have been using on-line banking for many years, and ‘the system’ has caught several anomalies and protected our bank accounts from penetration or abuse. We have used electronic, paperless machines in Butler County, Kansas, for the last handful of elections, and I think it is the best, most accurate, and positive voting system I’ve used to date. There is no such thing as a 100% hacker-free electronic system, not even our bank accounts; but, the systems are set up with layers of security to: 1.) make it hard to hack, and 2.) to identify penetrations quickly. Hollywood is great at creating horror shows, but reality rarely comes even close to Hollywood’s imagination. As I said, let’s get on with it.
There are more than a few of us who agree with your opinion regarding the War on Islamic Fascism. Time shall tell whether we are up to the challenge.

Another comment:
"Right on, good commentary and right to the heart of the issues especially Huckabee."
My response:
I try. But, remember, I make no claim to being right!
. . . with this follow-up:
"The important thing is you make people think and evaluate between what they get from the yellow press and your views."
. . . and my follow-up response:
That is my intent . . . to stimulate thinking, to encourage vigorous debate. I truly enjoy a good argument . . . makes me think. I have been accused of preaching; that is NOT my intent, for preaching connotes correctness, and I make no such claim. I know some of my opinions stir the emotions and probably upset some, but my purpose is not to offend . . . only to think. And, my opinions are meant to be a catalyst, a precipitant.

A contribution from another thread:
"Yet even ONE life lost in a war that has not been prosecuted, in my opinion, in the right way, is too many. Have we not learned from Korea and Vietnam? No, we haven't. Many reasons WHY we haven't, but the bottom line is the same. We haven't.
"There is ONLY one way to fight ANY war! Absolutely superior, no holds barred, no quarter asked and none given, total destruction of the enemy's ability to wage ANY kind of war against you. Put him DOWN---period!!! And do it as quickly as possible, using whatever methods you have available. Keep the civilian politicians, naysayers, and pundits out of it. They will only muddle the waters.
"Then, after some appropriate time, and only IF the enemy has seen the light, so to speak, help him get back on his feet to take a new direction."
My reply:
And, my opinion as well. War is like a pistol shot . . . shoot to kill; there is no Hollywood 'wing 'im' nonsense. The sooner we get it over with, the sooner we can return to peace.

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

21 January 2008

Update no.319

Update from the Heartland
No.319
14.1.08 – 20.1.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
At this time of the year, we remember the life of an American citizen. A friend, colleague and contributor reminds us of the often overlooked immortal words written by Martin Luther King while he was incarcerated in the city jail of Birmingham, Alabama, on 16.April.1963. Among the multitude of words in his letter to fellow clergy, he said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," and later added, "We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed." I urge everyone to read or re-read Dr. King’s “Letter from the Birmingham Jail:”
http://www.thekingcenter.org/prog/non/Letter.pdf .
We are enriched by his life and words. May God rest his immortal soul.

The follow-up news items:
-- News Flash! The Islamic Republic of Iran has been the consistent and singular greatest state sponsor of terrorism since the Reagan administration. President Bush did not create the term or capriciously use the term; he only reiterated two plus decades of reality. Please see:
Ready, Kevin E., and Cap Parlier. TWA 800 – Accident or Incident? Ventura, CA: Saint Gaudens Press, 1998;
Appendices: A (pp.274-9), E (pp.348-75), F (pp.376-99), and G (pp.400-11).
-- The Navy issued its final accident report on the Blue Angels fatal crash in 2007 [281]. The pilot entered a high-speed, tight, rendezvous turn resulting in high G-forces than he could not physiologically overcome without a G-suit. According to the report, the Blues have had a medical waiver to fly without G-suits, which I view as akin to cutting the fingers off of Nomex flight gloves “for better feel” – more macho than necessary. Regardless, a good pilot is not longer with us.
-- The U.S. Air Force reported the November accident involving a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C Eagle [316] occurred as a result of the structural failure of a longeron just aft of the cockpit. From the public description of the failure, this appears to be a typical structural issue that can be remedied to full performance. Some reports suggest the Air Force may retire a significant fraction of the F-15 fleet. We shall see.
-- In the continuing debate regarding voter ID and as a follow-up to my opinion [318], I note a statement by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts; he said, "For too many years, American politics has been divided between two types of people: those who want more people to vote, and those who want fewer people to vote." Emotionalized political drivel such as this serves no purpose other than extending the division and insulation. I disagree with John and think this kerfuffle is about those who seek honest, accurate and fair elections and those who want to create votes for their partisan political goals in any conceivable manner. This issue is no different from all the other polarizing topics like anti-war, anti-abortion, anti-tax, anti-anything. Given our porous borders, abysmal illegal alien situation, a wartime enemy quite comfortable with infiltration, and a nefarious political element, positive prior eligibility has become the prudent course to protect our most sacred civic duty – voting. Post-election signature comparison is hardly a positive method and by definition, after the fact. In today’s world, we expect near-instant election results; waiting months for signature comparison to validate an election is obviously quite ludicrous. Like most Americans, I want every eligible citizen in good standing to vote, and we need a positive, prior, voter identification process. Let’s get on with it.
-- A California commercial company reported creating what would be history's first mature cloned human embryo from a single adult skin cell -- another potentially significant advancement in human molecular biology [146, et al]. While we should be celebrating such advances, my apprehension continues to rise. I would feel better if announcements like this one were coming from research or university facilities funded by Federal contracts, so that the techniques and details existed in the public domain.

As the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] approaches, the Right-side media lamented their familiar chant. I do not intend to bore anyone with further analysis of the important Supreme Court case. However, in my own little form of protest, I would like to add just two thoughts. Independent from the juris prudence content of Roe, the ruling exposes the true nature of the uber-Right. And, in reality, the uber-Right are not basically different from the uber-Left – they both want Big Government and Federalism – the only nuance is what they want it for. The uber-Left seeks distribution of wealth so that everyone is equal regardless of performance or contribution. The uber-Right seeks control over every aspect of every citizen’s life. Roe v. Wade is one of the landmark rulings regarding a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, a case that just happened to use abortion as the medium for the ruling. Second, the uber-Right has fomented civil disobedience in the name of religion using abortion as the cause célèbre to further their political objectives. The contradictions in the argument abound, and yet, they use the emotional issue of abortion and the broad ignorance of the People to enhance their political ambitions. There are appropriate political and legal compromise positions within reach, but the uber-Right smacks down any hand that even twitches toward seeking solution(s) because compromise does not support their goals. I can only hope that one day we will see through the façade of their argument. Our fundamental right to privacy is NOT a constitutional right, but it is part of our unalienable rights and thus protected by the 9th Amendment. To me, the attacks on Roe are attacks on our fundamental right to privacy and our freedom of choice . . . there you have it. As a male, objection to Roe and to the consequences of Roe would be easy, after all pregnancy does not affect my body; however, the same argument can be made for racist discriminatory laws prevalent a 100 years ago or sexist ‘glass ceiling’ employment practices, since they do not affect me either. I still advocate compromise . . . to find a solution that achieves the desired result without imposing upon any citizen’s fundamental right to privacy. We can find that common point, if we only choose search for it.

As if H.Res 847 [316] was not bad enough, Representative James Randy Forbes of Virginia has introduced House Resolution 888 (H.Res 888) – another foolish religious dictum from the House of Representatives. To begin with the ending, H.Res 888 states:
Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives----
“(1) affirms the rich spiritual and diverse religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history, including up to the current day;
“(2) recognizes that the religious foundations of faith on which America was built are critical underpinnings of our Nation's most valuable institutions and form the inseparable foundation for America's representative processes, legal systems, and societal structures;
“(3) rejects, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure, or purposely omit such history from our Nation's public buildings and educational resources; and
“(4) expresses support for designation of a `American Religious History Week' every year for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith.”
Sounds innocuous and reasonable enough doesn’t it? The preceding “whereas” section reads like a litany of American Christian history. What H.Res 888 conspicuously fails to do is recognize other relevant facts of our history . . . that the ancestors of our Founders fled their historic homelands to escape religious persecution at the hands of parochial, religious zealots and Sovereigns; that the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment was created in the spirit of compromise to allow for tolerance of all religions and remove the weight of the State from religious affairs AND vice versa; and, that President Thomas Jefferson coined the term a “wall of separation between church and state” to acknowledge the basis of a secular State, able to embrace all religions. This is NOT a Christian Nation! This Grand Republic stands as a true beacon of freedom that must allow all religions to flourish as the free choice of assembled citizens so commonly inclined. I urge everyone to read H.Res 888 as if you were a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Jew or even an atheist or agnostic and imagine how you would feel regarding the practice of your chosen religion. Like H.Res 847, H.Res 888 is ill-advised and foolish in the extreme, regardless of lacking the weight of law – the tone is clear and WRONG! I do not need the State to affirm my religion, and I object in the strongest possible terms to the House’s admixture of religion and governance. We can recognize God’s hand in our unalienable Rights without imposing Christianity upon all free citizens. Religion is a matter of individual AND private choice, NOT a function or interest of the State.

Then, after the folly of H.Res 888 and H.Res 847, we have Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, now a presidential candidate, proclaiming that if elected president he would seek to amend the Constitution to be in accordance with "God's standards." Such language may play well with evangelical Christians, but it is a lightning rod for me. He went on to explain his remarks. Translated, Huckabee said he wants a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion (and presumably for the same reason, to prohibit any end-of-life, death-with-dignity state laws), and another amendment to supersede all the states in defining marriage as between one man and one woman only. Huckabee has demonstrated that he is quite comfortable using the full weight and power of the State to impose his beliefs upon the private affairs of all citizens, which raises the salient question of how far would he go? If abortion and marriage are acceptable areas for the State to intrude upon our private lives, then what about sex, or a state religion, or the food we can eat in our homes? One more thing about Huckabee that irritates me like fingernails on a blackboard is Huckabee’s repeated public statements to keep voters not for him away from the polls . . . a contemptible notion even as a joke. Like Sam Brownback before him, I hope I am not asked to vote for Mike Huckabee; he may be a passable Baptist preacher, but he is not worthy of the Office of President of the United States of America.

The evangelical Christian movement is, perhaps inadvertently if we give them the benefit of the doubt, making religion the racism of contemporary politics. I suppose being of the Christian faith must provide some comfort in today’s social debates like having Caucasian features during the days of slavery and segregation. I do not find comfort in the lack of pigmentation in my skin, or in my religion, or in my gender because the oppression of others is in reality the oppression of us all.

A recent Patriot Post (Vol.08 No.02 dated 7.January.2008) attributed the following statement to Tony Perkins -- President of the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council -- “You may remember that in October, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) signed SB 777, a sweeping pro-homosexual education bill, into law. Arguably the most devastating anti-family bill ever passed in California, SB 777 requires all curricula—even that of private schools—to treat homosexuality and heterosexuality ‘equally.’ Under this misguided mandate, teaching students about the benefits of traditional families will be considered discrimination. Schools will no longer be asked to tolerate but to advocate a lifestyle with devastating consequences to the public health and conscience. Among other things, history books will be required to include stories of ‘famous gays,’ literature assignments will feature homosexual influences, and sex education will include so-called ‘safe sex’ for ‘alternative’ lifestyles. A large coalition of parents and activists is doing all it can to stop the law from going into effect.” After reading such an apocalyptic and dire statement, my curiosity was peeked. Let it suffice to say, like the Crawford case [318] last week, both extremes are prone to exaggeration for political gain. I read the entire, boring text of California SB 777. Most of the law addresses the multitude of variations in the complex state education system. The salient and relevant sentence in SB 777 is, "No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation . . . ." Will anyone be surprised that SB 777 makes not a single mention ‘famous gays,’ ‘safe sex,’ ‘alternative lifestyles,’ or any other popular homophobic labels? Not one! They are products of Perkins' homophobic imagination apparently intended to enflame those who do not understand or choose not to understand those who are different from them. SB 777 seeks to ensure all students and employees are treated equally, regardless of the social factors; the law does nothing more than that, period.

The Telegraph [of London] reported on a move by the British government to allow hospitals to extract organs from deceased patients without explicit consent. We can argue such action by the State enhances the public good -- other lives can be saved -- a noble purpose. However, we do not have many clearer illustrations of the power of the State over the individual. I object!

In closing, I shall note a potentially significant Vermont court case against Sebastien Boucher, a Canadian citizen with a valid American work visa, who was arrested and charged with transporting child pornography. The case of U.S. v. Boucher may become a landmark ruling, not for the subject matter, but for the modern test of the 5th Amendment. The United States Government is seeking a judge's order forcing Boucher to relinquish his laptop's password. The 5th Amendment protects us against self-incrimination. I trust the court will defend the Constitution. We shall see.

Comments and contributions from Update no.318:
"'...political correctness gone stark-raving mad...'"
"I think you have described the notion quite superbly."

Another contribution:
"I wondered with the recent naval ship incident, why didn't they use that ear deafening sonar the cruise ships have to ward off potential terrorists/pirates??"
My reply:
The Iranian gunboats were surface craft. Sonar is subsurface, like radar underwater, and is acoustic rather than electromagnetic. I didn’t know cruise ships had sonar, but it sure would be effective against divers or underwater attackers. The warships involved in the incident have several weapons to deal with boats like those used by the Iranians. As I wrote, I am amazed they allowed those boats to get as close as they did. The restraint of the Navy captains suggests they were principally worried about conventional contact explosives rather projection weapons. Anyway, I agree with the President; the Iranian actions that day were provocative and dangerous.

An extension contribution regarding quasi-military contractors:
"Regarding private contractors, I thought you would appreciate this article. It articulates pretty well one of the major issues with private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan- lack of accountability. The author places much of the blame on DOJ, which really hasn’t been doing its job in prosecuting – even after laws were put on the books to let them do so. Had DOJ done it job, we likely wouldn’t be facing some of the problems we have. As you can see, he his focus is not on the private contractors, but on the USG and why it hasn’t done its job in a critical area.
"The author is a lawyer who is also an advisor to the New York Bar."
The article:
“Ending a Culture of Impunity for Contract Soldiers”
by Scott Horton
Harper’s Magazine
Published: January 16, 2008
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/01/hbc-90002153
citing:
“Private Security Contractors at War – Ending the Culture of Impunity”
Human Rights First
Copyright: 2008
http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/08115-usls-psc-final.pdf
My response:
The difficulty I have with the contractor issue is the induced dichotomy . . . peacetime, civil, juris prudence versus wartime military, paramilitary & quasi-military combat zone operations; and the tasks of reality versus a grossly undersized combat military. I am not advocating that anyone be above the law, but I am struggling with this silly notion of civilizing war – Abu Graib, Guantánamo, interrogation, intelligence collection, et al ad infinitum ad nauseum. These contractors, at least in some areas, are not law enforcement or even security guards; they are military surrogates. We put them there, in that situation, and now we seek to hold them to peacetime civil standards. I may be the only one, but I am still struggling.
. . . a follow-up comment:
"Actually, we aren't even holding them to wartime legal standards. There appear to no standards...and that isn't good for anybody, especially the contractors. The USG is ultimately responsible and it hasn't stepped up."
. . . and my follow-up reply:
Perhaps so. I am neither investigator nor judge. Yet, I do have an opinion. I choose not to condemn the combat decision of a young Marine in active combat who sees a wounded enemy as a threat and caps him. I choose not to judge a young Marine who senses a woman or child approaching him as a threat and eliminates them, whether they had a concealed bomb or weapon is irrelevant. Short of a Le Paradis or Malmédy class incident, I choose to trust the humanity of individual soldiers and small unit leaders. Will there be abused, mistakes, bad decisions . . . yes, absolutely. But, war is hell, and war is killing. Trying to civilize war is foolish. Case in point, using the criterion espoused by some today, Harry would be condemned as a war criminal for issuing the order to use Fat Man and Little Boy. I react to those who condemn Harry for silly, foolish reasons that have nothing to do with humanity but rather faux logic that seeks to end war. So, what happened in that intersection in Baghdad that day was a product of war, not murder! We should investigate contractor incidents, but prosecution?

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

14 January 2008

Update no.318

Update from the Heartland
No.318
7.1.08 – 13.1.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- In his victory speech after the New Hampshire primary, Senator John McCain said, “We are the makers of history, not its victims.” Ding!
-- Sir Edmund Percival Hillary, KG, ONZ, KBE, passed away on the 11th. Sir Edmund and Nepalese Sherpa mountaineer Tenzing Norgay, became history when they reached the pinnacle of Terra Firma on 29.May.1953. May God rest their souls.

On Sunday, 6.January, five Iranian speed boats approached three U.S. Navy warships transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Repeated radio warnings were issued by the U.S. ships. There were also threatened radio calls from unknown sources to blow up the American warships. Whether the Iranians or anyone on those boats actually made those radio transmissions is irrelevant. Given the environment and the nature of the times, I imagine all those warships were at General Quarters and their guns and weapons loaded. As with any potential fight, the threat vector versus the response time determines when we strike, i.e., if the captain knew those boats possessed weapons or explosive that could have an effect on the safety of his ship and crew, then he must keep those boats from entering an effects zone. I suspect those boats came very close to being disintegrated. I am amazed the captains showed the restraint they did. Let us not forget the attacks on the USS The Sullivans (DDG-68) and the USS Cole (DDG-67), both in 2000. If those Iranians had been kids out on a joyride and the Navy captains had opened fire, I would say, to bad so sad . . . next time don’t play games with folks who have big guns that are loaded and cocked. Lastly, I believe this latest confrontation was a planned, intentional act to test the U.S. Navy. As such, I think the Iranians got an answer and were damn lucky they did not die obtaining it.

Every once in a while, we hear talk about apologies for slavery or paying some incalculable reparations for the injustice of slavery. Please pardon my gauche crassness, but I feel no such compulsion simply because my skin lacks pigmentation. Likewise, brow-beating today’s Germans into apologizing for the Holocaust is equally ludicrous. These examples of political correctness gone stark-raving mad are silly notions of faux collective remorse that remind me of the debilitating and humiliating reparations heaped upon the German populace in toto at predominately French insistence, as a punitive consequence of the death and destruction on their soil from 1914 to 1918; we fought a much greater war as a consequence. Do I regret that my ancestors had to fight in the Civil War to end slavery and preserve the Union? Yes! But, I am thankful we had a President and a generation with the courage to do what had to be done; their blood and sacrifice may not seem sufficient to the descendents of enslaved Americans, but I respectfully submit . . . the price was more than ample. While I cannot claim to have stood side-by-side with Martin Luther King and our fellow citizens seeking equality a 100 years after emancipation, I did my part in little ways to further equality regardless of any of the social factors; and I continue to speak out against injustice. However, offering apologies for events 60 or 150 years ago is simply nonsense, no matter how well-intentioned.

Since I am on an ‘indication’ roll this week, I illuminate another case to be heard before the Supreme Court – Crawford v. Marion County Election Board [7CCA nos. 06-2218, 06-2317 (2007)] – the voter identification case. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling was actually a petition by the plaintiffs for a rehearing that was rejected. Of note is the dissenting opinion of Circuit Judge Diane Pamela Wood; the crude over-statement offered by Judge Wood emotionalizes an already sensitive and charged political issue. Since the Appeals Court rejected the plaintiffs’ petition and thus affirmed the lower court’s decision, the key judicial argument rests, for the time-being, in the ruling of U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker (Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division) in the case of Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita [USDC SDIN no. 1:05-cv-00634-SEB-VSS (2006)]. In finding for the defendants (the State), Judge Barker wrote a scathing condemnation of the poor legal argument by the plaintiffs’ group. One sentence from the 113 page decision seems to sum up Judge Barker’s opinion; she wrote, “This litigation is the result of a partisan legislative disagreement that has spilled out of the state house into the courts.” We should have the ruling of the Supremes this spring, and I imagine it will be interesting and enlightening. I suspect the Court will affirm in their juris prudence, Judge Barker’s decision. In my humble, lay opinion, Judge Barker hit the nail squarely and soundly. The plaintiffs’ arguments were weak, transparent, shallow and otherwise colored in an obvious political bias that stank of the old days of Tammany Hall and Mayor Daly’s (the father) Chicago political machine – vote early & vote often. In my humble opinion, we need positive (usually photographic) identification for many tasks in modern life; voting is an important task that demands positive, fair, unencumbered exercise by each individual citizen. What is even more tragic in this voter ID kerfuffle is the reporting of the New York Times, which used two examples of voters who were alienated by the identification requirement, implying they were part of the legal action cited above and thus examples of why voter identification is bad. After reading both rulings, I did a text search for any version of the two cases cited by the Times – any guesses – nothing, nada, niente. My only conclusion, the Times seeks to enflame the political emotions rather than properly inform their readership. A goodly portion of my voting has been by absentee-ballot since I was often out of the country, on a road-trip, or otherwise unable to vote at my precinct polling station. Further, my mother is a good contrarian example to those cited in the Rokita case or by the New York Times; she has failing eyesight and reduced mobility, and yet she obtained a state photographic identification card (since she can no longer drive). She used to vote at a polling station, although never had to produce a photographic ID. For her, voting at the polling station has become an arduous task, so now, I help her complete the ballot before she signs it and mails it. Her condition is certainly worse than those cited, which leads me to believe this situation is political parochialism at its very worst. I do not want to make this discussion anymore parochial and politically biased than it already is, however, it sure does seem that the Democrats and their supporters inherently distrust government poll workers and unequivocally trust individual citizens – of course no citizen would attempt to fraudulently vote. We can only hope the Supremes affirm Crawford and thus affirm Rokita, so we can move on to proper, fair, accurate elections.

Comments and contributions from Update no.317:
"I must give my wife credit for this observation, but I need to share as I find it quite disconcerting myself. Has anyone else even recognized Bill's commentary during the campaign or press stops which always start out with "I..."? Who really is running for office?"
My reply:
I was not as observant as your wife. I’d say she was spot on the money. Good on her.

Another contribution:
"You need not worry about having to promote heroin for kids in vending machines to be a libertarian. James Taranto needs a lesson in defining a libertarian or perhaps he was just taking journalistic license. Describing a true libertarian as one type in favor of heroin in vending machines for kids is ridiculous and ignorant. I know of no libertarians who would advocate children buying heroin from a vending machine. His analogy is like saying to be a true democrat one must be a far left Marxist or to be a true republican one must be a far right radical evangelical Christian. Libertarians come in different sizes too. While I do not belong to the libertarian party given I'm a committed independent, I do agree with many of their positions including legalizing and regulating drugs, just as we do in alcohol. To do otherwise is to be a hypocrite keeping the courts full of users, instead of going after real criminals. Libertarians, as noted on their party website (http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml), are socially tolerant, want smaller government, and more freedom. But nowhere can I find any of them promoting radical views such as the heroin in vending machines depicts, even though there may be a few nuts out there that do. More likely most of them are in the John Stossel mold with a healthy dose of common sense. To say otherwise makes for an interesting WSJ article, but also promotes 'never let the truth stand in the say of a good story.'"
My response:
I used that Taranto quote for several reasons: 1.) to show how ludicrous and extreme some pundits can be, and 2.) to raise the issue of legalizing drugs again.
I can’t imagine any rational, caring, human being supporting such a radical notion as heroin vending machines accessible by children. As you note, it is like suggesting all Democrats are radical, theoretical Communists. I remain convinced, perhaps naively so, that the vast majority of American citizens populate the political middle, and yet, we have allowed parochial party politics to dominate the electoral and governance processes. Until the vast body of American moderates have demonstrated their dissatisfaction and rejection of parochial party politics, this kind of nonsense will not likely change. We need a transcendent leader to unify the Nation; I do not see that leader on detectable horizon.
I share many libertarian views: smaller, less intrusive government, greater freedom and commensurate personal accountability, and recognition of a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice.
Given the performance of ALL the candidates to date, we are not likely to realize libertarian objectives anytime soon. Ron Paul is the closest, but frankly, he reminds me more of a quirky, eccentric scientist than a legitimate national leader; I like some of the things he espouses, but he is no more trustworthy than any of the rest of them.
I truly, sincerely and genuinely believe legalization of drugs would improve our crime situation, reduce the prison population, and improve our general culture and society. Sure, there will be abusers, but history and experience with other intoxicants indicate they will be a miniscule minority that can be properly dealt with. Our current state has not worked, will not work, and can never be successful as long as the State places itself above the individual. We seem to have forgotten that We, the People, created this Grand Republic. Drug use like alcohol is a broadly self-limiting phenomenon.
. . . and this follow-up comment:
"Well said and agreed. Our cupboard of leaders is bare this time and has been going downhill for some years due to partisan backbiting. I'm interested in the meeting in Norman, OK, where supposed nonpartisan talks are going on. We'll see if any meaningful results can be promoted beyond posturing and sniping.
"And, the legalization of drugs is a must for us to get past being hypocrites and set about managing it. Only then will we have a chance to combat it effectively."

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

07 January 2008

Update no.317

Update from the Heartland
No.317
31.12.07 – 6.1.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The accused traitor Adam Yahiye Gadahn (AKA Azzam the American and Adam Pearlman) [253] starred in another enemy video issued on Sunday. The al-Qaeda mouthpiece called for fighters to bomb President Bush during his pending visit to Israel and the Palestinian territory. I look forward with eager anticipation when Gadahn meets his fate.

An Iowa resident interviewed prior to the caucuses Thursday night said, “I have a problem voting for someone of the Mormon faith” – no mention of leadership, diplomacy, strength, organizational skills, or comprehension of contemporary issues. For this person, a candidate’s religion is the deciding factor. And the really sad part is, she is not alone. I could launch into a diatribe, but you have heard it all before. Let it suffice to say, the simple statement represents precisely why religion and politics do not and cannot mix – a tragic statement on the condition of this Grand Republic’s citizenry. Mark my words, one day we will view the political meddling of evangelical Christian preachers for what it really is, religious megalomania – no different from the violent form espoused by the mad mullahs of radical, fundamentalist Islam. To me, a “wall of separation between church and state” is a reinforced, concrete and steel, impenetrable barrier miles thick, and that Iowa citizen noted above and her brethren are precisely the reason why. As much as I despite anyone and especially the government penetrating my privacy, likewise I resent someone else’s privacy contaminating my public. Religion is a private matter, between each of us and God; it does not belong in public, secular, political affairs.

In James Taranto’s Best of the Web Today for 26.December.2007, and specifically his article “Phony Libertarian,” about Republican presidential candidate, Representative Ron Paul of Texas, he wrote, “As the old joke goes, if you want to find out if someone's really a libertarian, ask him: Do you think children should be allowed to buy heroin from vending machines? A real libertarian will answer: Only if the vending machines are privately owned.” To my knowledge, the question has not been put to Ron Paul, yet. Nonetheless, Taranto’s joke question does raise a legitimate public question. Are there boundaries to freedom? If so, where do those boundaries lay? Whether we like it, children are not citizens; they are the wards of their parents; they have limited rights derived from their parents. Neither the State, nor capitalist business, nor any other citizen, has the right to decide such issues for parents -- a vending machine has no controls, restrictions or constraints. And, the State has an obligation to protect the rights of every parent. Conversely, parents have an obligation to society . . . to teach their children about life and give them the skills to deal with the realities of modern life. Protecting or insulating children from reality does little to that end and rather ensures they are ill-prepared by neglect to make proper, informed choices. As I have argued in this humble forum, we have allowed government to penetrate too far beyond the front door and too deeply into our fundamental right to privacy and our freedom of choice. I have advocated and continue to advocate for repeal the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (PL 91-513) [197, et al], and for regulation of production, distribution and sale of psychotropic substances, just as we do for alcohol, tobacco, and over-the-counter cold medications; somehow, we must find the courage to eliminate the criminal sub-culture associated with drug production and smuggling just as we did in 1930’s regarding alcohol. There are limits to personal freedom, as there should be. Our freedom of choice must not infringe upon another citizen’s freedom of choice or cause injury. Our freedom of speech does not protect causing unjustified harm with our words. Similarly, enforcement of sale restrictions of alcohol, tobacco, heroin, et al, is warranted and required to preserve access by adults making a free choice while protecting the parents’ responsibility to educate and mature their children properly. Thus, my answer to Taranto’s joke question is NO, and thus, I am NOT a real libertarian. And, if the criterion is valid, I shall not vote for a Libertarian – freedom gone too far.

This paragraph simply notes the filing of a law suit by 16 states against the Federal government, namely the Environmental Protection Agency, over waivers to the Clean Air Act of 1970 [PL 91-604], allowing state's to set more stringent carbon dioxide emission standards. The 16 states party to the suit are: California, Massachusetts, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. I am still trying to figure out the Federal government's position beyond the obvious demonstration and exercise of power. The kerfuffle appears to be some lame attempt at maintaining dominance, kinda like a school-yard bully. This is going to be another interesting case to watch.

I recognize and acknowledge that I am a feeble, lone voice in a powerful wind regarding equal rights for all citizens, but along come Press articles probably designed to stir up folks like me.
“Same-Sex Divorce Challenges the Legal System -- Most States Lack Law, Precedent To Settle Issues”
by Dafna Linzer
Washington Post
Wednesday, January 2, 2008; page A03
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W0RH01610315E059C0E3937168C750
Additionally, I must acknowledge that most folks who read this humble journal and probably a greater number in the population at large do not care about or want to hear about a small portion of our citizenry who are denied equal rights and privileges simply because they seek their Pursuit of Happiness on a different path from what the majority thinks of as normal or acceptable. The solution is actually quite simple – treat everyone equally. I continue to struggle with understanding why that simple concept is so hard to comprehend.

Comments and contributions from Update no.316:
"As usual a well written piece. You have a good grasp of English...considering it's not you native tongue! How that for a piece of 'colonialist thinking'! (No insult intended.)
"'The gates of freedom remain open.'
"For the people of your republic and us British the price is high, however, we must maintain our vigilance and drive the wolves from the front door.”
My reply:
The price of freedom is indeed high, but the alternative is unconscionable and unacceptable.

Another contribution:
“Neat those Marines could all be home.
“I agree that the importance of a good stable family cannot be overemphasized when it comes to raising kids.
“The Bhutto business is a long way from over. No telling what will happen now, or where.”
My response:
Always nice to see families committed to this Grand Republic.
Stable families come in many forms.
Indeed. The fallout from the Bhutto assassination is a long way from over.

Another contribution in a continuing thread from the F-15 item last week:
I flew the F-4 in the USMC and later in the ANG over the course of 20+ years. I spent some fun years as an adversary pilot in the Corps and have air-to-air, close air support (CAS), and many years recce flying as well all in the same aircraft. Over those decades we had several serious structural failures and managed to fix them. I remember one nasty one in the early 70s concerning a critical structural part. On one sad day, my squadron lost a great pilot, outstanding Marine, father, and husband when he crashed on takeoff due to this failed structure. All Phantoms had to be inspected and many were found to be failed. It took some time, but we fixed them and flew another day. The moral of the story is that the F-15 will fly again and will have more failures as well given its age. In effect, to make so few F-22 Raptors will lead that community to ruin. Or, the USAF can wise up and develop a better argument. Figther/attack aircraft must have multi-mission capability in the 21st century and the Raptor would receive more support if it had a stronger multi-role mission. The USAF argument is the F-35 will fill the CAS bill. As long as they hold on to that specialized stance, the slope is slippery to get many more Raptors authorized regardless of their current posturing on the latest F-15 structural issues. They should put together the best argument for congress on the air-to-mud and recce capabilities of the Raptor and make sure it has them and the pilots are trained to do them. We produced over 5,000 F-4 Phantoms and got our money's worth. The same is true of the F-16 and F-18. The F-14 was plagued with limited close air support capability until late in its life, which partially accounts for why we don't see them anymore. Being a fighter pilot I was certainly air-to-air focused and wish I could turn back the clock and do it again. Regardless, as a Marine aviator I am more cognizant of the need for multi-role fighter aircraft in this century. We have the technology to do it. Time to demonstrate we have the will to do it as well. Let's hope the USAF can pull it off and our nation gets the best bang for the buck.
My reply:
Understood and well said.
I was an attack helo pilot, and spent a good portion of my air support time controlling CAS & artillery missions for the grunts. I've worked CAS missions with assets from the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. There was never a doubt who put bombs closer to the target, and I don't say that because I am biased . . . just facts. Even among the Marines, you could tell the guys who took the task of bombs-on-target seriously, and I go back to the iron sight days . . . none of today's fall-line and pickle cue computations. I've controlled all the Marine assets in the day; F-4's, A-6's, A-4's, AV-8's and OV-10's . . . as well as other Cobras. No offense, but the worst of the Marine bunch were the F-4 jocks; it was like they didn't care where the bombs went, and they had a GIB to help out. The best were the AV-8 guys; they lived with us. Their airplanes were parked next to ours; they slept in same tents, ate the same cold food, and took the mission briefs with us. More importantly, they debriefed with us. They worked hard to put bangers where we wanted them. They got down in the weeds with us. It was quite rare to have an AV-8 driver get a BDA of 0. When the A-4M entered service, the Scooter guys caught up with the AV-8 blokes. The point of this little exposé, the key from my experience and perspective seems to be practice; the guys who spent the most time, in a wide variety of environmental conditions, in close proximity to friendly troops, were generally the best at the CAS mission. I heard stories (I cannot confirm) that grunts on the ground or AFACs back in our war, refused USAF F-4's; they saw them as a greater threat than the enemy around them. I did not have a lot of experience with Air Force pilots in CAS missions, but the ones I had (F-4 & A-7) were embarrassing and would tend to validate the stories.
Anyway, "that's just my opinion, but I could be wrong."
. . . round two:
No offense taken Marine. But, know that the Marine F-4 had a fixed sight that the RIO did not see nor did he hit the pickle button. I can assure you that in my squadron time, we took CAS as serious as all of it. But, I will admit that a good close in air-to-air furball dogfight was like putting the knife in your teeth and swinging the rope over to the other ship and fighting like a leatherneck.
. . . my reply to round two:
Understood. I know there must have been a few good Marine F-4 CAS pilots. Unfortunately, I never experienced one. On the flip side, fortunately, modern technology has given the F/A-18 and AV-8B (and I am certain every other aircraft with a CAS mission) impressive HUD displayed information like bomb-fall-lines, bullet stream, and Constant Computed Impact Point (CCIP) along with such flight info at thrust vector and in some cases terrain cues. Of the friendly fire incidents involving fixed wing aircraft I know about, all have been Air Force pilots; probably not fair, but that is what I’m aware of. And, no, the GIB did not have the pickle button, but he was an extra set of eyes.
I was never a fighter pilot. In my aviation youth, I learned ACM principles from an attack pilot with some F-8 fighter time who made the transition to attack helos. I took those early lessons and contributed to the expansion of attack helo capability into the ATA roll including a big Army test at Pax River -- helo v. helo ACM. Great experience.
. . . and round three:
Helo to helo ACM sounds like fun. And yes, there were many good F-4 CAS pilots as I've been witness to as well as told by the guys on the ground despite having no CAS cockpit platform to speak of in the USMC version. Any precision was due to flying without gizmos. Sorry you did not see any. When the Harrier was purchased, I was offered the opportunity to join the workup for the 1st squadron and transition as were many F-4 drivers at the time. Of course, the F-14 had not been cancelled yet and I held out for that one, but it was not to be. The RIOs were always valuable for another set of eyes all the time, but really in their element in ACM and intercepts. I flew with a few of the best ever. It was difficult for them in dive bombing given they could not see the target nor had little control over what was happening, except for a few who could tweek an AWG-10 mapping mode in the F-4J. Regardless, a good RIO was a comfort level I won't ever forget in CAS, ACM, and recce (especially recce given the close proximity of the ground at 100' keeping the pilot busy trying not to run into anything at high speed and high G at very low altitude). I had plenty of experience prior to entering the recce mission with the ANG but still had to learn how to maneuver high-G, high-speed, at 100' in steps. It was not an easy mission, particularly at night. Once again we did not have the fancy gizmos that the F-111 and current jets have, but got that job done pretty well under the circumstances, including the Gulf War. We acquitted ourselves well there, but silently without fanfare.
. . . with my reply to round three:
Hey, we all takes our chances . . . . The F-14 was a hellava machine, but not for the Marine Corps.
Helo ACM was hard-work in a different but similar way. I've flown a bunch of helo v. fixed wing ACM as well. Maneuverability & weapons were critical.
I know the F-4 had iron sights, similar to the A-4 & A-7 (until the A-4M & A-7E). I think we had the same basic sight in the AH-1J. Once you got used to using it and practiced enough, we got pretty good with it; we really only used it for rockets, fixed gun, or with a gun pod when we used 'em. We dropped bombs on a quasi-dead-reckoning basis. Our chin gun was usually used with a mechanical sighting system in the front seat. Systems today are dramatically different. And yet, there is a huge difference between dropping a bomb on a bridge versus a non-descript-spot-on-the-ground. With all the system enhancements they have today, they still get it wrong.

Another contribution:
“Pakistan is certainly a bubbling cauldron. The worst-case scenario is the Islamofacists taking over, then low and behold they've got nuclear weapons. Then there's India across the border, and they certainly won't feel comfortable living next door to NWN -- "Nuts With Nukes." God help us all if that becomes reality.
“As to the Congressional resolution stating support for Christians, I think it's a shame we've gotten to the point where a government body has to come out with a statement like that . . . which to me is essentially meaningless since it won't change the minds of groups who actively try to push Christianity from public view. I, quite frankly, have lost all patience with groups like the ACLU and other people and organizations who make a federal case (many times literally) over a girl showing up to school wearing a cross around her neck or over a school calendar that *gasp* actually has the words Christmas Break on it. How that is offending non-Christians or showing intolerance is behind me. When I was in elementary school during Christmas time we sang Christmas carols, and I even remember singing a couple of Hanukah songs. I never once felt that singing "Hi Ho For Hanukah" was meant to convert me from Catholicism to Judaism. I guess some people are just mushspines who wait around to be offended by the stupidest things.
“Maybe Congress should have come up with a simpler meaningless resolution, something along the lines of, ‘Unless someone is pushing their religion down your throat, chillax! And no, saying ‘Merry Christmas’ does not constitute pushing a religion.’”
My response:
I think you hit the nail squarely regarding Pakistan. We need to remain attentive and vigilant.
Sadly, there is a politically influential, evangelical, Christian Right, who are determine to impose their values, their beliefs, their agenda upon all Americans, in the name of recognizing the Christian heritage of the United States. I lived and worked in Italy for two years. The dominance of the Roman Catholic Church within Italy is nearly total. Numerous Roman Catholic religious remembrance dates are celebrated as national holidays; paid time off for workers. I never felt imposed upon or offended, although I did not celebrate some of the “saint” days. Every single American citizen is entitled to their personal choice of religious belief and practice. All of my brothers in arms served this Grand Republic to protect that right to religious freedom for everyone regardless of their beliefs or lack of belief. Part of the rebellion of the evangelical, Christian, uber-Right seems to be a backlash against the ravages of “political correctness” gone wild. If so, let’s have the public debate about the insanity of political correctness rather than pass silly, dangerous resolutions like H.Res.847, and laws attempting to impose Christian standards upon every citizen. Let us focus on the real issues of public conduct rather than using religion as a political instrument that affects private choices and conduct.

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