Update from the Heartland
No.337
19.5.08 – 25.5.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.337
19.5.08 – 25.5.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Memorial Day . . . a day to remember our fallen patriots. God bless them all.
Our oldest grandchild Aspen Shae is on a grand adventure to New York City. The primary purpose of the trip was to participate in the Museum of Natural History’s overnight lock-in, made famous by the movie “Night at the Museum” (2006), starring Ben Stiller. They also took a carriage ride through Central Park, visited Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum and FAO Schwartz (from the movie “Big” (1988), starring Tom Hanks), and rode a double-decker bus around parts of the city. On Sunday, they attended the Broadway show “The Lion King.” She commented on how light it is there at night because of all the signs and tall buildings. Aspen is due back home Wednesday. We are all eagerly awaiting the stories and pictures.
I am the master of my domain, the king of my castle, and to demonstrate the veracity of these claims, I came home Friday night after a full day of work to our granddaughter Shalee Lynn and a new puppy. I begged Jeanne NOT to get a third dog and especially a puppy, but there she was . . . a 9-week-old, female, Rottweiler puppy. Oh yeah, I’m da man! Her name is, Abby Rose, and I will love her as I have loved all the others.
The follow-up news items:
-- One positive aspect to this particular silly season . . . public scrutiny is flushing out quite a number Christian clerics with a penchant for bigotry, intolerance, and outright hatred against those not in their flock, or who do not believe as they believe, or who do not subscribe to the notion of an angry, vengeful God. As Justice Brandeis said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.” So, let us all shine a bright light on the bigots among us, and especially those who hide behind the trappings of the clergy. Bigotry is bigotry.
-- On Thursday, the Texas State, 3rd District, Court of Appeals, at Austin, issued a scathing opinion in the case of In re Sara Steed [TX 3CA, no. 03-08-00235-CV (2008)] – the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), polygamy, child-abuse case [332]. The striking fact of the nine-page ruling was the repeated use of the words “no evidence” – nine times! The court was clearly not happy with the conduct of the police, the prosecutor, or the district court judge. Chief Justice W. Kenneth Law noted for the three sitting justices, “We find that the Department [of Family and Protective Services] did not carry its burden of proof” under the law, and that the district court “abused its discretion in failing to return the children” to their parents. I suspect this case is far from decided. The State of Texas will most likely appeal to the state supreme court, and if that ruling is insufficient, may well appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is unclear whether some or all of the children will be reunited with their parents; the appeals court clearly thinks they should be until sufficient, specific, individual evidence can be legally obtained and presented to justify the abuse charges. The court noted that 468 individuals were removed from the FLDS compound; of those, five had become pregnant between ages 15 to 17. All of this trauma because of an anonymous accusatory telephone call from a presumed, teenage female, alleging sexual abuse; the court noted the fact. The issue for me is not whether we agree with or condone polygamy, but rather that the State exceeded its authority and acted in a harsh manner. The case is a long way from its conclusion.
Some uber-Right talking head asked, “Is Obama Muslim?” Such ludicrous queries are foolish for a myriad of reasons, for Obama just as they were for former governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney [320]. I find the whole notion of religion being injected into the political process about as nauseating as a decaying corpse. I don’t care! I don’t care whether he’s Christian, Muslim, Jew, Mormon, Hindu or Buddhist! His religion or lack of same is his business and his alone. There is no legitimate, proper or reasonable basis to even ask such a foolish question. If this is the line of silly season scare tactics . . . well actually I don’t care about that either. If this is how Christian Americans seek to influence the political process, by creating doubt in the feeble minds of their mindless ‘believers,’ then they shall not enjoy my support. This whole Obama = Muslim is the most revolting political crap since Lyndon Johnson’s ‘Barry Goldwater = nuclear holocaust,’ one-hit wonder ad campaign that the Press played incessantly. I’m angry as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore.
Some folks have taken to calling John McCain -- McBush or Bush III -- in their mindless, parochial, political nonsense, trying to attach W's very low popular support to the presumed Republican nominee. People who say such things have not the slightest notion of John McCain. Further, while I'm on a silly season role, we have everyone touting Barack Obama’s defense of his wife on Good Morning America. I have a very simple, direct, succinct statement. If you put your wife or your children out on the stump campaigning, then they are fair game for ANY statements they make, period. There is no safe-square or get-out-of-jail-free card. The remainder of this silly season is going to get really crazy . . . that's a technical term.
On Wednesday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an interesting ruling – Witt v. Air Force [9CCA no. 06-35644 (2008); D.C. no. CV-06-05195-RBL]. Major Margaret Witt, USAFR, was honorably discharged for homosexual conduct. Circuit Judge Ronald Murray Gould, writing for a 2-1 majority, vacated the district court judgment and remanded the case for detailed judicial scrutiny. The law in question is the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 [PL 103-160; H.R.2401; 10 U.S.C. §654] [312]. Gould said, “We hold that when the government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals, in a manner that implicates the rights identified in Lawrence {v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003); no. 02-102]} the government must advance an important governmental interest, the intrusion must significantly further that interest, and the intrusion must be necessary to further that interest.” Curiously, the dissent, Circuit Judge William C. Canby, Jr., believed the court did not go far enough in demanding the government demonstrate the compelling interest sufficient to justify the intrusion into Major Witt’s private life. I suspect this case may eventually reach the bar of the Supreme Court.
Then, we have dueling Op-Ed articles:
“Democrats and Our Enemies”
by Joseph Lieberman
Wall Street Journal
Published: May 21, 2008; Page A19
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121132806884008847.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
and
“Republicans and Our Enemies”
by Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Wall Street Journal
Published: May 23, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121150000249615875.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Former Democratic vice presidential candidate (2000), now de facto Independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut offered his opinion, only to be rebutted by former Democratic presidential candidate (2008), Senator Joe Biden of Delaware – interesting perspectives.
The Wall Street Journal was on a roll this week.
“Does the Libertarian Party Matter?”
by Bruce Bartlett
Wall Street Journal
Published: May 22, 2008; Page A13
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121141302518112431.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
A follow-on article to last week’s item:
“Mexico: Examining Cartel War Violence Through a Protective Intelligence Lens”
by Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: May 14, 2008; 01:29 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/mexico_applying_protective_intelligence_lens_cartel_war_violence
The California Supreme Court decision In re Marriage Cases [Six consolidated appeals] [CA SC S147999 (2008)] [336] continues to produce serious disturbances in the Force. A few more thoughts on this ruling . . .
-- If marriage law is about a family unit headed by a woman and a man, then why is divorce legal? If a marriage is about raising children, then why are contraceptive devices and substances, and abortion legal? If marriage is about producing children, why don’t we have a law requiring married couples create the requisite parity 2.2 children? The opponents hold such a weak argument to continue discrimination against the freedom of choice and fundamental right to privacy of other citizens who do not make the same or similar choices as them.
-- I wonder if those who truly believe that allowing homosexual couples to enjoy the full rights and privileges of marriage under the law devalues all marriages, might also feel that a family with dark skin pigmentation moving in next door to them devalues their home. Let us call this what it is.
--- Some view anything other than heterosexuality a hedonistic choice; and, a subset of those who believe sex for any reason other than adult procreation is sinful. The simple, direct fact is, whether genetic, hereditary or hedonistic choice, sexuality is a private matter within the heart & soul of each and every individual citizen, and thus should be beyond any legitimate interest of the State. The nomenclature or title was one of the essential argument points in the Marriage Cases ruling, i.e., if heterosexual couples are ‘married,’ and homosexual couples are ‘domestic partners,’ then the title alone publicly illuminates what should be a private attribute.
-- The decision did not cite Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka [347 U.S. 483 (1954)], but they clearly stated that “separate but equal is inherently unequal.”
-- The study of the law, the reasoning, and the writing in this case illuminates the criticality of judicial perspective. The California Supreme Court chose to see the law from the People's perspective. The defendants [status quo ante] encouraged the Court to recognize the "will of the majority." The argument basis represents the central issue at play here . . . does the majority have a right to impose its will beyond the public domain, or in other words, when does the public have a right to intrude upon an individual citizen's fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice within his private domain?
-- A quote from In re Marriage Cases: “[I]t is irrelevant that the voters rather than a legislative body enacted [the challenged law], because the voters may no more violate the Constitution by enacting a ballot measure than a legislative body may do so by enacting legislation” -- Chief Justice Warren Burger, Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley [454 U.S. 290 (1981)].
-- Here is another relevant quotation from In re Marriage Cases: “There is a reason why the words “Equal Justice Under Law” are inscribed above the entrance to the courthouse of the United States Supreme Court” -- Associate Justice Joyce Luther Kennard concurring.
-- The essential question is not whether we agree with or consent to a marriage of same-gender individual citizens, but rather than whether the nature of such a relationship constitutes a public or State interest, and if so, is that State interest sufficiently important to allow dictation of the content of that relationship? I have yet to see a rationale that justifies the State dictating the content and conduct of my marriage, your marriage, or any citizen’s marriage. In my humble opinion, our debate should focus upon the proper State interest regarding any marriage and where the boundaries to that intrusion lay. Regrettably, we are still embroiled in the emotions of dissatisfaction with the choices of others, rather than proper State interests in private relationships.
-- It would seem even judges are polarized by their biases toward the law – surprise, surprise! If we view the Constitution as all-inclusive and thus nothing exists beyond its words, we see the law through a strict-constructionist lens. If we view the Constitution as certain enumerated authorities delegated by We, the People, to the Federal or state governments, then we see the citizen as possessive of fundamental rights beyond the Constitution. If we see marriage as religion’s or society’s consent, then we see marriage in sanctified terms. If we see marriage as a public contract establishing a private relationship, then leave it to individuals to define the rules of that relationship as they freely choose.
-- The dissent argues that traditional marriage should be preserved in deference to the State's prevailing interest in the institution. The strange and unusual fact is the dissent sees no need to articulate the elements of the State's interest, as if they are inherent in life, like the Sun rising in the east. The failure to define the State's interest does serious disservice to their argument and the public debate. Lacking a clear and reasonable definition of the State's interests, I side with the individual citizen.
Comments and contributions from Update no.335:
“You are wrong about the Federal Government being the only place with the resources to make fusion happen.
Starting A Fusion Program In Your Home Town
based on this:
The World's Simplest Fusion Reactor Revisited
and this:
Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion
“There is an awful lot of work that can be done in the field if it was handled by college kids for labor and their teachers for guidance.
“If you want to actually do something contact me. I will help all I can or put you in contact with others who can help. BTW there is one college in America that has actually done something and another that is starting.”
[NOTE: I offer Mr. Simon’s comment as information to all those who may be interested. My comments in Update no.335 were not meant to imply the Federal government was the only entity capable of conducting research into new energy source technologies, but rather that only the Federal government has the capacity to create the necessary infrastructure, and coordinate or sponsor such technological development on the necessary national scale.]
Comments and contributions from Update no.336:
“I presume you are being a bit sarcastic in your first paragraph. Especially, since it turns out that he actually didn't give up the game when he said that he did, having been seen playing on the links since the date of his stated decision to give up the game (the UN HQ in Iraq being bombed and UN official de Mello being killed). He probably gave it up due to knee problems-- the HQ was bombed in August 2003-- his last game was at least October 13, 2003. He had knee problems in 2003 and an MRI later in the year, and has had to give up jogging.”
My reply:
Well, actually, no; I took him at his word, and I thought it was consistent with other gestures of compassion. Another subscriber already laid into me for that item specifically. I’m such a sap.
Another contribution:
“Your comment re BA Flight 38. Latest reports are suggesting frozen fuel due to exceptionally low temperatures over Russia that day. (This might support your cavitation erosion.)
“This bothers me as the situation could/will arise again. Neither Rolls Royce or Boeing are contemplating modifications at this juncture to what is after all a splendidly safe flying machine. Apparently fuel samples have revealed that the fuel was of the highest quality.
“I do remember however alcohol injection into filters that were causing back pressure due to 'thickening' of the fuel. This on the Rolls Royce Avon in the Hawker Hunter. Then again we have the 'fuel cooled oil cooler' common to modern engines this cools the oil and very slightly warms the fuel I assume the Boeing's engines have this unit in the oil systems.
“I feel that neither RR or Boeing can ignore this situation. We shall have to see and I shall watch for developments.”
My response:
The two prevailing hypotheses at the moment are: fuel icing and EMV. I am having a bit of a struggle understanding how fuel system icing would hit both engines the way it did, and why that particular aircraft with so many similar aircraft in service and flying the same conditions, and why on final approach? The EMV hypothesis is a little more worrisome simply because of the implications. If it is the latter, we might see this one go to the dark side, and corrective action taken beyond public view. This is an interesting one. Nonetheless, the pilots did a stellar job getting the disabled airplane inside the perimeter fence, so no one was injured on the ground, and with no fatalities or serious injuries. Magnificent pilotage!
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Magnificent piloting understates this case. I expect you know that the first officer was flying the machine at this point.
“It is a tribute to the training regime and the coolness of the crew that the captain did not wrestle the controls from the FO. I have some contacts in the business and will keep you updated should any newsworthy items sneak out.
“My best wishes, especially in your selection of a new president...this seems to have gone on since Pontius was Pilot!”
. . . and my follow-up response:
Excellent. I always appreciate information from many sources. BA38 does not have the strangeness of TW800. I also believe the root cause will be determined. And, I worry about the investigators or rather the government taking the investigation to the dark side and out of public view. We shall remain attentive.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
Memorial Day . . . a day to remember our fallen patriots. God bless them all.
Our oldest grandchild Aspen Shae is on a grand adventure to New York City. The primary purpose of the trip was to participate in the Museum of Natural History’s overnight lock-in, made famous by the movie “Night at the Museum” (2006), starring Ben Stiller. They also took a carriage ride through Central Park, visited Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum and FAO Schwartz (from the movie “Big” (1988), starring Tom Hanks), and rode a double-decker bus around parts of the city. On Sunday, they attended the Broadway show “The Lion King.” She commented on how light it is there at night because of all the signs and tall buildings. Aspen is due back home Wednesday. We are all eagerly awaiting the stories and pictures.
I am the master of my domain, the king of my castle, and to demonstrate the veracity of these claims, I came home Friday night after a full day of work to our granddaughter Shalee Lynn and a new puppy. I begged Jeanne NOT to get a third dog and especially a puppy, but there she was . . . a 9-week-old, female, Rottweiler puppy. Oh yeah, I’m da man! Her name is, Abby Rose, and I will love her as I have loved all the others.
The follow-up news items:
-- One positive aspect to this particular silly season . . . public scrutiny is flushing out quite a number Christian clerics with a penchant for bigotry, intolerance, and outright hatred against those not in their flock, or who do not believe as they believe, or who do not subscribe to the notion of an angry, vengeful God. As Justice Brandeis said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.” So, let us all shine a bright light on the bigots among us, and especially those who hide behind the trappings of the clergy. Bigotry is bigotry.
-- On Thursday, the Texas State, 3rd District, Court of Appeals, at Austin, issued a scathing opinion in the case of In re Sara Steed [TX 3CA, no. 03-08-00235-CV (2008)] – the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), polygamy, child-abuse case [332]. The striking fact of the nine-page ruling was the repeated use of the words “no evidence” – nine times! The court was clearly not happy with the conduct of the police, the prosecutor, or the district court judge. Chief Justice W. Kenneth Law noted for the three sitting justices, “We find that the Department [of Family and Protective Services] did not carry its burden of proof” under the law, and that the district court “abused its discretion in failing to return the children” to their parents. I suspect this case is far from decided. The State of Texas will most likely appeal to the state supreme court, and if that ruling is insufficient, may well appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is unclear whether some or all of the children will be reunited with their parents; the appeals court clearly thinks they should be until sufficient, specific, individual evidence can be legally obtained and presented to justify the abuse charges. The court noted that 468 individuals were removed from the FLDS compound; of those, five had become pregnant between ages 15 to 17. All of this trauma because of an anonymous accusatory telephone call from a presumed, teenage female, alleging sexual abuse; the court noted the fact. The issue for me is not whether we agree with or condone polygamy, but rather that the State exceeded its authority and acted in a harsh manner. The case is a long way from its conclusion.
Some uber-Right talking head asked, “Is Obama Muslim?” Such ludicrous queries are foolish for a myriad of reasons, for Obama just as they were for former governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney [320]. I find the whole notion of religion being injected into the political process about as nauseating as a decaying corpse. I don’t care! I don’t care whether he’s Christian, Muslim, Jew, Mormon, Hindu or Buddhist! His religion or lack of same is his business and his alone. There is no legitimate, proper or reasonable basis to even ask such a foolish question. If this is the line of silly season scare tactics . . . well actually I don’t care about that either. If this is how Christian Americans seek to influence the political process, by creating doubt in the feeble minds of their mindless ‘believers,’ then they shall not enjoy my support. This whole Obama = Muslim is the most revolting political crap since Lyndon Johnson’s ‘Barry Goldwater = nuclear holocaust,’ one-hit wonder ad campaign that the Press played incessantly. I’m angry as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore.
Some folks have taken to calling John McCain -- McBush or Bush III -- in their mindless, parochial, political nonsense, trying to attach W's very low popular support to the presumed Republican nominee. People who say such things have not the slightest notion of John McCain. Further, while I'm on a silly season role, we have everyone touting Barack Obama’s defense of his wife on Good Morning America. I have a very simple, direct, succinct statement. If you put your wife or your children out on the stump campaigning, then they are fair game for ANY statements they make, period. There is no safe-square or get-out-of-jail-free card. The remainder of this silly season is going to get really crazy . . . that's a technical term.
On Wednesday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an interesting ruling – Witt v. Air Force [9CCA no. 06-35644 (2008); D.C. no. CV-06-05195-RBL]. Major Margaret Witt, USAFR, was honorably discharged for homosexual conduct. Circuit Judge Ronald Murray Gould, writing for a 2-1 majority, vacated the district court judgment and remanded the case for detailed judicial scrutiny. The law in question is the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 [PL 103-160; H.R.2401; 10 U.S.C. §654] [312]. Gould said, “We hold that when the government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals, in a manner that implicates the rights identified in Lawrence {v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003); no. 02-102]} the government must advance an important governmental interest, the intrusion must significantly further that interest, and the intrusion must be necessary to further that interest.” Curiously, the dissent, Circuit Judge William C. Canby, Jr., believed the court did not go far enough in demanding the government demonstrate the compelling interest sufficient to justify the intrusion into Major Witt’s private life. I suspect this case may eventually reach the bar of the Supreme Court.
Then, we have dueling Op-Ed articles:
“Democrats and Our Enemies”
by Joseph Lieberman
Wall Street Journal
Published: May 21, 2008; Page A19
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121132806884008847.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
and
“Republicans and Our Enemies”
by Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Wall Street Journal
Published: May 23, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121150000249615875.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Former Democratic vice presidential candidate (2000), now de facto Independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut offered his opinion, only to be rebutted by former Democratic presidential candidate (2008), Senator Joe Biden of Delaware – interesting perspectives.
The Wall Street Journal was on a roll this week.
“Does the Libertarian Party Matter?”
by Bruce Bartlett
Wall Street Journal
Published: May 22, 2008; Page A13
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121141302518112431.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
A follow-on article to last week’s item:
“Mexico: Examining Cartel War Violence Through a Protective Intelligence Lens”
by Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: May 14, 2008; 01:29 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/mexico_applying_protective_intelligence_lens_cartel_war_violence
The California Supreme Court decision In re Marriage Cases [Six consolidated appeals] [CA SC S147999 (2008)] [336] continues to produce serious disturbances in the Force. A few more thoughts on this ruling . . .
-- If marriage law is about a family unit headed by a woman and a man, then why is divorce legal? If a marriage is about raising children, then why are contraceptive devices and substances, and abortion legal? If marriage is about producing children, why don’t we have a law requiring married couples create the requisite parity 2.2 children? The opponents hold such a weak argument to continue discrimination against the freedom of choice and fundamental right to privacy of other citizens who do not make the same or similar choices as them.
-- I wonder if those who truly believe that allowing homosexual couples to enjoy the full rights and privileges of marriage under the law devalues all marriages, might also feel that a family with dark skin pigmentation moving in next door to them devalues their home. Let us call this what it is.
--- Some view anything other than heterosexuality a hedonistic choice; and, a subset of those who believe sex for any reason other than adult procreation is sinful. The simple, direct fact is, whether genetic, hereditary or hedonistic choice, sexuality is a private matter within the heart & soul of each and every individual citizen, and thus should be beyond any legitimate interest of the State. The nomenclature or title was one of the essential argument points in the Marriage Cases ruling, i.e., if heterosexual couples are ‘married,’ and homosexual couples are ‘domestic partners,’ then the title alone publicly illuminates what should be a private attribute.
-- The decision did not cite Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka [347 U.S. 483 (1954)], but they clearly stated that “separate but equal is inherently unequal.”
-- The study of the law, the reasoning, and the writing in this case illuminates the criticality of judicial perspective. The California Supreme Court chose to see the law from the People's perspective. The defendants [status quo ante] encouraged the Court to recognize the "will of the majority." The argument basis represents the central issue at play here . . . does the majority have a right to impose its will beyond the public domain, or in other words, when does the public have a right to intrude upon an individual citizen's fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice within his private domain?
-- A quote from In re Marriage Cases: “[I]t is irrelevant that the voters rather than a legislative body enacted [the challenged law], because the voters may no more violate the Constitution by enacting a ballot measure than a legislative body may do so by enacting legislation” -- Chief Justice Warren Burger, Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley [454 U.S. 290 (1981)].
-- Here is another relevant quotation from In re Marriage Cases: “There is a reason why the words “Equal Justice Under Law” are inscribed above the entrance to the courthouse of the United States Supreme Court” -- Associate Justice Joyce Luther Kennard concurring.
-- The essential question is not whether we agree with or consent to a marriage of same-gender individual citizens, but rather than whether the nature of such a relationship constitutes a public or State interest, and if so, is that State interest sufficiently important to allow dictation of the content of that relationship? I have yet to see a rationale that justifies the State dictating the content and conduct of my marriage, your marriage, or any citizen’s marriage. In my humble opinion, our debate should focus upon the proper State interest regarding any marriage and where the boundaries to that intrusion lay. Regrettably, we are still embroiled in the emotions of dissatisfaction with the choices of others, rather than proper State interests in private relationships.
-- It would seem even judges are polarized by their biases toward the law – surprise, surprise! If we view the Constitution as all-inclusive and thus nothing exists beyond its words, we see the law through a strict-constructionist lens. If we view the Constitution as certain enumerated authorities delegated by We, the People, to the Federal or state governments, then we see the citizen as possessive of fundamental rights beyond the Constitution. If we see marriage as religion’s or society’s consent, then we see marriage in sanctified terms. If we see marriage as a public contract establishing a private relationship, then leave it to individuals to define the rules of that relationship as they freely choose.
-- The dissent argues that traditional marriage should be preserved in deference to the State's prevailing interest in the institution. The strange and unusual fact is the dissent sees no need to articulate the elements of the State's interest, as if they are inherent in life, like the Sun rising in the east. The failure to define the State's interest does serious disservice to their argument and the public debate. Lacking a clear and reasonable definition of the State's interests, I side with the individual citizen.
Comments and contributions from Update no.335:
“You are wrong about the Federal Government being the only place with the resources to make fusion happen.
Starting A Fusion Program In Your Home Town
based on this:
The World's Simplest Fusion Reactor Revisited
and this:
Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion
“There is an awful lot of work that can be done in the field if it was handled by college kids for labor and their teachers for guidance.
“If you want to actually do something contact me. I will help all I can or put you in contact with others who can help. BTW there is one college in America that has actually done something and another that is starting.”
[NOTE: I offer Mr. Simon’s comment as information to all those who may be interested. My comments in Update no.335 were not meant to imply the Federal government was the only entity capable of conducting research into new energy source technologies, but rather that only the Federal government has the capacity to create the necessary infrastructure, and coordinate or sponsor such technological development on the necessary national scale.]
Comments and contributions from Update no.336:
“I presume you are being a bit sarcastic in your first paragraph. Especially, since it turns out that he actually didn't give up the game when he said that he did, having been seen playing on the links since the date of his stated decision to give up the game (the UN HQ in Iraq being bombed and UN official de Mello being killed). He probably gave it up due to knee problems-- the HQ was bombed in August 2003-- his last game was at least October 13, 2003. He had knee problems in 2003 and an MRI later in the year, and has had to give up jogging.”
My reply:
Well, actually, no; I took him at his word, and I thought it was consistent with other gestures of compassion. Another subscriber already laid into me for that item specifically. I’m such a sap.
Another contribution:
“Your comment re BA Flight 38. Latest reports are suggesting frozen fuel due to exceptionally low temperatures over Russia that day. (This might support your cavitation erosion.)
“This bothers me as the situation could/will arise again. Neither Rolls Royce or Boeing are contemplating modifications at this juncture to what is after all a splendidly safe flying machine. Apparently fuel samples have revealed that the fuel was of the highest quality.
“I do remember however alcohol injection into filters that were causing back pressure due to 'thickening' of the fuel. This on the Rolls Royce Avon in the Hawker Hunter. Then again we have the 'fuel cooled oil cooler' common to modern engines this cools the oil and very slightly warms the fuel I assume the Boeing's engines have this unit in the oil systems.
“I feel that neither RR or Boeing can ignore this situation. We shall have to see and I shall watch for developments.”
My response:
The two prevailing hypotheses at the moment are: fuel icing and EMV. I am having a bit of a struggle understanding how fuel system icing would hit both engines the way it did, and why that particular aircraft with so many similar aircraft in service and flying the same conditions, and why on final approach? The EMV hypothesis is a little more worrisome simply because of the implications. If it is the latter, we might see this one go to the dark side, and corrective action taken beyond public view. This is an interesting one. Nonetheless, the pilots did a stellar job getting the disabled airplane inside the perimeter fence, so no one was injured on the ground, and with no fatalities or serious injuries. Magnificent pilotage!
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Magnificent piloting understates this case. I expect you know that the first officer was flying the machine at this point.
“It is a tribute to the training regime and the coolness of the crew that the captain did not wrestle the controls from the FO. I have some contacts in the business and will keep you updated should any newsworthy items sneak out.
“My best wishes, especially in your selection of a new president...this seems to have gone on since Pontius was Pilot!”
. . . and my follow-up response:
Excellent. I always appreciate information from many sources. BA38 does not have the strangeness of TW800. I also believe the root cause will be determined. And, I worry about the investigators or rather the government taking the investigation to the dark side and out of public view. We shall remain attentive.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment