28 August 2008

Update no.349A

Update from the Heartland
No.349A
28.8.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
This special edition Update deals solely with Dignity in Death. If you do not want to think about or discuss this topic, please do not read farther. I imagine my words will be upsetting or even offensive to some who participate in this open forum, and for that, I am truly sorry. My intent is not to make anyone uncomfortable but only to encourage everyone to think. I share these particular words simply because I believe the law should change . . . for you, for me, for all of us, who shall reach the same point in our lives. I ask that you read my words, argue with me as you wish, and think about the issues involved. For those so inclined, I invite you to use my words however you may desire. I have chosen to petition my state government representatives, as it is state law that must change. You are free to use whatever finds resonance with you and tailor your statement to friends, to the Press, or to your state government as you see fit. The bottom line for me remains . . . it is time to change the law.

AN OPEN LETTER TO:
Governor Kathleen Sebelius
Senator Peggy Palmer
Representative Ty Masterson
Wichita Eagle

Simply and succinctly, I promised my recently deceased Mother I would do my best to seek change to the law, so that others might not suffer what she endured during her end of days. I ask for your support and advocacy for a refinement to the law, allowing a return of dignity and freedom to all citizens, including you and me, who will eventually face what my mother ‘endured.’
Life is terminal for every single one of us, no matter the station, net worth, political affiliation, religion, or social condition. The only remaining questions in each of our lives are when and how. We do not have a choice about our birth. Fortunately, as American citizens, we retain most of the Liberty that our forefathers sacrificed so much to establish from the oppression of the Crown. For the most part, we enjoy the Freedom to choose how we wish to live our lives, in our individual and personal pursuit of Happiness. Yet, for a myriad of perhaps well-intentioned reasons, the State has imposed its will, intruded upon our most private affairs, denied our choices for dignity in death, and We, the People, have acquiesced to these intrusions.
Kansas law appears quite clear. KSA Chap. 21 § 3406 establishes the criminality of assisted suicide, and KSA Chap. 60 § 4401 et al envelopes those peripheral citizens who might be involved in the defined felonious conduct. The Kansas statues are broad and all encompassing, and also quite indiscriminate. I seek finite, specific, limited and restricted modification of the existing law. To that end, perhaps we can learn from other states.
On 8.November.1994, the residents of Oregon passed Ballot Measure 16, which established the Oregon Death with Dignity Act (ODWDA) [ORS 127.800 – 995]. A voter initiative to repeal the new law failed the following year. The Bush Administration challenged the Oregon law before the Supreme Court in 2006. In Gonzales v. Oregon [546 U.S. 243 (2006); no. 04-623] [215], the United States Supreme Court fell short of an affirmation of the ODWDA law, when a 6-3 majority rejected the Federal Government’s invocation of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA) [PL 91-513] in an attempt to suppress the will of the People of Oregon. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the Court’s plurality, concluded, “The Government, in the end, maintains that the prescription requirement delegates to a single Executive officer the power to effect a radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal Government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality. The text and structure of the CSA show that Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance and the congressional role in maintaining it” – in essence, the states must decide without interference of the Federal government.
In Washington v. Glucksberg, [521 U.S. 702 (1997); no. 96-110] [304], the Court acknowledged the State’s interests with respect to the end of life question, including:
-- “prohibiting intentional killing and preserving human life;
-- “preventing the serious public health problem of suicide, especially among the young, the elderly, and those suffering from untreated pain or from depression or other mental disorders;
-- “protecting the medical profession's integrity and ethics and maintaining physicians' role as their patients' healers;
-- “protecting the poor, the elderly, disabled persons, the terminally ill, and persons in other vulnerable groups from indifference, prejudice, and psychological and financial pressure to end their lives; and avoiding a possible slide towards voluntary and perhaps even involuntary euthanasia.”
The growing body of law regarding the end of life issue including the cases cited above as well as Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health [497 U.S. 261 (1990); no. 88-1503] and Vacco v. Quill [521 U.S. 793 (1997); no. 95-1858] can be distilled down to a common denominator beyond Due Process, Equal Protection and other points of law. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has resisted passing judgment on the root question and explicitly stated in every case, while dealing with the particular constitutional arguments, that the issue of end-of-life, physician-assisted, death with dignity laws are a matter for the states to address via the legislative process, and the Constitution has room for this public intercourse.
It is in the context of the Court’s various related rulings that I have taken the liberty to include the text of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act as well as an Oregon State summary of their experience with the ODWDA (1998-2006).

http://oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/index.shtml.
I think you can readily see the extraordinary care, protection and precision incorporated into the ODWDA. Further, the Oregon law directly addresses the State’s proper interests as outlined by the Court in Glucksberg. The fact that the Oregon Court chose to address only the Government’s use of the CSA against the ODWDA without judging the validity of the law at question, strongly suggests the Court’s desire for the public debate to continue regarding Death with Dignity laws and for the answers to be achieved via legislative rather than judicial action. Thus, I seek your support for the proper legislative process to modify the existing law.
Senator Sam Brownback’s aversion to and legislative efforts against specifically the ODWDA as well as all other state efforts is well known. I laud his passion and concern for each and every life. Yet, among his words, I cannot find a logical rationale for imposing the State’s will upon the most private affairs of every citizen. Taking the lofty moral ground that all life is precious carries the air of moral superiority and universal, sanctimonious omniscience. Such dictum ignores a horrific reality.
The Kansas congressional delegation voted for Federal Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997 [PL 105-12], to prevent the expenditure of public funds on any activity related to assisted suicide, which includes and encompasses Death with Dignity laws like ODWDA. I would strongly encourage any subsequent, related, state legislation include a comparable prohibition on the use of public funds for such activities. Death with Dignity is a very personal, private action, and most definitely not a matter of public interest beyond the protection of individual rights.
I recognize and acknowledge the religious basis for our laws regarding suicide. Our cherishment of life has always been and will always be a hallmark of this Grand Republic. Further, I acknowledge the State’s interest in protecting the life of every citizen. I do not seek alteration of those protective laws, other than to segregate a very narrow, distinct and unique portion of those laws with only one purpose – allow every citizen the dignity to end their days by their free choice within defined constraints, at the time and manner of their choosing. As with all choice, those like Sam Brownback can and will freely choose to endure the rigors of a slow and lingering death. However, as in Oregon, some small number of citizens will choose to end their days in a dignified, respectful way. And, judging from Oregon’s experience with the ODWDA law since becoming effective, a very small percentage of eligible residents / citizens actually choose to avail themselves of the option, but at least it remains an option. We are denied that option in Kansas. I, for one, want the option legally available when my time comes. I have had a Living Will for 25 years. We have talked to our now-adult children about our wishes as well as the legal documents necessary to protect our intentions. Yet, the best legal documents available to us under the current law do not allow us dignity in our death.
The evolution of medical technology enables artificial continuation of critical physiological functions to sustain a body for comparatively long durations with no brain function whatsoever. Because we can, does not mean we should in all circumstances. The mounting popularity of Living Wills and trusted family members or agents to protect an individual’s wishes given incapacitation or incompetence reflect the blossoming drive to control our private lives as we see fit, not as someone else or group of someones wishes us to exist.
My Father died suddenly of congestive heart failure at 26.November.2003; his death was quick and without protracted suffering. My 85-year-old Mother suffered a prolonged, lingering death, fraught with uncertainty, loss of control, ambiguity and apprehension.
In late 2004, my Mother was diagnosed with pulmonary squamous cell carcinoma. After multiple consultations regarding an array of treatment options, she chose not to take aggressive action in light of her age, her quality of life, and the probability of success given the variables in her life. The various medical challenges of her age and disease added complication to her life; those challenges were either overcome or tolerated, and did not materially affect the quality of her life. While she endured the inevitable physiological decline of advancing age, she enjoyed her final years in a peaceful, comfortable life with family around her. In late June of this year, a few days before her 85th birthday, she stopped eating. She told us she was no longer hungry, no longer found any satisfaction in food. We tried repeatedly to convince her, to help her, find some sustenance that was acceptable to her. I recognized the consequence and sought the counsel of our family physician who confirmed the tell-tale signs of her end of days. We engaged a professional hospice care provider to ensure her last days were as comfortable as possible. My sister was able to leave her family and job in California to attend our Mother, and help with the logistics of the moment. Within a few weeks, Mom lost her remaining mobility and control of bodily functions, but remained lucid, aware and engaging, although bed-ridden. All forms of water had a metallic taste to her, no matter what we did to make water more tolerable to her. Ice chips became her only intake, other than medication. Mom repeatedly asked me why the process (meaning death) was taking so long. She knew life was at an end, and she worried about being a burden on so many people and about what was to come. A week prior to her death, she began to hallucinate, seeing snowflakes, drifting flowers and odd colors. She had periods of lucidity between the hallucinations and was aware of our concern. By Sunday the 27th, her hallucinations took on an ominous character; she saw strange men, large spiders and other objects that raised her level of anxiety and literally scared her. She no longer asked for or perhaps could not ask for ice chips. My sister and I spent the night with her. Mom was quite fitful and restless, with short periods of sleep; she reached for and tried to fend off imaginary objects she saw in her mind’s eye. On Monday, we altered her medications to give her some rest and peaceful moments. By that afternoon, I was able to have several extended conversations with her about a variety of subjects but mostly about family. I felt sufficiently confident that she had rebounded for a period that I returned to work on Tuesday. That evening, we had a short chat among her hallucinations, and she actually took a few ice chips. By early Wednesday morning the 30th, Mom was non-responsive. I arrived shortly after the nurse’s call. Her heart and labored breathing continued; however, virtually every test of neuro-muscular response was vacant. Numerous, repeated attempts at communication left me feeling she was aware of what was happening, but she was in essence, totally paralyzed. She did not recover and passed away that evening.
My Mother and I talked through the preparations, to ensure her affairs were in order, to understand her wishes after her passing, and to discuss the process. Four years ago, she created a Living Will and signed both Legal and Medical Powers of Attorney. She did everything possible under the law to define her end-of-days. She had the necessary ‘clear and convincing’ evidentiary documentation [as defined in Cruzan] regarding her wishes. We talked about what could be done and could not be done under Kansas law. We also discussed the Oregon law as a point of reference. My Mother qualified under the technical criteria of the ODWDA, except for residency. In fact, she was well beyond the median age of Oregon applicants. I never pressed her for an answer, so I do not know what she would have done if Kansas had had an equivalent ODWDA law, and the matter is moot for her, but not for our family and not for you and me. The advantage of the ODWDA is the availability of a humane, respectful, dignified set of choices for each and every citizen to choose how they wish to conduct their end of days, and they remain in control of their most private and personal affairs. Yet, despite all that preparation and taking advantage of all remedies under the law, I could not help her attain what she sought – a quick, dignified death.
My Mother cannot speak for herself, and her voice falls to me – her first born. By this ponderous letter, I trust that I have at least fulfilled my promise to her. I prostrate myself before you and beseech you to help us pass reasonable, responsible and respectful legislation to amend the law, and provide means for humane choice and recognition of the freedom we all seek to enjoy. I do not seek reformation of our common law regarding suicide or subjugation of our Judeo-Christian moral values that form the bedrock foundation of our laws. Rather, I seek specific delineation to and amendment of very unique, discreet sections under the broader umbrella of the law, to provide precise criteria for qualification and application of legal means within a very small, defined population, so that each of us might have the option to control our private affairs during our inevitable end-of-days.
To assuage whatever concerns you may have, I suggest a phased implementation of an ODWDA-like amendment to the law in Kansas that would allow broader experience and public debate regarding the safeguards and appropriateness of legal protection. Perhaps a proper initial condition, to establish Cruzan’s ‘clear and convincing’ evidentiary documentation, might involve a written statement by the individual, invoking the privilege, validated by an immediate family member, along with a medical diagnosis and prognosis from a licensed physician, and an independent and private affirmation by a non-medical, officer of the court. Once Kansas develops a body of experience like Oregon has, we could gradually expand the window of qualification or criteria for application. For example, initial implementation might encompass only the direct, competent, voluntary application by the individual. Perhaps, as positive experience grows, the application criterion might expand to a witnessed document like a Living Will, or even later a properly empowered agent with the individual’s medical power of attorney. As the old proverb goes, long journeys begin with small step. Let us begin the journey toward returning freedom of choice to those citizens about to enter their end-of-days.
If you have not witnessed the lingering death of a loved one or family member, I respectfully suggest that absorbing and relating to the trauma of this particular path to death will remain beyond your reach. For a small portion of the population, the law should respect the expressed wishes of the individual, who is terminally ill, passed any productive condition, and desirous of controlling their death on their terms. This is NOT a matter of public popularity, but one of very personal and private choice.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I stand ready to assist you in any manner to amend the law and allow us all to have the choice of death with dignity.

Very respectfully submitted,


Cap Parlier
Citizen of the United States of America
Resident of Kansas
LtCol USMCR (Ret.)
USNA 70
Devoted Son, Husband, Father, Grandfather


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

25 August 2008

Update no.349

Update from the Heartland
No.349
18.8.08 – 24.8.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Circa 05:00 CDT, Monday, 18.August.2008, the International Association of Machinists (IAM) held a pre-dawn, show-of-force rally for the strikers at Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (HBC) in Wichita, Kansas. Off-shift union employees from other aircraft companies in the area were asked to join the rally as a sign of solidarity. Sadly, as the rally broke up, one of the HBC strikers tried to walk across an, unlit, four-lane, major street. He was hit and killed in his attempt. He left a wife and two small children. I suspect this strike is going to get much worse before it is resolved. The company restored the benefits for the victim’s family – a gesture of condolence and certainly not required. Also, this week, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services requested that HBC and the IAM join them and return to the negotiating table. Except for the fatality and a few minor incidents on Monday, probably perpetrated by outside agitators, the conduct of the strikers has been orderly, respectful and relatively calm. Just as a little side note, I shall identify the official IAM website [http://www.goiam.org/] for you, and ask that you look at the first button on the blue tool bar below the logo. Interesting mindset, isn’t it?

The follow-up news items:
-- Senator Barack Hussein Obama of Illinois, presumptive Democratic Party nominee for President, selected Senator Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., of Delaware, to be his vice presidential compatriot. Next week, the Democrats hold their convention in Denver, Colorado, after which the Party nominations will be official.
-- Former Pakistani President and Chief of the Army Staff General Pervez Musharraf [293 et al] resigned his position to avoid impeachment by Parliament and the coalition government. His fate or what he intends to do is unknown, but I suspect he is searching for a place to reside in exile. Sadly, the coalition partners began jockeying for power. What is it they say about the devil you know?
-- As a brilliant illuminator and punctuation point on Musharraf’s resignation, the Taliban [53 et al] in Pakistan staged a coordinated attack by at least two suicide bombers on the government’s largest weapons manufacturing complex in Wah, just north of the capitol of Islamabad, killing more than 60 people.
-- A suicide bomber struck a police school at Issers, 60 kilometres (37 miles) east of Algiers, Algeria, killing 43 and wounding another 38 people. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility. Al-Qaeda does not just kill Christians; they are equal opportunity killers – Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, Christians and Jews. They kill innocent people of all faiths ostensibly to further their aims – fundamentalist, Shariah, Islamic theocracy for all the world. That is our enemy!

A friend and contributor forwarded this Op-Ed column regarding the Russo-Georgian War:
“What Did We Expect?”
by Thomas L. Friedman
New York Times
Published: August 19, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/opinion/20friedman.html?th&emc=th
I don’t often find myself in agreement Tom Friedman, but he rings the bell rather well in his Op-Ed column. My only quibble with his presentation rests in his ignoring or overlooking the antagonism coming from Georgians in South Ossetia (and/or Russian agents seeking the confrontation). How long would we tolerate the occasional artillery projectile fired from Mexico, exploding inside U.S. territory? A minor quibble, but a quibble nonetheless. In the main, resonance!

In July, several Indian cities were attacked by a group known as the Indian Mujahideen [AKA Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI)]. I smelled al-Qaeda, however, the connection has not been established, to my knowledge. The following assessment remains the best I have seen so far of the situation in India.
“India: Arrests, Revelations and Implications”
by Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
Strategic Forecasting Inc.
Published: August 20, 2008 2009 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/india_arrests_revelations_and_implications

We have discussed a myriad of clashes between public and private, between the government and the individual citizen. This week’s governmental actions from opposite ends of this Grand Republic give us an interesting and relevant confrontation between conflicting constitutional rights. The California Supreme Court gave us another controversial ruling – North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. San Diego County Superior Court [SC CA S142892 (2008)]. The other contrasting action came from the other coast. The Federal government’s Department of Health and Human Services issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) [RIN 0991-AB48] against 45 CFR Part 88 to ensure that “Department of Health and Human Services funds do not support coercive or discriminatory policies or practices in violation of federal law.” The common element involved in both actions is the rights of one citizen versus another. In the North Coast case, Guadalupe T. Benitez sought an intrauterine insemination (IUI) procedure from Dr. Christine Brody, MD, who in turn refused to perform the procedures based on religious and/or moral grounds, because Benitez was an unmarried homosexual. We have seen a number of these cases with pharmacists, doctors, and such. California Supreme Court Associate Justice Joyce Luther Kennard wrote the court’s decision. She quoted from article I, section 4, of the California constitution, “Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State.” (Emphasis added by Kennard.) Kennard also observed, “[U]nder the United States Supreme Court’s most recent holdings, a religious objector has no federal constitutional right to an exemption from a neutral and valid law of general applicability on the ground that compliance with that law is contrary to the objector’s religious beliefs.” On the other hand, if the Federal NPR had not been issued so close California’s North Coast ruling, we could argue the purpose as direct contravention of the court’s decision. Even a quick scan of the NPR renders a clear image of the new regulation’s intent – the latest salvo in the abortion wars. I have tried to remain neutral and objective through most of these moral confrontations, but now I am pissed. I am never going to have an abortion, so it would be so easy and cost me absolutely nothing to say, “Not my problem, man,” and just let these fascists continue chipping away at the rights of others. After all, it does not affect me. Oh heck, I could also join the sanctimonious chorus and say, “yea verily, I love life; I am pro-life. I insist on protecting a single cell, clump of atoms and molecules; and I believe in life so much that I am willing to condemn an old man or an old woman to weeks and months of suffering and humiliation, just so I can maintain the holier-than-thou position I have staked out for myself; and, I am quite content to bludgeon every other citizen to maintain my position.” Oh yeah, I feel good. It would be so easy. This damnable, sanctimonious, unilateralist administration has gone far beyond the line. I know we are in a real war, but the corrosion and consumption of our most fundamental rights by this administration has become a far greater threat to our quality of life than the Islamo-fascists can ever hope to become. January 20th 2009 cannot arrive soon enough. Stick me with a fork; I am done! Now that I have gotten that off my chest, let us examine the core theme between these two near simultaneous and dramatically different government pronouncements. This is a really dicey conflict between public and private, and will remain a region of constant struggle for many years to come. Dr. Brody has a constitutionally protected right to whatever religious beliefs she freely chooses and to practice her religion without interferences from the government and from other citizens. We certainly know that some religious folks proclaim homosexuality (actually non-heterosexuality as well as any extra-marital sexuality) an abomination, a sin against God, and to some religions, punishable by death. So, it is hardly a surprise that Dr. Brody, and those like her, find it contemptible to render medical services to non-heterosexual, non-married individuals. The NPR is simply raw executive power . . . just because they can; but, Dr. Brody’s choice, which would be protected if the NPR becomes Federal regulation (without judicial challenge), represents the more direct confrontation. I do not believe many of us, if any, seek to compromise anyone’s religious beliefs. Yet, as we discussed in this forum, the struggle begins when anyone’s personal, private, religious beliefs impact or impose upon the public domain or another citizen’s beliefs. Where do we draw the line? Let us approach an answer from the negative position. What if all essential services in a town (police, fire, medical, sanitation, et cetera) were denied to a resident/citizen based on any one or a combination of the social factors (age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, language, political affiliation, sexual orientation, physical characteristics, and to a certain extent, disability – those individual elements that do not affect public performance)? Where would we be as a society? Sure, there were other doctors in San Diego who were able and willing to perform the IUI for Guadalupe and her partner Joanne Clark; so, why get huffy about a couple of doctors who refuse their services because they don’t approve of you? Both parties had conflicting rights. The key for me is the impact on the other in the public or quasi-public domain. And, in questions such as these, I am drawn back to choices I have had to make. I have worked all of my adult life ‘serving at the pleasure of . . . ,’ first, the President of the United States, and then a series of commercial employers. I could be dismissed at anytime for any reason. When a conflict in principles occurred, my choices were: 1.) perform my assigned tasks to the best of my ability, or 2.) resign and move on. I have made both choices at different times of my life. If providers of public services cannot set aside their phobias, biases, and bigotry regarding the any of the social factors, then they need to resign and move into another line of work where their beliefs are not so easily offended.

Comments and contributions from Update no.348:
“I grew up in a strong union family (typographical union - newspaper linotype operators) during the 50's, when there was indeed a substantive amount of real value and benefit brought to the laborer from the leverage of solidarity and numbers through the union.
“That, though, was a different time. Over the years company policies, laws, and precedence have pretty much neutralized both the need and the influence of the unions.
“My view is simple - if you are paid a six figure income to represent your union brethren, how much value will they think you are adding if you come out and say – ‘You know, this is a pretty good deal; we should take it.’ They'll say – ‘What do we need you for?’ So, rejecting a contract is pretty much self-preservation to the existence of a union boss.
“Secondly, the average laborer likes the idea of a strike just from the attention, emotion, and collective hubris from walking out - no matter the deal.
“So, they will eventually come around I would guess - after the bank accounts dwindle and they lose interest in the action.
“We'll see.”
My reply:
Yea verily! I freely acknowledge that unions served their purpose from their inception in the late 19th century through 1930’s or so. Far too many companies were overtly abusive, treating people like an expendable commodity to be used and discarded. Corporations began to change in the 1940’s & 50’s with management recognition that labor was a valuable and essential element of business. With the growth of business schools and necessary laws, nearly all of the abusive practices disappeared. American labor unions still act like it is the 1930’s, and have failed to grow with business. If they saw themselves as a vital part of making businesses successful, they might actually add value. But, I’m afraid what I see today is a parasitic organization that is bleeding the labor force rather than serving their interests. If they continue on their chosen path, they will price American labor out of business.

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

18 August 2008

Update no.348

Update from the Heartland
No.348
11.8.08 – 17.8.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The labor strike at my place of employment continues with no sign of progress toward a resolution. The strikers have been orderly, respectful (for the most part) and law-abiding. The truly sad reality of the American labor (union) movement is their leadership’s lack of vision, insight and comprehension. We see signs like: “Stop corporate greed,” “We want what we deserve,” and “We want more.” The union leadership seeks more political support for protectionist laws from Congress to preserve their influence. What they refuse to acknowledge is they are pricing American business out of the marketplace or forcing American business off-shore to remain competitive. Unions have closed the American steel and shipbuilding (other than military) industries, have nearly finished off the automotive and airline businesses, and are working hard on aviation in general. Union leaders and their political lackeys should be focused on helping American business be successful and remain competitive rather than their historic path of myopic me-ism. I have probably said too much already, but the mood struck me.

The follow-up news items:
-- Al-Qaeda operative Aafia Siddiqui – a female Pakistani national neuroscientist, highly educated in the U.S. – was recaptured by Pakistani security forces on 8.August.2008. Press reports have indicated that a treasure trove of actionable intelligence was captured with her. I am sure she is being given the opportunity to provide more information as well.
-- On 13.July.2006, former CIA operative Valerie Elise Plame Wilson and her hubby, former ambassador Joseph Charles Wilson, IV, filed a civil suit seeking monetary damages from Vice President Richard B. Cheney, former Senior Advisor to the President Karl C. Rove, former Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the Vice President I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Jr., and ‘John Does’ 1 through 10, for injuries suffered by disclosure of her employment. They amended their suit on 13.September.2006, to name former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage as one of the ‘John Does.’ United States District Court Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on 19.July.2007 – Wilson v. Libby [USDC DC civil action no. 06-1258 (JDB) (2007)]. Of course, the Wilsons appealed. On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment to dismiss -- Wilson v. Libby [CCA DC No. 07-5257 (2008)]. Knowing how bloody political this whole Plame affair has been [149, 169, 188, 293, 307], I suspect the Wilsons will attempt an appeal to the Supremes.
-- Also on 8.August.2008, the same day as the opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing, PRC, the Russians invaded the sovereign nation-state of Georgia [169, 212] – a former ‘republic’ of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They quickly defeated the small Georgian army and occupied the provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Russians also pressed their invasion south of South Ossetia to sever the primary east-west highway from the Georgian capitol of Tbilisi to the Black Sea. Europe and the United States can only prattled on about the unfairness of the Russian offensive action. The best neutral assessment to date appears to be:
“The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power”
by George Friedman
Strategic Forecasting Inc.
Published: August 12, 2008 1508 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russo_georgian_war_and_balance_powerb
A friend and contributor offered this rather politically biased opinion for contrast:
“Two Morons: Bush and Saakashvili – President Bush, Will You Please Shut Up?”
by Paul Craig Roberts
CounterPunch.org
Published: August 13, 2008
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts08132008.html
My opinion is simply:
If the [Roberts] article was not rife with parochial political bias, some of his valid points could be argued. P.C. Roberts clearly has no interest in a vigorous public intercourse, making his words easy to discount or ignore. Nonetheless, Saakashvili miscalculated the threats of the Russian bear and the support of the American administration, and W. has failed to produce the muscle necessary to make diplomacy work.
-- An article for your critical cogitation:
“FBI to get freer rein to look for terrorism suspects”
by Marisa Taylor
McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on: Wednesday, August 13, 2008
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/48078.html
U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey announced his intention to loosen restrictions on the FBI’s information collection (AKA domestic intelligence [139, 303]) that have been in place since the 1970’s. Given the mistakes, missteps and abuses of this administration, this little news flash does not give me a warm, fuzzy feeling.
-- During the annual remembrance in Japan of those two days in August [347] and with Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda in attendance, Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba noted that the United States was one of only three nations to oppose Japan’s UN resolution calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. I always get a bit of a chuckle out of naïvely optimistic notions such as these. I want peace and prosperity for every single human being. I want each and every person on the planet to have the freedom to choose how they wish to enjoy Life, Liberty and their pursuit of Happiness. I want there to be no crime, no hunger, no suffering. I want everyone to be happy, content and satisfied. Great idea; not realistic or practical. As long as the World must suffer megalomaniacs like Usama bin Ladin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Moktada al-Sadr, and all the others, we need the most powerful military on the planet as well as the means and methods to visit horrific violence on those who would harm us. So, we will hold onto our thermonuclear weapons for the time being . . . thank you very much.

As a postscript of sorts to the last item above, I am a committed and unwavering believer in the Teddy Roosevelt school of diplomacy – “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.” With no muscle behind the diplomats, diplomacy is just words and hot air.

Now, we have folks ridiculing a Manhattan-Project-like national commitment toward energy independence. I certainly do not mind folks criticizing my notional Energy Project plan, that is what a vigorous public debate is all about. What I find quite odd and irritating are the yayhoos who condemns suggestions without offering their plan. Anyway, I thought I would expand my Energy Project Plan just a little bit more in hopes of instigating a constructive exchange. I see three time frame categories of advancement, which would actually be executed concurrently – the payoff would be short, medium or long.
Short Term (<5>
High petrol prices have caused citizens to alter their driving habits, seek other forms of transportation, and pushed the marketplace pressure onto the automotive industry to work for significantly more efficient and alternative fueled vehicles. Corn ethanol plants have begun the process of converting biomass capacity into alternative fuel production; yet, diverting food production to fuel production is NOT a winning solution. The use of other non-food plant matter is more reasonable. I am neutral-to-soft on the new drilling action. As I have argued before, I would hold our reserves of fossil fuels for the inevitable shortage as Middle East reserves are consumed. We must continue to search, explore, locate and tap domestic reserves, including ANWR. Fossil fuel production can be carried out in environmentally friendly ways. The rub regarding new drilling is finding a balance between production, preservation and time, as well as the return on investment for those who drill.
Wind power, gasification of coal, clean coal, and methane power are existing technologies that need sufficient capital investment for practical deployment.
Mid Term (5-10 years):
The electricity transmission grid is too close to the capacity edge, needs substantially more margin to enable electric drive vehicles and machines, and needs far more redundancy to protect the grid from disruption by natural forces, war or sabotage. Part of this effort must include mass installation of charging stations, presumably at current petrol service stations among other appropriate sites; in practical terms, electric drive vehicles must be able to reliably go across country with sufficient capacity to reach the next station or two in the middle of nowhere.
Practical, general, electric drive must have fast charging, high capacity batteries or electricity storage devices not yet imagined that charge as fast as filling a tank with gasoline.
We need to expand the work begun by the Germans a half-century ago to produce synthetic lubricants, as those derived from a petroleum base will eventually not be economically viable. Collateral with synthetic lubricant production will be the development of non-lubricated bearings, using magnetic, pneumatic or other means of reducing friction wear on moving parts.
Alternative fuel production, ethanol from other biomass sources that can be grown in marginal land with non-potable water from various sources, or by alternate means like the recently announced ethanol production using bacteria: Escherichia coli, Klebsiella oxytoca, and Zymomonas mobilis, that are naturally able to use a wide spectrum of sugars and convert them into ethanol. The problem is mass production, which several pilot plants are planned.
Long Term (>10 years):
Some of the riskier technologies may not work, to may take a long time to bring them to practical fruition. We must not be reticent to expend public treasure on promising technologies that may not work the way we need them to work. We need focused, dedicated teams working on technologies until now resting in science fiction like magnetic levitation, neutral gravity, electromagnetic transportation, fusion power, solar power, gravity elevators, hyper-drive interplanetary and interstellar transport . . . the list goes on. We will also find new technologies not even dreamed of by science fiction authors.
Business will invest in those technologies where a sufficiently positive return on its investment is attainable in a reasonable period, often 3 to 5 years. Government must invest in those technologies beyond the reach of business. Further, the Federal Government must provide the coordination and leadership to ensure focus, persistence and capacity. Our objective must be elimination of fossil fuel as an energy source in 20 to 50 years, and preservation of our fossil fuel reserves to protect those specific or unique purposes during the transition.

Comments and contributions from Update no.347:
“When we fail to punish combatants appropriately, it is a sign that our military courts are succumbing to public pressure over a war that is not popular, even though it must be fought and won. Anything less and our free society will change for the worse.
“And, critics of the war on either ideological or political grounds fail to look at history including our ending WWII with a nuclear attack on the enemy. We saved the world and did not go after the rest of the world. Now we are busy saving the world from terrorism with little help from the rest of the world except for a few brave nations with us. Someday, probably not in my lifetime, the terrorist threat to defeat freedom will be won at great cost probably. Only then will historians chronicle accurately the courage of the USA to take on this challenge in the face of condemnation and cowardice from within and outside our borders. The next President will have a difficult time turning his back on terrorism.
“In a free society, the most practical way to keep the press out of our private lives, is to keep them private. Edwards failed to do so. If one behaves like an idiot and hypocrite in any way the free press can see, brace yourself to be exposed whether we like it or not. I don't want to know about Edwards' private life, but he failed to keep it private - a lesson here perhaps for all of us.”
My response:
National will is a critical element in our ability to wage war successfully, and that is largely, if not predominately or totally, dependent upon the President’s ability to focus the People on the need for and objective of war. George W. Bush has failed in that task and critical responsibility. We can only hope his successor does a better job.
Well said regarding the War on Islamic Fascism (AKA Terrorism). President Roosevelt recognized the threat of Imperial Japan and the German Reich; he tried mightily to prepare the People, and in fact, discreetly violated the law to do so. But, it took far too long for the People to recognize the threat and focus on the objective – 10 years. We have been under attack for at least 30 years. I really thought the horrific events of 11.September.2001 would be sufficient to awaken and focus the People. Alas, I was naïve and sadly mistaken.
This issue of privacy is far too important to the future of this Grand Republic to let this topic pass easily. I would appreciate your opinion regarding how John Edwards failed to keep his private life private? What did he do that made his private affairs public? The lesson for me, beyond the obscene violation of the National Inquirer, is his lack of public honesty. We do not know what arrangements, agreements or such that John and Elizabeth Edwards may or may not have had, and it is none of our business and certainly not a matter of proper public interest. We are all sinners. We all have events that could readily become morsels for tabloid press, if the Press dug around in our lives. We, the People, must draw the line, and all that I have seen, read or heard regarding John Edward’s apparent affair with Rielle Hunter tells me the Press did not just cross over the line, they obliterated the line.
. . . round two:
“National will is troublesome these days. Like you I am disappointed in our failure to prosecute this war effectively. I am equally cautious about any successor in these times, but clearly there are striking differences emerging in the two frontrunners for the job. The difference between smart and wise is experience, and smart is not enough. The next president will need to be wise and courageous. It is those two features that may save us from ourselves and our enemies. We'll see who is up to it.
“Agreed on the war of 30 years and probably longer in my view. The attached article below reminds us how easy it is to ignore, forget, or fail to learn history. The events of 9/11 gave us a chance to respond together and stay firm. We did so in the short run, but lost our will. It is the trashing of ourselves in the media and by some political figures that helped us lose our collective will. How we regain it is a mystery right now. I submit that a wise and courageous leader at the helm is a step in the right direction.
“Privacy is a tough issues and I share your disdain for the media chasers. Regardless, here is how Edwards made his behavior public in my view. He became a public figure and, therefore, subject to a different standard in the media. I heard a previous VP candidate from the democratic party on television yesterday comment that the vetting of one's private life is essential when running for national office and nothing is off limits. The vetting of ones life to confirm trustworthiness, secrecy, and loyalty when the job of President, VP and cabinet member requires it is part of running for office and all national candidates know it going in. Edwards failed in all three of those standards and made himself fodder for the media. Like it or not, the standards for public figures differs in some ways from the rest of us as well as how the courts view public figures and privacy. I am prepared to draw the line with you on the invasion of privacy, but the invasion of a public figure's reckless behavior gets blurry. We can all condemn the media for doing it, but I suspect most people will say they are glad they learned it before entering the voting booth. So far, every single person who has spoken to me about it since the story broke has condemned Edwards, not the media. Such is the nature of a free press and sensational headlines even when we don't want to know.
“In effect, I'd say trustworthiness, secrecy, loyalty, wise, and courageous all come together in an ideal leader of nation. Unfortunately, it is hard to find someone with all of them all of the time. We should keep looking regardless. Let's hope our next leader has the integrity to pursue what is right.”
[The contributor also provided the following link to a relevant article about Russo-Georgian War.]
“Russia's Power Play”
by George Will
Washington Post Writers Group
RealClearPolitics.com
Published: August 12, 2008
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/european_war_enters_the_presid.html
. . . my response to round two:
Our selection this coming November will indeed be important, more important than in peacetime, and perhaps even critical.
Yes, that is why I normally say ‘at least’ 30 years. I could and have argued for an earlier date like 1972 or 1967, but the 1979 date is easy to defend. Unfortunately, even after 9/11, we have a substantial portion of the American People who still refuse to believe we are or even have been at war with Islamic fascists and jihadistanis. I imagine there was a far smaller portion of our society who pretended we were not at war with Germany and Japan 65 years ago. It must be quite comforting to be clueless.
George Will’s article hit the nail squarely. One sentence seems to sum up the whole dreadful Georgia-Russia confrontation. “This crisis illustrates, redundantly, the paralysis of the U.N. regarding major powers, hence regarding major events, and the fictitiousness of the European Union regarding foreign policy.” He could have added and I will say, this episode also illuminates how drastically thin the U.S. military has been stretched under the Clinton and Bush regimes. Diplomacy has little potency without muscle behind it.
Your observations on the privacy of public figures like Edwards reflect reality, so arguing against reality is like trying to shout in a hurricane. Yet, as much as I rail against the tabloid press and paparazzi, my genuine ire focuses upon the hypocrisy and salacious verve of our fellow citizens and especially the subscribers of the National Inquirer, Star, and all the other bottom-feeding tabloids. I must reiterate my condemnation of Edwards for not telling the truth or at least avoiding the lie. Johnny Boy had Slick Willy Clinton as the perfect example; hypocrisy and dishonesty overpowers private choices and conduct (short of criminal). We do not know what agreements, arrangements or expectations existed between Elizabeth and John, or Hillary and Bill, or any of the others like Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Gary Condit: (Chandra Levy), Ted Kennedy (Mary Jo Kopechne), et al. And, my list is just a mere few of the American politicians, short of the larger body of business executives, actors, royalty, authors, and the myriad of other celebrities. I have a very hard time defending Edwards’ privacy because he always impressed me as an aloof, sanctimonious elitist, who placed himself above the rest of us peons – instant ignition for me. Yet, the National Inquirer went far beyond the line of tolerable Press behavior in stalking and hounding him. He did not commit a crime to my knowledge. If he had an intimate relationship with one or more adults in addition to his wife, the only public interest would be whether he was honest with his wife, but that is really between them. I could return to another favorite topic of mine – abuse of power. Monica Lewinsky was an intern in the employ of the President. Rielle Hunter was a supposed videographer in the employ of the Edwards campaign. Conflict of interest was enormous and pervasive. But, the difference here is Monica chose to confide in another woman who had an axe to grind and chose to violate that confidence. In the Edwards case, none of the principles disclosed the relationship. The message we send our youth and potential future leaders is ‘do not enter politics’ – your private life will never be private again. Of course, some will say live a life of monastic purity before you enter political service – oh wait, even the monastery has its sins. I remain deeply troubled by the National Inquirer’s conduct far more than I am about his relationship with Rielle Hunter. Edwards has never been on any positive list of mine and his stature in my mind has diminished substantially. I doubt we are societally capable of returning to a proper relationship between public and private, but I have always been a dreamer.
. . . round three:
“I share your concerns. In particular, it is the abuse of power that riles many of us. When a boss (President, presidential candidate, university professor, corporate leader, etc.) preys upon, or more indirectly takes advantage of, a subordinate (student, campaign worker, intern, coworker), and the subordinate participates, who is to blame? It is easy to say both, but it is the one in power who failed to show restraint in a position of authority. The same would be true even if the subordinate initiated the inappropriate events. It is still the one in power who must show restraint and discipline to not abuse the authority position regardless of the other person's failure of integrity. In this regard, Lewinsky and Hunter are not the first ones to be reviled even though they may have their own integrity issues to deal with from that moment on. I don't want a leader of monastic purity to elect since it will be hard to find one. I want a leader who understands and practices discretion and privacy. When one other person learns of the indiscretion besides the two parties involved, it is no longer private and all bets are off. The public figures you mention were all outed by somebody. The Enquirer did not make it up this time as another alien abduction. Thus, privacy was lost. Like you, I have no respect for anyone who behaves as though he or she is above any scrutiny. Regardless, I accept the negative side of a free press, even when they fail to let the truth stand in the way of a good story. It infuriates me, but I grudgingly accept it as part of our free society. That is why what goes on between two people regarding infidelities and such, should stay between those two people. It is up to them to keep it that way.”
. . . my response to round three:
Abuse of power is a really big deal with me, and your summary is spot on, from my perspective. The person in authority must have the moral strength and integrity to remove himself from a potential compromising situation. Edwards failed.
As you say, as with most freedom, there is a negative aspect, e.g., freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, freedom of choice, and our fundamental right to privacy. Freedom of the Press is no different. I cannot and would not tolerate any attempted legislation to constrain the Press from such intrusions of privacy. But, I can condemn them, and advocate others not buy their tripe. If it did not sell, they would not be able to do what they do. That said, dogging John Edwards at a hotel is not much different that climbing a tree with a long lens camera to take pictures of some celebrity enjoy the Sun or a dip in their pool, or sticking a camera up the skirt of some dilettante and finding they were going ‘commando.’ If paparazzi can do such things, then where is the line? Further, technology grows in power and pervasiveness by the moment; where will our outrage be when they hack into my personal computer or yours and rummage around your files to find some juicy tidbit for the public’s insatiable salacious appetite? I am still struggling with how John Edwards lost his privacy. Did Rielle Hunter tip-off the Inquirer? Did Elizabeth Edwards disclose her husband’s extramarital philandering in a Press interview? To my knowledge, they had a suspicion, and they staked out his travels until they caught him. Again, to my knowledge, the law protects the Press on such intrusions when felonious criminal activity is involved. Where is the crime here? Where is the public injury here? Where is the proper public or State interest?
At least the British got it right and have begun illuminating the line more brightly.
Mosley v. News Group [[2008] EWHC 1777 (QB); case no: HQ08X01303] [346]
Perhaps, one day, we shall learn another valuable lesson from our British cousins.
. . . round four:
“Well said. The line is blurry about this sorry episode. Unfortunately, criminal activity is not a requirement for a sanctimonious public figure to be vetted and dogged. I suspect we are not done hearing about this affair either since the latest hints at irregular activity with campaign funds. I simply don't want to know any more about him but feel certain his days as a serious public contender may be over. We can only hope...”
. . . my response to round four:
Indeed, we can only hope.

Another contribution:
“One more historical point on noting the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- while it was USAAF aircrews that piloted the planes- it was a USN engineer that did the final assembly in the aircraft, a USNA graduate at that.
My reply:
Well, thank you also for that little factoid. I did not know that. Do you happen to recall the assembler’s name & rank, and what class he was? I’ll note it in the Update. The USN also delivered the devices and operational personnel to Tinian aboard the soon to be ill-fated USS Indianapolis (CA-35).
. . . a follow-up comment:
“His name is William "Deak" Parsons-- he was the 'weaponeer' and performed the final assembly in the bomb bay on the way to Japan. They weren't entirely sure about the bomb and wanted to ensure that if there was a premature detonation during final assembly, that it would wipe out the B-29 fleet. It an interesting task, to say the least. A book about him is listed below. He was Class of '22
“Target Hiroshima: Deak Parsons and the Creation of the Atomic Bomb," Albert B. Christman, ISBN 1-55750-120-3. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1998. [Parsons was a United States Navy weapons specialist and representative to the Manhattan Project. He witnessed seven of the first eight nuclear bomb explosions; and served as the bomb commander and weaponeer during the Enola Gay's mission to bomb Hiroshima, when he performed the final assembly of the "Little Boy" nuclear weapon in the aircraft's bomb bay. He was the task force deputy commander during Operation Crossroads in 1946.]”

Another contribution:
“The situation in Georgia and that part of the world at the moment should be putting FEAR in the hearts of all of us voters, as we approach the up-coming election. SOMEONE is going to be the President who leads us right into the middle of a VERY big Crisis. Could Russia have timed what they are doing to hopefully get their choice of US President elected? Could be! We all know who THEIR choice would be. RIGHT!!!! The guy who wants change!! If he gets elected we will definitely have change!!!”
My response:
I doubt Russia even considered the U.S. presidential election. They have been itching to subdue the breakaway republics since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. They failed to seek international support or condemnation for their claims of ethnic cleansing. This is naked aggression for territorial gain and intimidation of a neighbor state that seeks alignment with Europe. The sad reality is, the West including the United States are grossly undersized to deal with the threats we face, and as a result we have little to no leverage with Russia. Our words ring hollow.

A different contribution:
“Cap, I've thought much about losing parents...lost my dad last September, my close friend and former business partner just lost his dad in January. I've spent probably too much time over decades worrying about my mom's health/status/future. I don't think we are ever ready to lose our parents, although often we might anticipate it or because of perhaps their failing health, we think about it daily and then it strikes. As ready as we might try to prepare ourselves, from psychological to spiritual, I still do not believe we as their children are prepared for the loss and change, the enduring memories. However, through time there is healing and life starts to brighten again and we come to terms with many realms, perhaps we could not prior to these life changing events.
“Often people say things like about loss like ‘they are not suffering anymore’ and while that is true, it does not solve the pain of loss, only God, time, family & friends and support can. And the strength in our belief that there is a better place for your mom, a continuance of her journeys, requires our faith, trust and love of the seen and unseen realms of this universe and heavens.
“I do much of my reflecting in life, with nature, at the ocean, with waves, pelicans, seagulls, blue skies with sunshine to cloudy days with moons. It is amazing if one is calm enough, you can witness all the change of nature in a 4 hour period. Our life is always changing, and times/models/orders/norms, seem to be changing at an accelerating pace (even younger folks sense this). But even with all this change, certain principles (history, destiny) do not change, that being your mom's love for you, your love for her, and her continuance while not physical for now, she remains in the most powerful places--your heart, soul and mind, and nothing and no one can ever take that from us.”
My reply:
Life goes on. Fortunately, my Mom’s great grandchildren reached sufficient age to know her and remember her. My Mother made a conscious decision four years ago not to take aggressive action in treating her pulmonary squamous cell carcinoma. I promised her I would do my best to make her end of days as comfortable as possible; I failed, and I will have more to say as soon as I finished the open letter I promised her I would write. We all handle these inevitable events in our lives differently. Again, thank you for your thoughts and kindness.

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

11 August 2008

Update no.347

Update from the Heartland
No.347
5.8.08 – 10.8.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all who sent their condolences, flowers, or contributions to the Sedgwick County Zoo in my Mother’s memory, as well as those who offered prayers or just kind thoughts, thank you all very much for your compassion and sympathy. My Mother’s memory and our family are honored. For those so inclinded:
Sedgwick County Zoo
5555 Zoo Boulevard
Wichita, Kansas 67212 USA
http://www.scz.org/

Another little disgusting update . . . the labor strike against Hawker Beechcraft Corporation continues. Now, we have to display in our automobile front window, a large pink sign that says “I wish to enter.” Can you imagine?

The follow-up news items:
-- Now, we learn that the Department of Homeland Security issued policy authorization for personal laptop computers to be ceased at border entry sites for suspicious or designated ‘watch’ individuals without a warrant or even criminal probable cause. What is worse . . . extracted files can be shared with other government agencies and used for other purposes including intelligence and/or criminal prosecution. I have been a vociferous advocate for the Federal government’s intelligence collection capacity during the War on Islamic Fascism. This has gone too far! We cannot use wartime intelligence collection for political repression or criminal prosecution. Mixing the two intelligence activities in wartime with violations of our constitutional rights does grave damage to our Liberty and will ultimately harm our warfighting ability.
-- Late Tuesday evening, 5.August.2008, José Ernesto Medell¿n paid for his heinous crimes. Medell¿n was the principal in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Medell¿n v. Texas [552 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-984] ruling [329] and the extraordinary World Court order to stay his execution by the State of Texas [345].
-- In the first trial by military tribunal during the War on Islamic Fascism, Salim Ahmed Hamdan was convicted of providing material support to the enemy. Hamdan was the principal in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [548 U.S. 557 (2006)] [No. 05-184] [238] and the instigator of the congressional authority for these tribunals -- Military Commissions Act of 2006 [PL 109-366] [251, 254]. Hamdan was sentenced to only 66 months for his actions, which means he will be released to return to the enemy’s fight in 5 ½ years or less. Hamdan will be set free about the same time as the American traitor John Walker Lindh [16].

I resisted commenting on the National Inquirer exposé on the extramarital affairs of former Vice Presidential candidate and Senator Johnny Reid ‘John’ Edwards of North Carolina. On Friday, John acknowledged that he lied to the Press (and public) about his affair with Rielle Hunter (AKA Lisa Druck). When will they ever learn? I was prepared to condemn the National Inquirer for intruding upon the private life of a citizen, regardless of who he is. What anyone does in private is between him and his spouse, and not a proper public or State interest. That said, what attracts condemnation is knowingly making false statements. Once again, the Press has drawn us into the gutter and bedroom of a citizen. Why do we allow these grotesque violations of private lives? Could it be that far too many of our fellow citizens suck up these salacious and distinctly prurient intrusions into the private affairs of famous or celebrity citizens because of their own repressed or extinguished sex lives? We should all be outraged at this obscene violation.

This week 63 years ago, two U.S. Army Air Corps aircrews released a single, large, special weapon each over Japan and saved millions of lives on both sides in the process. Thank goodness, Franklin Roosevelt had the foresight to create the Manhattan Project, and Harry Truman had the courage to sign the order. Another little interesting fact from that time and so often overlooked by those who think ill of the United States: in 1945, we had the only undamaged industrial capacity in the world; we were the sole possessors of the most powerful weapons known to man as well as the delivery means anywhere in the world; we had arguably the most powerful military force ever assembled in the history of mankind. Did we use that undisputed power to dominate the World, to impose our will on all other peoples? Nope! We disbanded the preponderance of our military might, helped our friends and former adversaries alike to regain a prosperous, peaceful footing. And, our success is measured by the strength of our former enemies: Japan, Germany and Italy. Our allies: Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France are all beacons of democracy, freedom and prosperity. If we had intended to dominate the World, why didn’t we do it? We could easily reduce the Middle East to a parking with oil hydrants, but instead, we expend enormous blood and treasure in an effort to bring peace to the region.

After Boumediene v. Bush [553 U.S. ___ (2008); no. 06-1195] [340] and the near constant stream of wartime habeas corpus rulings along with the conviction of Salim Ahmed Hamdan in the first war tribunal, I decided to go back and read a pivotal precursor decision – Hamdi v. Rumsfeld [542 U.S. 507 (2004); no. 03-6696]. Hamdi is one of the few times I disagreed with Justice O’Connor’s judicial logic and rationale. She argues that if an American citizen is captured by an Ally on the battlefield and rendered to U.S. custody, the government must present sufficient evidence of his enemy combatant status to continue his detention. Yaser Esam Hamdi was an American citizen, born in Louisiana in 1980, who was captured by the Northern Alliance on the battlefield in Afghanistan in late 2001, bearing arms for the enemy, and held as an enemy combatant by the U.S. military. After the Supremes’ ruling on 28.June.2004, Hamdi was released and deported to Saudi Arabia on 9.October.2004. I feel better already. I will not bore everyone with more judicial reviews, however I do have one central question. If a foreign force invaded the United States, in say Florida, and we were in armed conflict on our territory, would captured battlefield combatants obviously held on U.S. territory have the right to a writ of habeas corpus? According to the majority in Hamdi and Boumediene, the answer is yes . . . unless Congress formally suspends or constrains the Great Writ, which carries different risks for loyal citizens, and especially those not to the government’s liking. I truly appreciate and laud the Court’s efforts to protect our precious rights and freedom. The elected branches have not helped the Court define the legal conditions associated with executing the War on Islamic Fascism, so it is quite difficult to admonish the Court for its failure to comprehend the societal challenges presented by our enemies in this War. Hamdi was not helpful to that end.

Comments and contributions from Update no.346:
[The comments from this week were understandably personal and not of general interest.]
One contribution did have broader interest as will be apparent soon.
“I am very sad that your mother died. Hard to say much more since I never knew her. But I do know something about the effects felt by others in the family when the health problems of one of them never get any really better, but slowly, agonizingly, relentlessly only get worse. Until the end. Then I have found that feelings of both guilt and relief--At The Same Time, come over the family member who was most charged with doing whatever could be done, often over several or even many years, for the now lost loved one. Yes, guilt feelings, though unwarranted, and Known to be unwarranted, but still there, because one needed to become the parent, in this case, yet there was virtually no way to be the care-giver for the one who had been Your caregiver when you were young. In MY case I ached through my whole body, mind, and soul, as I failingly tried to be the ‘Daddy’ for MY Dad, as well as he had been the Daddy for me. It was something neither I nor anyone else could do well in the beginning, and near the end, not at all. When my Dad finally did die after almost 6 years in a nursing home, and about 3 years of home care, I cried. But my crying was as much relief that he was no longer suffering and that I too did not have to suffer longer, followed almost instantly by guilt because of the relief I felt for myself, An almost literally Crushing guilt for not having been able to do what I knew was my place to do, even though I also knew all along that it was an impossible task.”

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

04 August 2008

Update no.346

Update from the Heartland
No.346
21.7.08 – 4.8.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
I missed the normal publication date for this edition of the Update from the Heartland that now encompasses two weeks rather than one. On Saturday evening, my sister Melissa, Jeanne and I took a break from trials of this moment in time to attend an exhibition, thanks to birthday gift tickets from our son Taylor. After an excellent evening meal at our favorite Japanese restaurant [Hana’s Cafe], we went to Exploration Place in Wichita, Kansas, to see the touring exhibition called “Our Body – The Universe Within.” The display offers an extraordinary public view of the construction of our bodies. I imagine some of you may have seen the exhibition already. If not, we can strongly recommend it. Then, Sunday afternoon, my Mom’s condition took a dramatic turn for the worse. Melissa and I wound up spending the night with Mom. She seemed to recover somewhat Monday. I was able to have several comparatively long conversations with her about this and that. I felt confident enough that I went back to work Tuesday, and Mom was still maintaining Tuesday evening. I went to work on Wednesday, only to receive a call that Mom was unresponsive. I arrived a few minutes later to do my own assessment. I believed that she was aware of our presence, but she was virtually paralyzed. Her condition did not improve. My Mother, Doris Evelyn Parlier, passed away at 21:59, Wednesday, 30.July.2008, at the age of 85 years. May God rest her immortal soul. The family is planning a celebratory memorial on the California coast in mid-September. For those who may be so-inclined or tempted, in lieu of flowers or other symbols of sympathy, our family requests that donations be made to Sedgwick County Zoo, 5555 Zoo Boulevard, Wichita, Kansas, USA 67212 – one of Mom’s favorite places on the Great Plains. Mom truly enjoyed the penguin exhibit. Then, as though these events were not enough, the labor union supporting the company’s operations (IAM) decided to strike at midnight Sunday. So, please pardon my jumbled state; I hope things recover to something akin to normal soon.

The follow-up news items:
-- An interesting and worthy Op-Ed piece for your critical rumination:
“Surge Protector”
By William J. Fallon
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/opinion/20fallon.html?th&emc=th
For clarity, the author is none other than Admiral William Joseph ‘Fox’ Fallon, USN (Ret.), the relieved, former, Commander-in-Chief Central Command (CinC CentCom) [327] and now a fellow at the M.I.T. Center for International Studies.
-- Chief Judge Anthony Joseph Scirica wrote the decision for the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of CBS v. FCC [3CCA no. 06-3575 (2008)] – the appeal of the $550,000 fine levied against CBS in the aftermath of the Janet Jackson exposed breast incident in the 2004 Super Bowl Halftime show [113]. The court vacated the FCC order and remanded the case for further proceedings. Circuit Judge Marjorie ‘Midge’ Osterlund Rendell, occurring in part, dissenting in part, believed the court did not go far enough in that the FCC order should have been reversed without remand. I am with Judge Rendell on this one.
-- A federal grand jury indicted powerful Senator Theodore Fulton ‘Ted’ Stevens of Alaska on seven corruption counts [295, 296]. This does not look good for crusty ol’ Ted. Also, since we are talking about corrupt politicians, Representative William Jennings ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson of Louisiana, indicted on 16 charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money-laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act [233, 240, 252, 258, 287], is slated for trial on 2.December.2008, although U.S. District Judge Thomas Selby ‘Tim’ Ellis III suggested more delays are possible. Ol’ ‘Dollar Bill’ has managed to avoid justice for nearly one full term, and he is likely to be well into another term before he is held accountable for his crimes. Interestingly, and as of this writing, both of these politicians are up for reelection this November.
-- On the 25th and 26th of July, a series of at least 24 bombs exploded in Bangalore and Ahmedabad, India, with another 25 unexploded bombs being discovered and diffused in the cities, so far. The attacks had all the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda operation. As al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and affiliated Islamo-fascist terrorist organizations have done in Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Russia and now China, suicide and mass bombings are intended to excite sectarian animosity and violence, or in this instance, provoke India into offensive action against Pakistan.
-- The Department of Justice acknowledged the apparent suicide of Bruce Edwards Ivins, 62, a leading military anthrax researcher who worked for the past 18 years at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), Fort Detrick, Maryland. Apparently, federal prosecutors had planned to seek an indictment and the death penalty against Ivins regarding his alleged involvement in the 2001 anthrax attacks.
-- Reuters reported on 21.July, that U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey intended to seek a full declaration of war [220 et al] against al-Qaeda and associated entities. Since my recording of the news item, I have been unable to substantiate or corroborate the Reuters report. If anyone has additional information, please let us know. It is an intriguing notion, even if seven years late.
-- Notorious Bosnian Serb wartime president Radovan Karadzic, AKA the Butcher of Sarajevo, was arrested by Serbian security forces, extradicted to the war crimes tribunal in The Haque, Netherlands, and has already appeared in the dock before the bar, accused of various war crimes and crimes against humanity. I trust he shall feel the bite of justice he so disgustingly deserves.

On 24.July.2008, Queens Bench High Court Judge, the Honorable Mister Justice Sir David Eady issued his ruling in the case of Mosley v. News Group [(2008) EWHC 1777 (QB); case no: HQ08X01303]. The case is noteworthy for its condemnation of Press intrusion into the private life of a prominent person. The claimant (plaintiff) was Max Rufus Mosley, 68, President of the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA – the Formula I racing organization) since 1993 and a trustee of its charitable arm, the FIA Foundation. As a related and relevant note, Max is the youngest son of infamous British Nazi sympathizer Sir Oswald Ernald Mosley, 6th Baronet of Ancoats, who was a leader of the British Union of Fascists and the 1936 Battle of Cable Street – a fascist confrontation in London’s Eastend; Max’s parents were married in 1936, at the home of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels with Adolf Hitler as their guest of honor. Upon that backdrop, Max fell victim to a betrayal by a woman known in the court document as only ‘Woman E.’ On 28.March, Max participated in sadomasochistic party with a reported Nazi theme at a private residence, and unbeknownst to him, Woman E, supplied with a hidden camera by a tabloid newspaper, recorded the event and delivered the video to the newspaper. On 30.March.2008, News Group Newspapers Ltd. published a blistering exposé by Neville Thurlbeck in their News of the World. Sir David concluded, “I decided that the Claimant (Mosley) had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to sexual activities (albeit unconventional) carried on between consenting adults on private property.” He went on to say, “I accept that such behavior is viewed by some people with distaste and moral disapproval, but in the light of modern rights-based jurisprudence that does not provide any justification for the intrusion on the personal privacy of the Claimant.” Sir David found for Mosley and awarded him £60,000. News Group argued that Mosley’s party theme coupled with his father’s fascist past qualified as proper public interest. As Sir David noted, unless Mosley was acting upon some notional Nazi agenda in the public arena, his sexual fantasy peculiarities were beyond the domain of the Press, i.e., Mosley’s sexual proclivities have absolutely nothing to do with any reasonable public interest. Voyeuristic, prurient, salacious personal interests are not and must never become State or public interests – proper or improper, appropriate or inappropriate. The Mosley ruling should be a clear message to the tabloids, scandal sheets, paparazzi and all those other bottom-dwelling “Media” folks who feel ii is their right to intrude upon the private lives of the rich and famous, or anyone else they deem non-normal or newsworthy. Perhaps, our British cousins and the Mosley case can help us all return to a proper demarcation between public and private. We need a Mosley ruling or several to prohibit the Press from inappropriate intrusion into the private life of any citizen, including air-head young celebrities.

A long-term friend and contributor sent a link to this article:
“Sex Police”
by John Stossel
Real Clear Politics.com
July 23, 2008
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/sex_police.html
The opening paragraph states, “In a desolate public park in Columbus, Ohio, a man responded to the advances of a topless woman. She asked him to ‘show me yours.’ When he did, police officers arrested him. Columbus law says her being topless is OK; exposing his genitalia is not.” While I could argue there was no injured party, the fact remains that the noted exchange occurred in a public venue. I could also argue that this is a silly prosecution of a reasonable law against public indecency. Every citizen has an equal right to public spaces. Likewise, every citizen has and should have an expectation of proper conduct in public. The Columbus example sits in a grey area. Although not reported in Stossel’s article, I suspect there were citizen complaints of indecent or sexual activity in that particular park. My objection in the Columbus case rests upon the circumstance and method of law enforcement, verging upon entrapment. Stossel goes on to illuminate the peculiar American dichotomy regarding sex – an admixture of personal fascination and public revulsion. Stossel concludes his article:
“I asked the Family Research Council's [Peter] Sprigg whom the government protects when it closes down sex shops.
“‘The government is protecting actually the people who patronize those shops because I don't think it's in their interest to use pornography and sex toys.’
“Give me a break.”
Our intrusive morality laws are one of the stark failures of American legislative history – we believe we have an obligation, a duty, and the authority to dictate how every citizen is to live their private lives – who they can marry, what food they can eat, how they can enjoy sex (if at all), what they can do or think, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. We must recover the Liberty the Founders fought so hard to secure for us, and the Freedom of choice for each of us to enjoy our unique Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.

The full 4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard the appeal of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a Qatari citizen and legal resident alien student in the United States., who was arrested by law enforcement on 12.December.2001, and charged with credit card fraud. Before al-Marri could be brought to trial, the President of the United States signed an order in June 2003, declaring al-Marri an enemy combatant and ordering him incarcerated by the military at the U.S. Naval Brig at Charleston, South Carolina. Even if he was not a good academic student, he has certainly been a good legal student with a blossoming string of cases.
Al-Marri v. Bush, 274 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (C.D. Ill. 2003);
Al-Marri v. Rumsfeld, 360 F.3d 707 (7th Cir. 2004);
Al-Marri v. Rumsfeld, 543 U.S. 809 (2004);
Al-Marri v. Rumsfeld [no. 2:05-cv-02259-HFFRSC (D.S.C. Aug. 8, 2005)];
Al-Marri v. Wright, [487 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2007)] [288];
and now the latest and I’m sure not the last case, and subject of this review: al-Marri v. Pucciarelli [4CCA no. 06-7427 (2008)].
As a succinct summary, al-Marri is a classic confrontation between the State and an individual, centered upon the definition of words; in this case, the words are ‘war’ and ‘enemy combatant.’ I have often substituted the word ‘battlefield’ for ‘enemy’ in the descriptive term, but words nonetheless. The expansive 220 page, 4 volume ruling presents a good view of the challenge we face in the War on Islamic Fascism. Conveying the court’s opinion, Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz said, “Al-Marri is not a subject of a country with which the United States is at war, he did not illegally enter the United States, and he is not alleged to have committed any other immigration violation. Rather, after lawfully entering the United States, al-Marri ‘developed substantial connections with this country,’ and so his status as an alien neither eliminates his due process rights nor provides the President with extraordinary powers to subject al-Marri to seizure and indefinite detention by the military. The President’s constitutional powers do not allow him to order the military to seize and detain indefinitely al-Marri without criminal process any more than they permit the President to order the military to seize and detain, without criminal process, other terrorists within the United States, like the Unabomber or the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing.” As is so often the case, the essential insight to this al-Marri decision comes in the dissenting opinion, Chief Judge Karen J. Williams gave us the crux of this ruling and the growing portfolio of war jurisprudence; she said, “A distillation of these precedents, I believe, yields a definition of an enemy combatant subject to detention pursuant to Congressional authorizations as an individual who meets two criteria:
“(1) he attempts or engages in belligerent acts against the United States, either domestically or in a foreign combat zone; and
“(2) on behalf of an enemy force.”
Judge Williams got it precisely correct. According to the available public information, al-Marri easily qualifies, yet the majority chose to view the current war as not war but some bizarre mutated police action. Among all the words, the best comes from the dissenting opinion of Circuit Judge James Harvie Wilkinson III. He said, “There is a way to respect both our commitment to liberty and the need for security without which liberty cannot flourish. But, it is not the way my fine colleagues have chosen, and I must respectfully dissent from the reversal of the judgment.” “This reluctance to allow Congress to distinguish between war and crime will hinder the elected branches in their effort to tame the true tragedy of modern times: the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent life.” Wilkinson went on to note, “It should be clear that al-Marri is the paradigm of an enemy combatant under any reasonable interpretation of the AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force (PL 107-40)]. To say that Congress did not have persons such as al-Marri in mind is to say that Congress had very little in mind at all.” How much more plainly can this be said? Wilkinson further observed, “Al-Marri was indisputably a member of al Qaeda, and he was indisputably planning terrorist attacks to kill American citizens and destroy American property. If al-Marri is not an ‘enemy combatant’ under the AUMF, then who is?” Every citizen should note and remember Judge Wilkinson’s rhetorical question. Lastly, Wilkinson concluded, “I disagree with the result reached here, but I do so in the belief that my colleagues have helped in some small way to demonstrate the good and earnest values that animate this country — values that require America prevail.” Now, for some of my observations . . . The enemy has already been successful, not just in the 9/11 attacks, but also in carving up our sense of Liberty and Freedom. We endure restrictions upon our freedom of movement, albeit nuisance, but nuisance nonetheless. We are subjected to unprecedented, unwarranted, electronic surveillance and risk. We have altered our way of life and adapted to the added intrusions upon our public and private conduct. Yes, indeed, the enemy has been successful. Now, we debate nuance in our precious writ of habeas corpus to afford the Executive the necessary tools to protect us, while risking compromise of our most fundamental constitutional rights. Of a historical note, habeas corpus has been challenged before in wartime. The two most frequently cited cases are ex parte Milligan [71 U.S. 2 (1866)] [170, 213] and ex parte Quirin [317 U.S. 1 (1942)] [170], both of which involved American citizens involved with enemy activities during wartime. Both cases are cited in al-Marri, with the majority favoring Milligan and the dissent leaning on Quirin. As noted in Judge Motz’s words, the majority does not get passed gate 1: are we at war? Diana Motz clearly thinks not. War or not in the al-Marri case, a series of facts taken separately may not connote extra-national terrorist activity by al-Marri, and yet when those facts are taken in context, the process of connecting the dots renders a far more ominous image. Does the ‘enemy combatant’ definition require the use of a firearm, does weapon include chemical or biological agents intended to incapacitate or kill Americans, or does weapon include a computer that could cause incalculable economic or physical damage? As much as I despise the cowardly tactics of al-Qaeda, I must respect their commitment to the cause for which they kill innocent people. In that respect and after reading this latest al-Marri ruling, I must say that our enemies are learning far more about what we know and don’t know, and about our means and methods of acquiring information, from this mounting pile of public court cases and of course their best sources, the New York Times and Seymour Hersh, than they could ever obtain in active combat. The ludicrousness of our wanton disclosure of warfighting intelligence in the middle of the War on Islamic Fascism is akin to telling the Germans we were reading their 3, 5 and 7-wheel Enigma codes during the Battle of Atlantic, and telling the Japanese we were reading their JN-25 Purple codes prior to the Battle of Midway. As much as I regret some of the administration’s decisions and actions, fostering distrust of them, I still believe that they believe they acted honorably and in the best interests of the American People, just as I am certain the Times and Hersh believe the same in justifying their actions. This is the glory and yet greatest weakness of democracy. And, this continued bleeding in public courtrooms and in the Press could well become our undoing. Taken in context of all American citizens, we must afford al-Marri a modicum of due process to establish via independent Judicial review whether he is an ‘enemy combatant’ as the government contends. If not, then he should be tried in civilian court for his crimes, since we allowed him to legally enter our country. If so, then he should be rendered into the military detention system, as he has been, and held for the duration of hostilities, or he is determined to be harmless, or until such time as the government wishes to prosecute him for war crimes. Once inside the U.S. Territory, he must be afforded basic habeas rights, because we must be afforded those same rights against an arbitrary or capricious government. After all, some bozo politocrat might be angered by my opinions in this humble forum and seek to eliminate my voice via the rendition process. That said, the only rights I would afford a U.S. citizen or legal alien resident would be due process up to the determination of whether he is an ‘enemy combatant.’ Once that is done, you no longer enjoy the rights and privileges of being in the United States. For other non-citizens captured outside U.S. Territory, the Constitution does not protect them. I can levy criticism upon the entire Federal government; the President has failed to focus the government and the Nation to wage war successfully in the War on Islamic Fascism; the Congress has failed to recognize the threat and enact the laws necessary to allow the President to wage war successfully; and, the Judiciary has failed to acknowledge the extraordinary circumstances of the present War. Nonetheless, I shall retain my faith in the strength and power in the Liberty and freedom that are hallmarks of this Grand Republic (for better or worse, and I hope I am not blindly naïve). History shall tell the story of what we did in this fight.

Comments and contributions from Update no.345:
“Congrats on your son Taylor's graduation.
“As for Medellin, all I have to say is the World Court has NO say over how we run our affairs. If you rape and murder two teenage girls, you don't deserve to breathe fresh air, polluted air, or any other kind of air any more. The World Court should go back to taking 7 years or whatever to try one war criminal from the former Yugoslavia.
“The whole thing about when it's appropriate to use the word ‘nigger’ makes me shake my head. I do not buy the argument that it's all right for blacks to say it and not any other ethnic group. This isn't like taking the word ‘bad’ and making it mean ‘good’ in street slang (i.e., ‘Man, that outfit is bad!’). Nigger is a derogatory term no matter who says it. My Dad came up with a really good idea. If a certain segment of the black population wants to use the word nigger because it ‘empowers them’ (what horsehockey), then white people should be allowed to say the word ‘honky’ in order to empower us, but no other ethnic group is allowed to say it. See how ridiculous this is.
My reply:
We agree on the authority of the World Court. A small side story . . . I served two WestPac tours as a Marine officer – one as a lieutenant, the other as a major. On the first tour, the U.S. was still the legal authority; the second, Japanese law prevailed. Under Japanese law, possession of any amount of psychotropic substances started at an automatic seven years imprisonment; larger amounts brought longer sentences. Japanese prisons are not like U.S. prisons, and they reduced many, rough, tough Marines to whining, crying boys, begging for help. The U.S. government did not protest or intervene; we told those Marines . . . you violated Japanese law, you suffer the punishment of Japanese law. Similar positions have been maintained with Singapore, Malaysia and others. I understand and appreciate the fact that many countries including Mexico object to the use of the death penalty. My message to the Mexican government, your citizens come into this country illegally and they commit capital crimes, as Medell¿n did, and you pay the price . . . too bad, so sad. My sympathy remains with those two young girls who were denied their most fundamental right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The word ‘nigger’ is such a vile, disgusting moniker born in the obscenity and debasement of other human beings by some Americans many generations ago. The word is demeaning and intended to diminish, marginalize and segregate the object of its use. I appreciate the anger those Americans who suffered its bite must have felt, but prolonging that pain does not help the wound heal. The historical use and connotation of that word is revolting no matter who uses it for whatever reason in any context. I have no power whatsoever to stop its use. However, I respectfully advise Whoppi Goldberg and other Americans so inclined that the continued use of that word does NOT serve the interests of equality, respect and comradeship.

Another contribution:
“From what I myself have seen (on my computer), SO far, the costs of growing corn, and (I may have forgotten), soy beans, etc, surpass the costs of our drilling for oil, etc. A negative payback-----though the possibility is there. Not the right way to do it yet.
“Brazil found a way to manufacture fuel from Sugar Cane, and has, from what I've seen, a VERY successful thing going. I heard that almost 90% of the vehicles on the roads there use Ethanol derived from Sugar Cane.”
My response:
Bio-fuel is a long way from being economically or logistically viable especially in the U.S. Just because we can make ethanol from corn, does not mean we should. We have finite arable land and limited water resources for humans, animals, industry and crops. We must find new sources for fuel, food, and water . . . not yet identified or developed, to transform land not yet productive.

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