27 July 2009

Update no.397

Update from the Heartland
No.397
20.7.09 – 26.7.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
President Obama held yet another prime time news conference as took his case to We, the People, as he tried to make the argument for health care reform along with that reform as part of the economic recovery process. We can disagree with his policies, processes, or the clothes he wears, but we must give him credit for an extraordinary effort. John F. Kennedy wrote of Winston Churchill’s premiership, “He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle.” Words were Churchill’s and Roosevelt’ primary tool to encourage, shape and hold the support and focus of their people in wartime. Someone observed that Obama has held more news conferences in six months than Bush held in eight years. I do not know if the observation is correct, regardless, words are the President’s most powerful means to influence We, the People, and I am thankful he is comfortable with public words. Despite the President’s pressure, the day after the news conference, Senate Majority Leader Reid announced his colleagues would not vote on the health care reform bill until after the August recess. I recognize that we must do something; yet, I remain troubled by all this talk about universal coverage and government involvement. As with the potential, future, collapse of Social Security, almost any action will be better than inaction. The status quo is simply not sustainable. Nonetheless, the President’s public statement and answers were completely and thoroughly overshadowed and dominated by one, very poor, single, word choice -- “stupidly.” The President used that word to describe the actions of the Cambridge [Massachusetts] Police Department regarding the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis “Skip” Gates, Jr., during an investigation of a potential burglary in progress call from a neighbor. As a leader, he has no right to voice his opinion in a public forum. He is the leader of all Americans, not just some chosen subset, and especially not just his friends. He may not have liked what happened to his buddy “Skip” Gates, but by his own admission, he did not have all the facts, thus rendering his foolish comment quite inappropriate. This incident became yet another protest for the sins of the past. An elitist, Ivy League, intelligentsia, sanctimonious professor decided he wanted to make an example of a lowly, uneducated, police officer with less skin pigmentation than him. Bill Maher can call Sergeant James Crowley’s actions stupid. The President of the United States cannot . . . he simply must not voice his personal opinion on such matters in any public forum.

Another opinion, this time from a renown lawyer:
“Gay Marriage and the Constitution – Why Ted Olson and I are working to overturn California’s Proposition 8”
by David Boies
Wall Street Journal
Published: July 20, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124804515860263587.html#mod=djemEditorialPage
Boies and his brother-in-the-law, former Solicitor General of the United States Ted Olson have initiated legal action to overturn California’s Proposition 8. David wrote, “[Ted and I] acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause, and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens.” Boies concluded, “The argument in favor of Proposition 8 ultimately comes down to no more than the tautological assertion that a marriage is between a man and a woman. But a slogan is not a substitute for constitutional analysis. Law is about justice, not bumper stickers.” His argument is sound, reasonable and appropriate, if only others would listen. To the point, regardless of whether homosexuality (or rather anything other than exclusive heterosexuality) is a genetic / hereditary trait, or entirely and solely a matter of personal, conscious, hedonist choice, there is no public necessity for continued imposition of such foolish prohibitions on free, productive citizens. We ALL must enjoy equal protection under the law, or none of us do.

The Senate voted 58-40-0-2(0) to delete financing for seven more Air Force F-22 warplanes from next year’s defense spending bill. The President repeatedly threatened to veto the US$680B bill, if it included any money for the planes. My only reason for noting an on-going congressional action is the Press reference, which constantly reports that the Pentagon does not want the additional airplanes. I feel fairly safe in saying I highly doubt the U.S. Air Force did not want the additional fighters. Secretary Gates, and undoubtedly the President, sees the F-22 as not applicable to the current war, or war environment. If the funding removal is sustained until the bill becomes law, it will essentially end F-22 production.

Another Senate vote [39-58-0-3(0)] rejected Amendment no.1618 (the so-called Thune Amendment, named for Senator John Randolph Thune of South Dakota) to S.1390 (the annual Defense Appropriations bill), with its purpose “to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State” – a valiant attempt, but no joy.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo and Special Counsel Robert J. Delahunty wrote a 37-page memorandum titled, “Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities within the United States,” dated 23.October.2001, for then Counsel to the President Alberto Gonzales and Department of Defense General Counsel William James “Jim” Haynes, II, to define legal constraints regarding the deployment of Federal military resources within this Grand Republic in response to a major terrorist event. On Friday, the New York Times reported that the Bush administration considered testing the counsel offered by Yoo & Haynes for the capture of a group of amateur Islamists in the suburbs of Buffalo (New York) that became known as the Lackawanna Six. The deployment of military assets for the mission would have been a direct test of the Authorization for Use of Military Force [PL 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001)] and the Posse Comitatus Act [PL 45-263; 20 Stat. 145 (1878); 18 U.S.C. §1385 (1994)]. Ultimately, President Bush decided against the test. My curiosity focuses far more on the motives of the Times than the Bush administration in this instance.

Another intriguing decision in the recent batch from the Supremes involves the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) [PL 89-110, 42 U.S.C. §1973] – Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District no.1 v. Holder [557 U.S. ___ (2009); no. 08-322]. The choice of this case reflects an odd circumstance. The small utility district sought to amend its voting procedures. Since the utility district is in Texas, and Texas is a designated state / jurisdiction under VRA, the utility district was required by §5 of VRA to seek pre-clearance for any election change from a Federal court in Washington, DC; however, the utility district sought relief under the “bailout” provision in §4(a) of the VRA. The district court and appeals court both denied the “bailout” request. The Court attached significance to the extension of the VRA by Congress for another 25 years, via the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 [PL 109-246]. The Supremes voted 8-1 to reverse the lower courts, declaring their decisions were not consistent with contemporary facts, but stopping short of declaring the §5 requirement unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, noted, “The Government’s contrary interpretation [of §§4(a) & 5 of the VRA] has helped to render the bailout provision all but a nullity. Since 1982, only 17 jurisdictions – out of the more than 12,000 covered political subdivisions – have successfully bailed out of the Act.” Roberts went on to note, “In part due to the success of [the VRA], we are now a very different Nation. Whether conditions continue to justify such legislation is a difficult constitutional question we do not answer today. We conclude instead that the Voting Rights Act permits all political subdivisions, including the district in this case, to seek relief from its preclearance requirements.” The consequences for other citizens in more vulnerable jurisdictions cannot be clearly predicted; however, the Northwest Austin ruling is a step back from the landmark VRA, civil rights law. The lone dissenting vote was not a full on dissent, yet important in content. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, concurring in part, dissenting in part, offered a far more interesting view of the subject of voting rights. Couple the Northwest Austin decision with other recent civil rights rulings, namely Ricci v. DeStefano [557 U.S. ___ (2009); no. 07-1428] [395] and Horne v. Flores [557 U.S. ___ (2009); No. 08-289] [396]. Clarence argued that the Court had not gone far enough in rolling back the constraints of the Voting Rights Act. Thomas concluded, “In 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in order to guarantee that no citizen would be denied the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Congress passed §5 of the VRA in 1965 because that promise had remained unfulfilled for far too long. But now – more than 40 years later – the violence, intimidation, and subterfuge that led Congress to pass §5 and this Court to uphold it no longer remains. An acknowledgment of §5’s unconstitutionality represents a fulfillment of the Fifteenth Amendment’s promise of full enfranchisement and honors the success achieved by the VRA.” This case has been largely overlooked in the Press, amid the hub-bub of war, recession, and the debate over socialism; yet, the significance of this case may well be far greater than we can imagine. Time shall tell the tale.

An intriguing challenge:
“Weird cases: who's the Daddy?”
by Gary Slapper
The Times [of London]
July 17, 2009
http://timesonline-emails.co.uk/go.asp?/bTNL001/mHFIE3B/qHX9N3B/uNSC46/xHWPE3B
Slapper illuminated several rather unusual paternity cases and raised an important societal question. As more and more citizens move out from traditional, Christian-religion-defined, marital union, i.e., adult, heterosexual, monogamous, procreation-only marriage, the issue of paternity increases in importance. One of the cases noted by Slapper involves a Missouri woman who became pregnant after having sex with two, identical twin brothers, separately, on the same day. The social conservatives among us can easily, appropriately and effectively argue . . . “see” . . . anything other than traditional marriage creates far too many societal problems and will not work. There is validity to the argument. However, I cannot overcome the inherent conflict with a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and their freedom of choice that enables such relationship anomalies. We must discuss, debate, argue and ultimately find reasonably balanced solutions for the good of our free society.

News from the economic front:
-- New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s office is considering a civil suit against Charles Schwab for its marketing and sales of auction-rate securities to clients.
-- The California legislature reportedly reached a solution to the state’s massive US$26B budget gap. Perhaps the troubled state can find some semblance of fiscal stability. Again, time shall tell the tale.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that Germany’s Deutsche Bank has dismissed two top executives following an internal investigation into surveillance of the board and employees. Also, prosecutors in Frankfurt have opened a preliminary inquiry into whether the bank may have violated various civil and criminal, privacy laws.
-- Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke warned Congress that pending legislation to subject the Fed to greater oversight by the Government Accountability Office could jeopardize the central bank’s independence to rapidly deal with economic conditions. He also indicated that the economy remains too weak to start tightening monetary policy and offered a view of the toolkit the central bank could employ to unwind its crisis measures.
-- Morgan Stanley’s 2nd Quarter net income plunged 87%, as the bank repaid US$10B in TARP funds amid continued market weakness.
-- Wells Fargo’s 2nd Quarter earnings rose 81%, hitting a new company record, despite the bank’s acquisition of Wachovia, while credit-loss provisions rose 69% from a year ago.
-- Ford Motor Company reported a net income of US$2.3B, or $0.69 a share, compared with a loss of US$8.67B, or $3.89 a share, for the same period a year earlier. The company consumed an estimated US$1B in cash during the quarter as it controlled incentive spending around the world – another glimmer of light toward the end of a storm.
-- UPS reported 2nd Quarter profit decreased 49% to US$445M, as revenue fell 17% to US$10.83B . . . at least they are still making money in this recession.
-- American Express reported 2nd Quarter net income down 48% to US$337M, while revenue dropped 18% to US$6.09B, and its loan-loss provisions totaled US$1.6B, compared with US$1.8B, reflecting lower average cardmember receivables and loans. In a company press release, CEO Kenneth I. Chenault said, “Given the cutbacks in discretionary spending among affluent consumers, small businesses and corporations, our overall level of billed business is performing well relative to most of the other major card issuers.” Well, how about that!
-- Investigators from the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn along with the FBI and the SEC are examining whether Corey Ribotsky, 38, a New York, hedge-fund manager, and his firm – US$770M, NIR Group of Roslyn, NY – defrauded investors as the stock market fell amid the credit crisis.
-- UK GDP shrank 0.8% in the 2nd Quarter from the previous quarter, worse than expected. The annual output contraction was 5.6%, the biggest decline since quarterly records began in 1955. The UK economy has now contracted for five straight quarters, with output down 5.7% over that period, a sharper downturn than the recession of the early 1990s, but as yet not as severe as the early 1980s recession.
-- A top Citigroup trader, Andrew J. Hall, who heads Citigroup’s secretive energy-trading unit, Phibro LLC, is pressing the financial giant to honor a 2009 pay package that could total US$100M, setting the stage for a potential showdown between Citigroup and the government’s new pay czar. This test should be interesting.

Comments and contributions from Update no.395:
“It seems like it would be alot less expensive to pay for coverage of the poor and uninsured than to make everyone join the same plan and cover EVERYONE ... I don't know either ... but those of us who are currently covered by employers are doing fine as we are ... why change something that works well for a vast number of people? And if we do cover the poor/uninsured, they should have to show proof of active job searching if they are able to work ... like unemployment … we should not fund health coverage for those who are not working if they are physically and mentally sound enough to work.”
My reply:
As is so often the case, especially with major changes, the politicians, lobbyists and advocates for one side or the other try to create confusion with exaggerated partial facts . . . I believe constructed to intentionally cause confusion, doubt and a fertile environment for grassroots disinformation. I am not aware of any of the legislation before Congress, at least as represented in the Library of Congress database, that even hints at national health care. The variations of the current health plans before the House & Senate seek to provide coverage for the uninsured or under-insured. I do not believe any of the current proposals will change our current coverage, for those of us who still have health care coverage. One of the plans recommends taking health benefits as taxable income as a means to pay for the uninsured folks; needless to say, I’m not too keen on that, as I suspect there will be knock-on effects that have not been considered. I am not impressed with either the House or the Senate plans. Hopefully, some hybrid of the two will be closer to reasonable and realistic. We shall see.
Re: funding for those able to but not working, we seem to get into the question on many related topics like drug and alcohol use, smoking, etc. I am willing to help those who wish to be helped. I am not interested in helping those who do not want to be helped or those who seek to take advantage of our generosity.
We are a long way from health care reform. Further, any workable solution must include the proper regulatory oversight to strongly punish fraud, waste and abuse.

Comments and contributions from Update no.396:
“A most interesting subject Cap. Our joint King was a worse character than our history portrays, although he is roundly blamed for losing what must have been the most important part of our colonies.
“I was most interested in the subject of the right to bear arms. I gather from your comments that you yourself have some sort of hand gun for the defence of your family.
“It’s a different world Cap, very different.
“I note that there is some reference to arming civilian militia, presuming I assume that such a militia would be to wrench power back from a rogue government. Surely an outdated idea now.
“None of our business over here mate just so very different but we respect your laws of course.”
My response:
Re: “our joint King,” i.e., King George III: indeed, so history has recorded. Yet, as with all leaders, much was done in his name, with zealous bureaucrats adding an extra measure of salt to the wounds in his name. Nonetheless, yes, George III shall carry that burden ad infinitum.
Re: guns in America: yes, it is a different world. Further, the United States of America is neither lawless nor “shoot ‘em up” as the Press likes to portray this Grand Republic. I am not so quick to discount an armed civil militia. Sure, the justification for such a body is not what it was in 1788, or even 1888, yet there are still a host of reasons for maintaining such a capability, not least of which might be the aftermath anarchy of a major disaster like an earthquake, hurricane, or such. When law enforcement becomes saturated, civil conditions often deteriorate swiftly – the “Lord of the Flies” scenario, so to speak.
Of course it is your business. We are all part of the world community. We should all be concerned about what goes on in the United States, the United Kingdom, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, et cetera. We all have a responsibility to ask questions and hopefully engage in proper debate on the issues of our time. I am sure you have noticed that I quote / review British law and current events, where appropriate.

Another contribution:
“AMEN on your comment of the Nogales education situation below ... nothing wrong with teaching English to the Mexican children, but we should not use our tax dollars to provide teachers who hold classes in JUST Spanish !! Spanish AND English OK ... but not JUST Spanish!! They DO need to adjust to an English speaking society. Good example you have made of the Americans in Italy. I'm sure the Italians don't hold solely English taught classes ... except maybe at military bases where the predominant language might be English.”
My reply:
I am an advocate for multi-lingual, multi-cultural societies, and especially our society. However, I am not particularly tolerant of those who resist assimilation and refuse to speak the language, or abide by the laws and customs. I am strongly against printing official government documents like identification papers, election ballots, laws, et cetera, in any language other than English.

A different contribution:
“As an attorney, I don't have much truck with John Yoo. It isn't Bush bashing--in fact, I think that he served the President very poorly. As noted below, even the Bush Administration realized that and has stepped back from Yoo's work. (Below, Bradbury's statement is a very strong rebuff.) In his position, he needed to say what could be done and how one could do it—as well as saying something cannot be done, or cannot be done in a desired manner. He didn't want to say no, so he formulated some bizarre legal theories to buttress his findings. His job was to tell his client what he needed to hear-- not what he wanted to hear.
“The excerpts below are from an article I read in the wake of his recent article. Strong opinions, but on point. Again note that Yoo never mentioned the seminal case in the area, Youngstown Steel. To not mention the main holding case on a position would flunk a law student or bar exam taker. He should have mentioned the case and then distinguished how his position is different. The fact that he didn't meant that he couldn't think of a way to distinguish his brief from Youngstown. It is lawyer-ing 101.”
---------------------------------
[The attached (as yet) unattributed article:]
“Even the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel eventually repudiated all of Yoo's opinions (a fact that he somehow omitted in his Journal piece), and the legal community has overwhelmingly rejected his arguments. But to be fair to Yoo, I decided to read not just the newly released memos, but his 2003 torture memo.
“It isn't necessary to spend much time eviscerating Yoo's outrageous Oct. 23 memo authorizing military force, because the Bush administration already did that. In an Oct. 6, 2008, memo, Principal Deputy Attorney General Steven Bradbury disposed of it. ‘We also judge it necessary to point out that the 10/23/01 memo states several propositions that are either incorrect or highly questionable,’ Bradbury writes. Those ‘incorrect or highly questionable’ propositions are pretty much Yoo's entire argument.
“In his Wall Street Journal piece, Yoo attacks his critics for taking his statement that free speech rights can be abrogated in wartime out of context. But nothing in Yoo's Oct. 23 memo, or his other memos, inspires confidence that he would not be prepared come up with tortured legal arguments to abrogate free speech. The case Yoo cites, Near v. Minnesota, was cited by the justices who tried to prevent the release of the Pentagon Papers on ‘national security’ grounds. When one looks at the quality of Yoo’s legal reasoning in the 2003 torture memo, it becomes obvious that no fundamental American right would be safe in his hands.
“In that infamous memo, Yoo legally redefined torture. His arguments for this redefinition are truly remarkable. They are a case study in intellectual bad faith.
“The U.N. Convention Against Torture, to which the U.S. is a signatory, defines torture as the infliction of ‘severe pain.’ The U.N. Convention is implemented in U.S. law (18 U.S.C. 2340). Yoo’s legal task was to find legal grounds to define ‘severe’ in a diminished way. There is nothing on the books to support such a redefinition.
“Yoo came up with one of the most bizarre, illogical and specious arguments in the history of law. He dug up a federal statute that had absolutely nothing to do with the issue he was examining, seized upon a passing reference in that statute to ‘severe pain’ that was not and could not possibly be interpreted to be a definition of that state, and then asserted with a straight face that this reference supported a radical redefinition of ‘severe pain.’ To compound this, he then lied about what the statute actually said.
“In short, he simply made up a torture-friendly definition of ‘severe pain,’ and then found a way to justify it.
“The statute Yoo cited, 42 U.S.C. 1395, regulates insurance benefits under the ‘Medicare and Choice’ plan. It defines an emergency medical condition as one ‘manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) that a prudent layman’ could reasonably expect that without immediate medical treatment, the individual displaying those symptoms would be at serious risk of losing their health, suffering serious impairment to bodily functions, or suffering serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part. From this bureaucratic definition of ‘emergency medical condition,’ Yoo magically derived a new, torture-friendly definition of ‘severe pain.’
“‘Although these statutes address a substantially different subject from section 2340,’ Yoo blandly notes in a world-class understatement, ‘they are nonetheless helpful for understanding what constitutes severe physical pain. They treat severe pain as an indicator of ailments that are likely to result in permanent and serious physical damage in the absence of immediate medical treatment. Such damage must rise to the level of death, organ failure, or the permanent impairment of a significant body function. These statutes suggest that to constitute torture ‘severe pain’ must rise to a similarly high level -- the level that would ordinarily be associated with a physical condition or injury sufficiently serious that it would result in death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions.’
“Not only was Yoo’s argument about torture utterly absurd, he also ignored the single most important ruling about expansive presidential power in foreign affairs, the Supreme Court’s landmark ‘steel seizure’ case. As legal analyst Stephen Gillers wrote, this is like ‘advising a client on school desegregation law and ignoring Brown v. Board of Education.’
“After reading the torture memo, it is simply incontestable that Yoo was either grossly incompetent, or that it was his intention to twist the law to tell the Bush administration what it wanted to hear.”
My reply:
I understand your point regarding Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer [343 U.S. 579 (1952); no. 744]. I will certainly concede that Yoo’s paper would have been far more scholarly, if he had mentioned Youngstown and at least discounted the case in application to the topic at hand. We have discussed this before [387]. Youngstown was a domestic separation of powers case, with the “police action” of the Korean War as Truman’s rationale and justification. It was not a warfighting case. If, as you suggest, Yoo avoided Youngstown because he could not find rationale in the shadow of the case, then you have a point, but I just do not see Youngstown as the controlling case. Perhaps you can help me appreciate why you think it is.
You did not have an attribution to the article excerpt you inserted.
The Bradbury memo of 15.January.2009, was hardly a “repudiation;” it was a lame CYA attempt, if I ever saw one. Like so many, Bradbury offers essentially no rationale for “disposing” of the 23.October.2001, Yoo memo; he just says it was wrong, essentially. As you point out with the missing Youngstown reference, that Yoo memo may be imbalanced but hardly wrong. “[N]o fundamental right would be safe in his hands” . . . perhaps, although I do not find the justification for such a statement in Yoo’s words. Do we have reason for concern? Yes, absolutely. I supported the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 [PL 107-56] when Congress passed it and the President signed it into law. Today, I am giving the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt but expecting the worst. I was truly and deeply disappointed in the Bush administration’s collateral usage of the original law and the Reauthorization Act of 2005 [PL 109-177]. I recognize the necessity for these tools to wage war successfully in the War on Islamic Fascism, but the frail human beings entrusted with wielded such power have proven themselves unworthy. We must find a more balanced means.
We can and should debate the content and rationale of the two Yoo 1.August.2002, torture memos. Of course, “[t]here is nothing on the books to support such a redefinition.” The issue of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) for intelligence purposes during wartime has not been addressed in the law . . . to my knowledge. I’ve read Yoo’s rationale. I understand and appreciate the challenge in finding balance between “severe pain,” interrogation inducement, national security, and our fragile sense of propriety.
I am trying not to be in the position of defending Yoo. His memos were laborious, sometimes disjointed, and certainly not balanced, as you have noted and I have agreed; but that does not make his arguments “outrageous,” “bizarre,” or whatnot. I am interested in the defense of this Grand Republic against a determined, amorphous enemy. We will not have a constructive debate on EIT unless we can get passed politics that has inflamed and ensnared this issue. So, I would rather risk trusting the judgment of an intelligence field operative than any damnable politician, and that is a very sad statement. That said, this notion of “severe pain” is a chimeric distraction. To some, “severe pain” is a pin prick on their finger; to others, it is anything short of milk & cookies in front of the TV. EIT within the intelligence collection process is an inducement to provide the information an individual possesses; EIT is the final tool in the kit. Interrogation processes should NOT be a topic of public discussion for one paramount reason – disclosure to our enemies. We have already gone too far.
Bottom line: I do not agree with the writer of the article. Yoo’s motive and performance were not so negatively binary as he portrays. I’ve read (studied) most of those memos, and I simply do not agree with such an extreme assessment. So, if we wish to debate presidential power to wage war successfully or encourage a high level battlefield combatant captive, then let’s get it on; but, let us move passed the political rhetoric. Perhaps, if you wish, we can dissect Yoo’s 1.August.2002 memo, or any one of his products. I’m ready.

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

20 July 2009

Update no.396

Update from the Heartland
No.396
13.7.09 – 19.7.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor [389] concluded this week. She was called to task for several of her foolish, inflammatory, public comments; however, I detected no chink in her stoic façade, and I believe she will be confirmed by a substantial margin
-- A belated thought on the negotiations between Swiss bank UBS & the USG [357, 366, 375, 395] . . . While it is generally good to publicize such initiatives, especially running down American tax evaders, the acknowledgment of such actions in what could become a criminal investigation hardly seems wise or productive. Surely, if a citizen has the knowledge, money and chutzpah to move money off-shore illegally, they must have the ability to see what is coming and move their money to some other tax haven, of which there are more than a few.
-- After having his name and reputation maligned by many and a legal challenge by a traitor {Padilla v. Yoo [391]}, former deputy assistant attorney general John Choon Yoo [381] decided to add his voice to the public forum.
“Why We Endorsed Warrantless Wiretaps – The inspectors general report ignores history and plays politics with the law”
by John Yoo
Published: July 16, 2009
Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124770304290648701.html#mod=djemEditorialPage
Yoo hit the nail squarely, “In FISA, President Bush and his advisers faced an obsolete law not written with live war with an international terrorist organization in mind.” If you would like to appreciate the other side of the electronic surveillance question from the popular Bush-bashing routine, please read Yoo’s opinion.
-- Two, near simultaneous, improvised explosive devices detonated in the J.W. Marriott and Ritz Carlton hotels in Jakarta, Indonesia, on Friday {07:40 (G) [00:40 (UTC); 19:40 (CDT), Thursday, July 16.7.09]}. The event has all the earmarks of Jemaah Islamiyah [240, et al], an affiliate of al-Qaeda [16, et al] and perpetrators of the Bali bombings [12.10.2002 & 1.10.2005]. We still have a long way to go.
--The title of an Op-Ed column says it all [134, et al]:
“Judges Don't Belong on the Battlefield – Recent decisions have altered the way we're fighting in Afghanistan”
by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
Wall Street Journal
Published: July 17, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124779656089055677.html#mod=djemEditorialPage
The absolute absurdity and foolishness of the mounting string of court cases raised on behave of captured battlefield combatants along with the profound adverse impact of Judicial injection in military operations will not serve this Grand Republic or our principles. This unfortunate aspect of the War on Islamic Fascism will undoubtedly be recorded by history as a monumental misstep that threatens the security of the Republic and might even be the harbinger of our downfall. Do I really think this issue is that bad? Yes, absolutely and without equivocation!

A New York Times editorial caught my attention, not so much for the title as the abstract, which said, “Homeland Security should be deep-sixing its 287(g) program, which enlists local law-enforcement agencies to hunt illegal immigrants, not tweaking or widening it.” Of course, the Times being a consistent and persistent Bush-basher amplified my curiosity.
“More Immigration Non-Solutions”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: July 12, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/opinion/13mon2.html?th&emc=th
The 287(g) program to which they refer is actually derived from a section of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) [Division C, Title I, Section 133; 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g); 110 Stat. 3009-546;], passed as part of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 [PL 104-208; H.R. 3610; House: 370-37-1-26(1); Senate: 72-27-0-1(0)], signed into law by President Clinton on 30.September.1996. Now, after all that historic notation trivia, the essence of the 287(g) program involves provisions in Federal law to train and empower local police agencies to assist the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) service with respect to enforcement of immigration law. The 287(g) program is not as the Times editorial staff has portrayed it. The law allows for coordination and outreach rather than impressment as the Times would have us believe. If a citizen reads only the New York Times editorial page, he will have a particularly biased view of events. Yet, the Times is vital; it keeps stimulating my curiosity and inquiry.

Former Secretary of Defense and Director of Central Intelligence James Rodney Schlesinger offered up an interesting and worthy opinion.
“Why We Don't Want a Nuclear-Free World – The former defense secretary on the U.S. deterrent and the terrorist threat”
by Melanie Kirkpatrick
Wall Street Journal
Published: July 13, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124726489588925407.html
This opinion is worth your time to read and especially as a topic of public debate.

Sadly, we learned of another end-of-life episode. Renown British conductor Sir Edward Thomas “Ted” Downes, CBE, 85, and his wife Joan, 74, with their children, Son Caractacus, 42, and Daughter Boudicca, 39, travelled to the Dignitas clinic in Schwerzenbach , Zurich Canton, Switzerland. Joan was in the terminal stages of liver and pancreatic cancer; Ted had become increasingly frail. Joan and Ted (with their children’s support) decided to end their lives with dignity. May God rest their souls. Of course, many citizens who resent such decisions by other people like Sir Edward and his wife have protested euthanasia and seek laws to prevent such decisions and support. Someday I hope we can all respect the private, individual decisions of every citizen, especially at the end of their lives. In case anyone might be interested or curious, Dignitas charges €4,000 (£3,453, US$5,641) for patients and €7,000 (£6,043, US$9.871) for handling family duties.

I note the passing of Walter Leland Cronkite, Jr., 92 – former CBS Evening News anchor and television journalism icon. He was my choice in those days. I did not always agree with his rendition of the news, but I respected his view. May God rest his immortal soul.

The next Supreme Court case on my reading list was Horne v. Flores [557 U.S. ___ (2009); No. 08-289] – the Nogales, Arizona, challenge to the state’s compliance with the Federal Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA) [PL 93-380; Title II, § 202; 88 Stat. 514; 20 U.S.C. §1703(f)]. Miriam Flores and other Nogales high school students claimed the state was not fulfilling its obligations under Federal law. The district and appeals courts agreed. The case dealt with judicial procedural subtleties, far more so than English education. Ultimately, the Supremes overruled the lower courts and sided with the state. Associate Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, offered an interesting observation, “Federalism concerns are heightened when, as in these cases, a federal court decree has the effect of dictating state or local budget priorities. States and local governments have limited funds. When a federal court orders that money be appropriated for one program, the effect is often to take funds away from other important programs.” How true, how true! Interpretation of the law is rarely easy. The spectrum of interpretation is often reflected in the contrast between the majority and dissent; this 5-4 decision provides a near perfect example. Beyond the law, Flores scrambles up an important public topic – non-English accommodation. In the United States, Spanish appears to be the second common language (primary in some areas). In the Flores case, the Supremes defined “bilingual education” as the teaching of at least some classes in Spanish, while providing separate instruction in English. I understand our magnanimity and acceptance of immigrants, however delaying their integration by accommodation will not help them become productive American citizens. In 2001, I joined an Italian company based in Genova, Italia. A young, American engineer joined the company at just about the same time. He moved his wife and two young boys along with their household goods to Finale Ligure, Provincia de Savona, Italia – the company’s engineering center. The family immersed themselves in the Italian culture. Their boys went to local schools, where they were taught in Italian. They spoke Italian with their friends and neighbors. They spoke a mixture of Italian and English at home. They rapidly grew to be a part of the local community. Their example is how immigrants should be assimilated.

News from the economic front:
-- Perhaps, we have reason to worry. Goldman Sachs Group reported its 2nd Quarter profit rose 65%, widely beating expectations, on revenue up 46% to US$13.76B, and net income of US$3.44B, or $4.93 a share, up from US$2.09B, or $4.58 a share a year earlier. On that news, Chief Executive Lloyd C. Blankfein proclaimed, “While markets remain fragile and we recognize the challenges the broader economy faces, our second quarter results reflected the combination of improving financial market conditions, and a deep and diverse client franchise.” Now, don’t we feel comforted?
-- The Commerce Department reported retail sales increased 0.6% in June, the second consecutive monthly gain, mostly on purchases of gasoline and automobiles. Excluding autos and gas, all other retail sales fell for a fourth straight month.
-- The Labor Department reported U.S. wholesale prices rose 1.8% last month compared with May – hardly a definitive sign of recovery but hopefully there has been some recovery and not the first surges of inflation or worse stag-flation.
-- A stack of bidders for American International Group's (AIG) asset-management unit have withdrawn from the acquisition process. The Wall Street Journal reported, “Questions have emerged about how AIG has managed the talks and why they've dragged on.” Ah yes . . . to be a fly on the wall, we might be truly disappointed and discouraged.
-- The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform called former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson [353-6, 362, 384] to testify regarding his part in the acquisition of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America. BoA CEO Ken Lewis has publicly claimed Paulson threatened him, the bank’s board, and senior management if they backed out of the acquisition. Paulson said, “It would be unthinkable for Bank of America to take this destructive action for which there was no reasonable legal basis and which would show a lack of judgment.” So, it shall be a game of “who shot John.” I am stunned by Paulson’s statement and claim. I think Lewis had a perfect reason to walk-away from the Merrill Lynch acquisition . . . it was going to bring down his company. Oh surprise, surprise . . . it has nearly done just that. I suspect Hank is not going to fair well in this episode.
-- In an extraordinary action, more than 175 prominent economists issued a warning against mounting attacks on the Federal Reserve that “the independence of U.S. monetary policy is at risk.” They urged Congress and the President to “avoid compromising [the U.S. central bank's] ability to manage monetary policy as it sees fit” and to refrain from politicizing its decisions on emergency loans to financial institutions. The statement reflects growing unease among the economists that Congress is heading toward laws intended to weaken the freedom the Fed to move interest rates as it see fits. We are on thin ice and need to move carefully but deliberately.
-- CIT Group [360, 395] announced the USG decided that there is “no appreciable likelihood” of government financial assistance in the near term. The struggling commercial lender indicated their discussions with government agencies have ended and its board is evaluating alternatives. The company faces a liquidity crisis as its corporate customers draw down millions of dollars from their credit lines. The Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday that “CIT is expected to announce Monday that it has cut a deal with key bondholders for US$3B in rescue financing, allowing the company to avoid bankruptcy and restructure outside court.” Why does this feel like a game of chicken. To me, CIT’s situation represents a near perfect rationale of why the big banks are too big, must be broken up, and bad decisions allowed to fail. CIT appears to be collateral damage, rather than an agent of the current economy recession.
-- In the shadow of Hank Paulson’s testimony before Congress, we learn that Bank of America is operating under a secret (not so secret anymore) regulatory sanction that requires the bank to overhaul its board and address perceived problems with risk and liquidity management. In an all-too-familiar action, “someone” disclosed a sensitive Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that gives the bank a chance to work out its problems without the glare of outside attention – now that fits with public disclosure doesn’t it. The MOU was imposed in early May, shortly after the bank’s board stripped CEO Ken Lewis of his chairmanship. This action stinks of politics and the government using extra-legal methods to impose its will upon those it wishes. We have not heard the end of what appears to be a rather sordid episode in Federal governance.
-- J.P. Morgan Chase reported 2nd Quarter net income of US$2.72B, up from US$2B a year earlier, on increased revenue of US$25.62B (up 39%). The Wall Street Journal indicated that Morgan-Chase has benefited from competitors’ weakness in the wake of the credit crisis. The company said TARP repayment trimmed $0.27 from the bank’s earnings per share.
-- The Labor Department reported initial jobless claims dropped by 47,000 to 522,000 in the latest week on a seasonally adjusted basis, while total continuing claims – those drawn by workers for more than one week – fell to 6,273,000. The data represented a second straight week of steep declines in the filing of new claims. A Labor Department analyst cautioned that unemployment claims tend to be volatile at this time of year. The data are further complicated by the plight of the auto industry.
-- In an unusual move, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted that the congressional health care reform plan would worsen an already bleak budget outlook and drive nation more deeply into debt – not a particularly encouraging observation.
-- Citigroup reported 2nd Quarter profit rose to a US$4.3B, helped by a US$6.7B after-tax gain from its Smith Barney stake sale. The bank also reported revenue increased 71% to US$29.97B, driven by the Smith Barney gain.
-- A federal judge dismissed a civil insider-trading suit against Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban. The judge decided the SEC had not produced sufficient evidence that Cuban had participated in insider trading when he sold shares in an Internet search engine company, Mamma.com Inc., after receiving confidential information about a private offering in 2004. Sounds a bit thin to me, those are the scales of justice.
-- The Justice Department, Federal Communications Commission and Congress are examining the wireless industry’s practice of long-term contracts like AT&T’s deal with Apple for exclusive use of the iPhone. Verizon Wireless sent a letter to Congress indicating the company intends to shorten the contract period with handset manufacturers so that carriers with fewer than 500,000 customers can offer the models after six months.
Comments and contributions from Update no.395:
From the blog:
“Just a few easy potshots:
“The New York Times story to which you linked did not say what the intelligence program in question concerned except that it dealt with neither interrogation nor domestic intelligence. I don't know the Wall Street Journal's sources, but it seems a strange thought that such intense secrecy would surround the existence of an anti-bin Laden campaign. That the US government sought to kill or capture Osama bin Laden after 9/11/2001 by any means available was public knowledge worldwide. Perhaps the program was something else.
“Having worked in civil service, I will note that nothing ever ceases becoming more complicated in that field, not even through a Supreme Court decision. I wish all parties in New Haven well, especially those in need of well-managed firefighting services.
“I will note here that Ford Motor Company has improved its image in my eyes by not joining Chrysler and General Motors in the welfare line. We would do well to examine what Ford has done differently; it's working.
“I also would like to see the high-risk markets regulated to some degree. The reforms made after the Great Depression might make a good model for that. Some people will remain able and willing to take great risk in order to make great profit, but we as a nation cannot afford to let that risk-taking reach the point of endangering our national economy again.
“Potential investors and customers of AIG would do well to examine the mental soundness of their management before becoming involved with such nonsense.
“I suspect that small businesses would spread TARP money around the USA more than the multinationals. The small businesses operate mostly in local areas; the jobs they create would not be in Singapore or such places.
“On Sarah Palin: surely conservative Republicans can find a better standard bearer. She comes across not as a female ally of Newt Gingrich or other well-spoken conservatives but as a person who might need her medications adjusted. If this is the best Republicans can do, it is time for the "loyal opposition" to be the Libertarians or someone else.”
My reply in the blog:
That section of Update 395 had four newspaper sources. Two of the sources indicated the “secret program” was the bin Ladin mission; seems odd to me as well, but that is what they reported. I have rather classical views of intelligence, and what has been happening in his country for decades now is not classical intelligence. National intelligence should never be a matter of public disclosure & debate, and least of all become a political football to be kicked about by Pelosi & her minions.
The New Haven case is interesting at many levels. The bottom line is performance of the fire service. Reading the case suggests far deeper problem in the governance and service for citizens of New Haven.
I’m w/ you on Ford . . . amazing contrast.
Regulation is important in any public venue including financial markets; the more people involved, the more defined it should be. Some of the New Deal initiatives were good and productive, but others not so much. The key is finding proper balance. Risk is vital to progress, to innovation, to profit. I am not against risk. I encourage it. However, I did not choose to take so much risk and yet, we are all paying a very heavy price for the risks of others that I did not choose to take as well. The bad part of this government intervention (TARP, ARRA, etc.) is too many of the enablers are NOT paying the price for the risks they took. Clearly, AIG did not charge anywhere near enough for the risks they were insuring. It is one thing for an individual to take his money and place his bets on the roll of the dice. It may be tolerable for the owner/CEO of a company to gamble on the fate of his company, although I have considerable sympathy for the customers, share holders & employees of the company. It is altogether a different proposition for banks, lenders, markets and governments to gamble; the collateral damage is often incalculable. An unhealthy chunk of the current recession must be attributed to unmitigated risk realized. On top of that, insurance against that kind of risk anesthetized the investor to the real risk being taken. As we have seen, when insurance companies start taking those unbridled risks, the whole network scheme becomes a house of cards. I dare say that investors would not have been so bold or prolific if they did not have insurance to make themselves feel better.
Good point regarding support for small businesses.
Thank you for your comments including on Sarah Palin. We have always had a need / requirement for a “loyal opposition;” however, all too often they are either not so loyal or not much of an opposition.

A British friend and contributor sent this article & query:
“UPDATE 1-US top court nominee accepts gun rights decision
by James Vicini
Reuters
Published: Tuesday, July 14, 2009; 3:08pm EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1443533620090714
“Just found the above from Reuters.
“The right to bear arms IAW the second amendment. You know of course that even our police don’t routinely carry weapons. The procedure here for even just a shotgun licence is mind boggling complex.
“Having signed off an application for a gun licence it is always the police who have the last word. It’s simple Cap it’s only the bad guys that carry the guns. What’s your views?”
My reply:
There were many grievances delineated in the Declaration of Independence. Just two of those grievances were:
“[The king] has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
“[The king] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”
The 2nd Amendment grew from such grievances . . . self-defense, ready militia, hunting, and other purposes as a citizen may choose or determine. Even to this day, we have vast expanse of the country that have no ready police force with reasonable response time. Self-reliance has been a hallmark of American history. The 2nd Amendment has been as much a part of American history as any other element of the Constitution. So, if no one is carrying guns except the bad guys, who will stop the bad guys? If it takes the police 10 minutes to respond to a home invasion call (if I could even make the call), who will defend my family? Prohibition of firearms may work in other countries. I cannot imagine such a concept ever working in the United States. Firearms have been part of American history from the get-go. So it is, so it shall be.

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

13 July 2009

Update no.395

Update from the Heartland
No.395
6.7.09 – 12.7.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- General Colin Luther Powell, USA (ret.) added his voice to the list of general/flag officers advocating for a thorough review and assessment of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy/law [265, et al] regarding the service of homosexuals in the military.
“Time to review policy on gays in U.S. military: Powell”
by Lesley Wroughton
Reuters
Published: Sunday, July 5, 2009; 11:52 EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5641A920090705
-- The Washington Post reported that the National Institutes of Health has issued new guidelines for the use of hundreds of other embryonic stem cell lines for critical biological research [146, et al]. Now, we can restart and expand vital biological and medical research suspended for that last eight years.
-- Another broadside in the Congress v. CIA tête-à-tête [387] was fired this week in the continuing effort to protect the House Speaker’s foolish accusations of intentional subterfuge on the part of the national intelligence agency. A number of House members (reportedly 50+) wrote a letter to Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Leon Edward Panetta, adding their voices to the Speaker’s accusations that the CIA has been lying to Congress.
“Pelosi v. CIA - Videotapes for agents, secrecy for the Speaker”
Editorial
Washington Post
Published: July 8, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124701436661709153.html#mod=djemEditorialPage
Of course, “someone” “leaked” the sensitive document to the Press. Such is life in our Nation’s Capitol. A few days later, the New York Times added another revelation that suggests none other than former Vice President Cheney directed that certain information be withheld from Congress.
“Cheney Is Linked to Concealment of C.I.A. Project”
by Scott Shane
New York Times
Published: July 11, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/politics/12intel.html?_r=1&hp
The Wall Street Journal reported the “secret” program in question was a clandestine mission to kill or capture Usama bin Ladin. Don’t we all feel so much better knowing classified information can be so easily compromised for political reasons? Oh yes, I feel much better.
-- The NTSB issued their findings in the case of Steve Fossett’s crash [300]. The Board concluded that Fossett had “an inadvertent encounter with downdrafts that exceeded the climb capability of the airplane. Contributing to the accident were the downdrafts, high density altitude, and mountainous terrain.” Aviators have a vernacular expression for such events . . . in essence, it was not his day. May God rest his immortal soul.

This weekend, I watched the HBO Documentary titled: “Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech,” first aired on 29.June.2009; produced and directed by Liz Garbus, featuring her father, renown 1st Amendment lawyer Martin Garbus. The program illuminates contemporary 1st Amendment issues raised during the War on Islamic Fascism. I strongly urge every freedom-loving citizen to watch the program with devoted attention.

In a very rare opportunity (Sunday + Jeanne off shopping), I watched the last several hours of the launch sequence for a shuttle mission – STS-127 – only to have NASA scrub the launch at the T-9:00 hold, due to a Return To Launch Site (RTLS) weather violation. Oh bummer . . . summer time weather in Florida.

President Obama, accompanied by his family, carried out a week long foreign trip that began in Moscow, Russia. What an incredible and magnificent opportunity for the children. In Moscow, the President signed a preliminary agreement on nuclear arms reduction – small steps on a long journey. Some images of Putin greeting Obama for their personal meeting suggest that they may have met at Joe Stalin’s country dacha along the Moscow River – the premier’s or president’s summer/vacation residence outside Moscow. If so, quite curious, that Putin occupied the traditional residence, or perhaps, Putin and Medvedev share the summer mansion. The President, family, and entourage went on to the G8 Summit in the earthquake devastated region of L'Aquila, Italy. He also met with Pope Benedict XVI in Vatican City, and I am fairly certain received a lecture regarding life, poverty, war and arms control – all the easy topics. They departed for their last stop in Accra, Ghana [11.7.09], for the President to make a speech to the Ghanaian parliament, where he declared, “We are all God’s children. We all share common aspirations.” How true, how true! In my world travels, common citizens like me are essentially the same; we want to live our lives in peace, live comfortably, and help our children grow up to have a better life than we did.

Public evidence suggests the DPRK carried out a cyber-attack on various free nations including Japan, Australia, RoK, and the United States. Thus, the question of the day must be: Is a cyber-attack from another country an act of war? My opinion: absolutely . . . as assuredly as a bomb or an invasion. The purpose is destruction, damage, and disruption of our way of life. What is different from a conventional invasion where territory and citizens are violated?

I received an eLetter from John O. Brennan, the President’s advisor on Homeland Security, on behalf of the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Education, to prepare us for the upcoming influenza season. The noted URL was
http://www.flu.gov/
I note this receipt not so much for the content but rather yet another first for this administration – the White House communicating directly with common citizens like me. Interesting!

The Supreme Court case from the past session that seemed to attract the most attention, largely due to the impending Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Sotomayor, finally got to the top of my “to read” list. The New Haven firefighters’ “Equal Protection” case – Ricci v. DeStefano [557 U.S. ___ (2009); no. 07-1428] – took a step back from the common affirmative action initiatives and moved ever so slightly toward true equality envisioned by the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The case focuses upon the inherent conflict between the 14th Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [PL 88-352, 78 Stat. 253; 42 U.S.C. §2000e]. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Writing for the Court, Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy said, “Without some other justification, this express, race-based decisionmaking violates Title VII’s command that employers cannot take adverse employment actions because of an individual's race.” He observed and noted, “On the record before us, there is no genuine dispute that the City lacked a strong basis in evidence to believe it would face disparate-impact liability if it certified the [written] examination results. In other words, there is no evidence – let alone the required strong basis in evidence – that the tests were flawed because they were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available to the City. Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.” The test in question was the written portion (60% of final ranking; an oral exam made up the remaining 40%), which asked questions from content known to the examinees. Associate Justice Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg focused her dissent on the test and its weighting, “Relying heavily on written tests to select fire officers is a questionable practice, to say the least.” She strove to diminish the value of a written examination that is the heart and essence of this case. Apparently, Ruth wants the Court to enter the employment advancement selection process. Yet, she failed to acknowledge that objective criteria for selection are far superior to subjective factors that are prone to bias, preference and latent discrimination that could be driven by any one or a combination of the social factors. Then, I read the New York Times editorial on the Ricci decision.
“Firefighters and Race”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: June 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/opinion/01wed1.html?th&emc=th
The Times’ editors concluded, “It was the court’s conservatives, including Chief Justice John Roberts, who voted to overturn the decision of an elected government.” As with life itself, we view events through the len of our liking, our experience, our education, our training, and our choices. So it is for all of us including the Times editorial staff, Supreme Court justices, and you & me. This case raises a blinding flurry of questions from an era we all hoped we had already passed through. Is not printing a written test in French or Chinese, or using Ebonics (or colloquial gangsta rap jargon), discriminatory to those citizens (firefighters) who prefer those forms of communication? Is a physical test that requires a job-related threshold of strength, adversely discriminatory to some citizens? We have an obligation to establish neutral, un-biased, job-related standards. Firefighters are not simple manual laborers. They must communicate, assess, collect information, calculate, read, learn, all the skills to understand the environment and conditions they are called upon to neutralize and deal with in our communities. Sure, they must be physically fit, possess sufficient muscle strength and endurance; but, they must also work within a team and quickly absorb information from a wide variety of sources. Whatever the standards, they should be driven by the demands & needs of the job, and must be neutral regard to the social factors – age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and political affiliation. To lower the standards to “favor” any one or combination of factors to enable “better representation” will only serve to weaken the service. This is true for any job. The standards for a clerk, or a project engineer, or an infantry soldier, are all different and necessarily so. Yet, diversity is important and valuable to any organization. How do we achieve diversity without recognition of the social factors? We needed affirmative action programs to breakdown racial barriers that stifled integration. On the other side of the scale, to lower standards of performance to the lowest common denominator in some vain attempt to remedy past discrimination ultimately will not achieve the objective and will only institutionalize mediocrity. Any criterion for selection or advancement must be based on performance standards required for satisfactory accomplishment of job requirements and must be blind to the social factors, as they have no bearing on job performance. One of these days, perhaps, we can mature as a culture to separate public from private, and professional from social. Ricci helps us along the way ever so slightly. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to all citizens equally; it was never intended or imagined to be confined or restricted to minority populations. To close my opinion, what we see in Justice Alito’s recounting of city administrative events subsequent to the examination up to the point of certification illuminates a highly dysfunctional city fraught with serious racial tensions, and as portrayed in Alito’s rendition, subject to a racial bully of substantial proportion. New Haven, Connecticut, is on my list of places I do not want to visit and have no interest in ever living there . . . and I am certain Reverend Boise Kimber is happy with that.

News from the economic front:
-- A federal bankruptcy judge approved a plan by General Motors to sell its best assets to a new, government-backed company. We, the People, via the Federal government, will own 61% of the new company – hopefully, a temporary condition. The company emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Friday, much quicker than expected, six weeks after entering court-sponsored reorganization [391]. General Motors Company, as it will be known, will retain Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC. It is selling Saturn, Saab, and Hummer. The Pontiac brand will be terminated.
-- U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) reportedly intends to propose sweeping trading limits on oil, natural gas and possibly other commodities, in an effort to constrain excessive speculation. The CFTC will also review whether swap dealers, index traders and exchange-traded fund managers should be allowed to circumvent limits through special hedge exemptions. I hope this is not the extent of regulation of the derivatives trading market; the evidence against unrestrained derivative markets is just too damning.
-- In sum, the Wall Street Journal reported that retailers experienced generally lower same-store sales again in June with consumers’ continued reluctance to spend. Among those reporting, Target had a worse-than-expected 6.2% decline. Abercrombie & Fitch was among the worst performers, posting a 32% drop. TJX and Ross reported small gains.
-- The Wall Street Journal also reported the results of their periodic survey of economists. Only eight of 51 economists indicated they believed more stimulus is necessary. Most said the U.S. does not need another round of stimulus now, despite expectations of continued severe job losses. On average, the economists forecast an unemployment rate of at least 10% through June, with a decline to 9.5% by December 2010. Just over half feel the current stimulus package has provided somewhat of a boost, with the greater effect to come in the future.
-- American International Group (AIG) notified President Obama’s compensation czar of their intention to pay about US$250M in bonuses that will come due during the next nine months. My opinion of such extravagance remains unchanged.
-- The administration is considering the diversion of a portion of the US$700B TARP funds [355] for support to small businesses, a substantial shift from the rescue program’s original mandate.
-- CIT Group, a lender to mostly small and midsize businesses across the country, is preparing for a possible bankruptcy filing after so far failing to win a government guarantee to help it borrow. Presumably, the government’s TARP diversion consideration will aid CIT and others. Kinda sounds like “spread the wealth” doesn’t it?
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that UBS and the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) jointly asked a federal court to postpone a Monday hearing in order to give the two sides a chance to negotiate a settlement and potentially allow UBS to avoid turning over thousands of client names to the Internal Revenue Service. The move delays or potentially avoids a diplomatic confrontation between the U.S. and Swiss governments over whether Swiss banking privacy law allowed UBS to hand over the demanded information. UBS is trying to figure out how it can potentially deliver some information to the DOJ and the IRS without turning over some 52,000 account holders that the IRS is seeking as part of a long tax-evasion investigation.

The Blago Scandal [365]:
-- Although not Blago, the disgraced governor’s bosom-buddy, Senator Roland Burris of Illinois [368], announced he will not seek proper election to the seat he occupies in Congress in 2010. Good decision, Roland!

Comments and contributions from Update no.394:
“I’m glad the Minnesota election is finally over.
“The Iraqi withdrawal is a marketing ploy. The US troops are now ‘trainers’ or ‘advisors’ a la Vietnam, and the bases now border the city limits rather than being legally inside those cities.
“Events in Iran continue to surprise me. People reach a point of defying pretty much anything, I guess. I hope the protestors win; if not, a bloodbath will ensue.
“My hope is that Governor Palin has had enough pressure and is going back to her little town. I certainly agree with you than another multi-year election would be aggravating at best.
“I suspect that Savana Redding's ugly introduction to the fears of school administrators is not nearly unusual enough. They respond to fear today much as they did forty years ago when I attended school. More than likely the parents were informed of all this after that fact, most likely by Savana. I applaud their willingness to pursue a remedy. Many parents would not have done anything.”
My response posted on the Blog:
I can understand your view of the withdrawal from Iraq, but I do not agree that it is a marketing ploy. I think urban security responsibility has been transferred from the Coalition to the Iraqi government. Yes, troops are still there. The transition is only a week old. I would consider it irresponsible to remove Coalition troops from the country, until we can all have some assurance things won’t go south.
I suspect Sarah Palin will not stay in Wasilla for long.
The courts have often used a prevailing assumption that schools hold in loco parentis responsibility de facto, if not under the law. I have never been comfortable with the assumption as it accepts a level of abdication by parents to the schools. I object to the assumption on many levels. Yet, this is the state in which we have placed public schools. The action in the case of Savanna Redding may have been appropriate is certain contexts, but the Court majority (5-4) concluded that the school’s action exceeded the available evidence and other potential remedies. On the other side of the ledger, the Press referred to Savanna’s experience as a strip search with implicit images of a naked, 13-year-old girl on display before gawking school officials. She was never naked. She was not touched. A female nurse with a female administrative assistant as a witness observed her pulled-away brassiere and waistband of her panties. Nonetheless, the Supremes determined that search was excessive and violated Savanna’s 4th Amendment protection. All in all, I return to the parents. Yes, thank goodness Savanna’s parents had the strength to file suit; however, they also hold some culpability in the incident, i.e., there were reasons Savanna found herself in that position, yet, none of those reasons were ever addressed. The Supremes reacted to the symptoms presented to them under established law. Society has a far larger problem we seem impotent to address.
. . . a follow-up query:
“Re: ‘there were reasons Savana found herself in that position.’ I do not understand your implication here. How could the parents have controlled the other student who, upon being caught with prescription pills, implicated Savana, most likely out of panic?”
. . . and my reply:
First, before I offer my answer to your query, please allow me a preface. I have tried not to judge folks based on superficial or limited information. Yet, I have been a “where there’s smoke” kinda guy. That does not mean they are guilty of a crime necessarily, but conduct does lead folks toward certain situations. Further, as I know with accident investigations, there is always a sequence of events – a chain – acts of God, as we say, are rare – such that the removal of any one link can and probably would alter the outcome. Accident investigators look for those causal factors that lead to the conclusion. That said . . . to answer your query.
Although not contained in the Supreme Court’s ruling, I suspect there are a multitude of “dots” that led the school vice principal to believe that Marissa’s accusation (the other girl) was not only reasonable but accurate. If we look passt the surface facts, I think we will find Savanna had other behavioral indicators that would suggest deficient or aberrant conduct and parental contribution – complacency, acquiescence, apathy or such. This is a case where my notional social police thesis would have been quite helpful, if not decisive.
Regardless, the Court ruled as they had to, according to the law. The dissenters were wrong for a host of reasons. Yet, the Redding case will chill the in loco parentis assumptions that public schools operate under, which in itself will not be helpful.
Lastly, the optimist in me would like to think a case like Redding might inspire citizens to amend the law to recognize and acknowledge that parents are responsible and accountable for the conduct of their children until they reach the age of majority.

Comments from another contributor:
“Re: soon to be former Governor Palin, this is the SECOND time that she has quit a major state position before her term was up. Previously, she was Chair of the State Oil and Gas Commission and she stepped down after a flap regarding a former commission member. I think I see a trend.
“Not sure if I would describe her speech as ‘in Johnson-esque fashion.’ More like Daffy-esque. Totally rambling, incoherent and not actually saying why she is stepping down. Tres Bizarre, n’est-ce pas? A couple of years ago, she compared herself to a mother Grizzly bear protecting her cubs in her protection of Alaska. Now she steps down due to being a ‘lame duck’ and ‘media pressure.’ As an Alaska editorial wrote, she implicitly agreed to serve her full term while running for Governor. Every elected official has a ‘lame duck’ period – very, very few quit during that period. She probably has ruined her chances for higher office, which is a good thing for the country. Actually, she really didn’t care much about actually governing, as many Alaskan politicians have noted – she checked out about a year ago. Also particularly egregious about the timing of her announcement is that it was on the eve of not only the 4th, but Alaska’s 50th anniversary of statehood. As if she was trying to steal the thunder from that. As it was, most Alaskans enjoyed the Statehood festivities without her. Amazing. [Might have something to do with her husband being a member of a secessionist party – as she might actually be. She has attended annual meetings.]
My reply:
Clearly, you are not a fan of Sarah. Time shall tell the tale.
“Johnson-esque” in that she announced she would not seek a second term – nothing more. Oui, Bizarre!
We do not know the “rest of the story,” and we may never know. Nonetheless, I suspect she made hard choices she believes will best position her for a presidential run in 2012; as I said, an all-in gamble. The best indicator will be her actions in support of congressional and gubernatorial elections in 2010. Perhaps her resignation is the death knell, but I am not so quick to dismiss her. Secessionist mentality, like the foolishness of Governor Perry, is a true fatal wound, far more so than resignation or alternative paths.
I would not have advised her to take the path she is apparently taking, but I am not a politician. Vederemo!
. . . round two:
“I think Palin is a very shallow and unserious politician. She clearly isn't interested in the daily grind of running an executive office. Purportedly, she tunes out after about 15 minutes – and that is on issues she is interested in. She has aroused the ire of both parties – especially her own, in Alaska and really has done a mediocre, if not poor job of governing. Now that oil/gas revenues are down and there has to be hard choices in state government, she is getting out. She really screwed over Alaska, especially making her announcement on the eve of a major state event, the 50th Anniversary of Statehood. She might have a hard time being elected moose control officer now.
“With that and her husband's (if not her own) secessionist ties, her leaving the government stage is good.”
. . . with this follow-up before I could reply:
“Also, another note to show how massively ignorant she is....
“But as for whether another pursuit of national office, as she did less than a year ago when she joined Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the race for the White House, would result in the same political blood sport, Palin said there is a difference between the White House and what she has experienced in Alaska. If she were in the White House, she said, the ‘department of law’ would protect her from baseless ethical allegations. ‘I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out,’ she said. There is no ‘Department of Law’ at the White House.”
. . . my round two reply:
As I’ve said, you may well be far more perceptive than me regarding Sarah Palin. As is my nature, I look for the good as well as the bad in folks. I had not heard the “department of law” comment. You quoted but did not offer attribution; if reliable & accurate, the comment would be a very sad punctuation on a flash in the political pan. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, social conservatives seem to be attracted to her for the same reason they were attached to W – unwaveringly support for the social conservative agenda. Tolerance of her country bumpkin image will only be tolerated so far and she may have long passed the threshold.
. . . round three:
“Here is a link to the article (ABC News) with the quote on the ‘department of law.’
“Sarah Palin: Why She Resigned – Sarah Palin Talks to ABC News About Why She Resigned”
by Kate Snow
ABC News
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, July 7, 2009
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8016906&page=1
“Also, she complains about the cost to the state of ‘millions of dollars’ in the ethics investigations. The Alaska press has noted that the cost is much less, about $300,000 and over half of that is for an investigation (Troopergate) that Palin herself, as Governor, requested. Another data point for her being factually-challenged. It is scary to consider how close she got to being VP – to a person who would have been the oldest elected President in history, and a cancer survivor and former POW to boot (both with higher than average mortality rates).
“Another theory, maybe a boyfriend in Argentina? :)”
. . . my concession:
Got it! Thank you for the link. I concede.
“[B]oyfriend in Argentina” . . . I like it.

Another contribution:
“As usual I am not totally up to date on all the goings on in Iran, but see you mention that the root of the election protests was women wanting equal rights ... isn't that something we have been hoping mid Eastern women could get more of?”
“AMEN ! .. on hoping Palin doesn't head into another multi-year presidential campaign .. she is an embarrassment for the Republican party ... they ought to disallow her to do so ! ..... or just not encourage it ...”
My response:
I’m not so sure the Iranian election protest began as a gender civil rights affair, but that is certainly how it is looking now. Perhaps it was the women who were most serious about change; they refused to go quietly into the night; and now, we see the regime for what it is. A number of important clerics have now picked up the banner. No telling how this is going to turn out. However, theocratic dictators are no different from their secular brethren; they will use whatever means necessary, including brutal violence, to hold onto power. This is a long way from over.
You are not alone in your opinion of Sarah as you will see more of in this week’s Update. I remain only slightly negative of neutral on her. I see goodness in her, but she has got to polish things up quickly . . . tolerance of the country bumpkin image will only go so far. Too many social conservatives like her for the same reason they liked W – unwavering support for the social conservative agenda.
. . . follow-up comments:
“Are the women in Iran being badly treated by the men there because of their protesting ? I am surprised they have the nerve to protest with the way women are treated in the mid east. Great balls.
“I have to say I am a lot more than SLIGHTLY negative of Sarah Palin ... I feel the party needs extremely intelligent but congenial runners for the next one. Just hope Palin doesn't hog the opportunity for someone like that to enter the race. Polish is a nice word for what she needs. The problem is ... we already know who she is ... if she suddenly becomes more polished, it just wouldn't be believable. We don't need chameleons in the race. We need experienced, educated people who are KNOWN for being just that. Surely there must be plenty of good candidates out there. Someone needs to tell Sarah to ‘FUHGET ABOUT IT’ ... ha ! Does she honestly think she has enough support?”
. . . and my follow-up response:
Iranian women have better status than many Muslim women, but they are a far cry from Western standards. Although you can see women without a modesty headscarf, there are parts of Iran where any woman (regardless of religion) would be seriously beaten for not wearing a proper head scarf or for having any skin other than her face and hands showing. Male-centric polygamy is OK; female-centric polygamy would get the woman stoned to death. Hell, the Iranians hung two teenage boys for homosexual conduct for God’s sake. Iran is a highly educated country by Muslim standards, and yet women are still considered property owned by fathers or husbands. So, are Iranian women being badly treated by men? Yes, without question, by any standard I can accept. Are they being treated badly because they are protesting? Yes, but then again, anyone protesting now can expect to be beaten or killed. Further, if anyone would like to really understand torture, go try an Iranian prison.
I am not an unwavering supporter of any ideology – religious, political, or otherwise – and least of all any political party. I believe enquiry, questioning, debate and reasoning should be applied to everything. I am about as politically independent as I can get. I think the Republican Party has abandoned it foundation and betrayed its supporters. I think the Democratic Party has tried too hard to become Republican. I do not understand why the Libertarians cannot gain more traction. But, they all have their faults and very few have the courage to admit it. Truth be told, I could never support Sarah Palin for any political office; she is ideologically (as far as I can tell) way too far to the right for my liking. My tacit defense is more personal than political.

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

06 July 2009

Update no.394

Update from the Heartland
No.394
29.6.09 – 5.7.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Independence Day – 233 years – and, the journey has only just begun.

We celebrated the day with our family & friends. We had a small feast. Our oldest grandchild Aspen Shae volunteered for the honor of reading the Declaration of Independence this year. Last time, two years ago, she read the preamble. This time, 12-year-old Aspen Shae read the entire document from “When in the course . . .” to “our sacred honor.” We were all very proud of her . . . brought tears of joy to my eyes – a new generation has picked up the banner of tradition and remembrance. Then, we blasted off a small fortune of fireworks from the street in front our home. We all had a grand ol' time in celebration of our independence from Mother England. I hope your celebration was equally as glorious . . . well, at least those of us in the colonies.

The follow-up news items:
-- The Minnesota Supreme Court issued their ruling on Tuesday, in the case of Coleman v. Franken [MN SC A09-697 (2009)] stating, “[W]e affirm the decision of the trial court that Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled under Minn. Stat. § 204C.40 (2008) to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator from the State of Minnesota.” After the court’s judgment, incumbent, Senator Norm Coleman conceded the election. Senator-elect Alan Stuart Franken [369] is expected to be sworn in to fill the state’s vacant seat, eight months after the contested election. Minnesota will finally be returned to full representation.
-- The Iraqi government declared Tuesday, 30.June.2009, National Sovereignty Day, as U.S. (Allied) forces withdrew from all major cities and turned over security responsibility to the Iraqis (deadline at midnight) – six years after Allied forces ousted the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein [069]. Let us acknowledge that we have President Bush, General Petraeus and the surge by U.S. combat forces to thank for the day.
-- Protests in Iran continue as the government declared the election final [391] and no fraud detected. I am so relieved! The root of the protests appears to be women, choosing the election protest to demonstrate their demands for equal rights in defiance of the theocratic dictatorship and fundamentalist interpretation of Sharia law.
-- The fate of Air France Flight 447 [391] continues to unfold. The search for the airplane’s Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) will continue through 10.July. The surface search for debris is nearing the end. The available evidence appears to be quite conflicting. However, France’s Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses (BEA) – equivalent to the U.S. NTSB – lead investigator Alain Bouillard has suggested that the airplane may not have suffered an in-flight break-up, but plunged vertically into the Atlantic Ocean. The airplane’s airspeed indicating system remains a central focus of the investigation. A lot of folks are paying close attention to this event.
-- Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska [350] – 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate – announced on Friday in Johnson-esque fashion that she would not seek re-election to a second term, and she intended to resign her office at the end of the month. She was not particularly explanatory in her announcement. My guess – Sarah has placed an all-in gamble for the 2012 presidential election. This is going to be interesting to watch. However, I truly hope she is not heading us into another multi-year presidential campaign; the last one verged on unbearable.
-- Another opinion in the continuing debate regarding the military and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” [312, et al]:
“Open the Military Closet”
by Richard Cohen – Op-Ed Columnist
Washington Post
Published: Tuesday, June 30, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062903459.html?wpisrc=newsletter
-- A friend and contributor “stumbled” across this opinion regarding the legalization of psychotropic substances [119, et al]:
“Drug Freedom Works in Portugal”
by Robert Arthur, AKA Narco Polo
a blog – Narco Polo
Posted on April 6, 2009
http://suburra.com/blog/2009/04/06/drug-freedom-works-in-portugal/

A reinforced regiment of Marines launched Operation KHANJAR (Strike of the Sword) along the volatile Helmand River valley in Helmand Province, Afghanistan – the first large-scale test of the new counterinsurgency strategy – reportedly clear, pacify and hold. We shall see how the change in strategy turns out in the Battle for Afghanistan.

On 8.October.2003, then 13-year-old, middle school student, Savana Redding was removed from class, questioned regarding impermissible, prescription-strength medications, and ultimately subjected to a quasi-strip search . . . all based on the accusation of a single, fellow student caught with a pill in question. As a consequence, Savana’s family filed suit on her behalf against the school district and its officials involved, claiming their daughter’s 4th Amendment rights had been violated. The district court found in the school’s favor, however the 9th Circuit reversed the district court ruling. The Supremes reversed the 9th Circuit and remanded the case for consideration of school district’s liability (not the school officials involved) – Safford Unified School District no.1 v. Redding [557 U.S. ___ (2009); no. 08-479]. Associate Justice David Souter wrote the Court’s opinion, and concluded, “[T]he content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion.” As I read this decision, the same question kept coming to me; would I, or any other adult, be subjected to a strip or cavity search based on the simple accusation of another person? I think not. Why didn’t the school involve the parents, either to authorize or witness the search? I find it odd the school did not offer corroborating evidence, other than a general concern about increased prescription drug abuse that may have amplified their suspicions of Savana. I did not take the time to go back to the district and appeals court rulings to validate the observation, but the Supremes mentioned no such corroboration. Only Justice Thomas – one of the Federalists on the bench – believed the search of Savana Redding was “reasonable” under the 4th Amendment. Where were the parents is all this? Why wasn’t the conduct of the parents called into question? While I think the Supremes reached the correct and proper conclusion, this case does not offer much reassurance regarding the application of the State’s power to search a student’s person and belongings relative to illicit drugs.

Many talking heads and print pundits pointed to the Supreme Court’s ruling in District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne [557 U.S. ___ (2009); no.08-6], as the Court’s insensitivity toward justice and the Court’s callous rejection of a convicted felon’s, self-paid (?), effort to exonerate himself from a heinous crime. Chief Justice Roberts noted in the Court’s opinion, “A criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man.” Associate Justice Alito summarized the essence of this ruling in his concurring opinion. “When a criminal defendant, for tactical purposes, passes up the opportunity for DNA testing at trial, that defendant, in my judgment, has no constitutional right to demand to perform DNA testing after conviction. Recognition of such a right would allow defendants to play games with the criminal justice system.” This was largely a procedural decision. Osborne had not availed himself of his habeas corpus right and sought to circumvent the state appeals process. More importantly although narrowly, the Supremes rejected any implicit right to re-try a clear conviction and the choices made during that trial.

News from the economic front:
-- The Xinhua News Agency state media apparatus of the People’s Republic of China announced that the government will postpone enforcement of a new, “Green Dam,” Internet filtering software on all new computers sold in the PRC. The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology decided to delay the plan, but did not offer rationale or intentions.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. light vehicle sales remained below the 10 million annualized level in June. Ford beat expectations with only an 11% year-over-year decline, while GM, Toyota and Chrysler all could not meet depressed industry expectations. The sharp declines at GM and Chrysler, 33% and 42% respectively, were caused in part by tumbling fleet sales.
-- The Labor Department reported the economy lost another 467,000 jobs in June, and the national unemployment rate rose to 9.5 percent, its highest level in 26 years. We are not out of this one yet.

L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- U.S. District Judge Denny Chin sentenced convicted felon Bernard Madoff to the maximum 150 years in prison – a largely ceremonial sentence, since the 71-year-old convict is not likely to survive even a minimal sentence. Not that I am a vindictive person, but I look forward to the next step – where the Bureau of Prisons sends this bad man for the rest of his life. I trust the facility will be an appropriate hard-ball federal prison.
-- Ruth Madoff – wife (and in my opinion, co-conspirator) of convict Bernie – finally broke her silence with her first public statement. She said, “I am breaking my silence now, because my reluctance to speak has been interpreted as indifference or lack of sympathy for the victims of my husband Bernie’s crime, which is exactly the opposite of the truth.” She added, “Many of my husband’s investors were my close friends and family. And in the days since December, I have read, with immense pain, the wrenching stories of people whose life savings have evaporated because of his crime . . . . Nothing I can say seems sufficient regarding the daily suffering that all those innocent people are enduring because of my husband.” I disagree with Ruth. I think there is something she can say – “I confess my sins, guilt and culpability in aiding my husband’s crimes, and not doing anything to stop it or report it.” Unfortunately, I doubt she is so honorable.

The Stanford Fraud [375]:
-- U. S. District Court Judge David Hittner, Southern District of Texas, agreed with prosecutors and revoked Stanford’s bail bond, slapping him in jail pending trial. He will stay in jail until his trial is complete, and I expect he will eventually join Bernie in prison.

Comments and contributions from Update no.393:
“Thank you for the very relevant Goldwater quote. Barry Goldwater earned my respect, despite the large difference between his politics and mine. He supported freedom for everyone, not just for those like him, and he backed that up regardless of political cost. That makes him more worthy of my respect than most politicians, including the current and past Presidents back to at least Ford.
“The Times' report that decreased contraception has led to increased pregnancy among teenagers seems blindingly obvious to me, yet I know it will come as news to some. So many people need to seek out reality rather than believe blindly.
“Governor Sanford's saga makes a minor diversion as reported. I agree with you about the more central issue of responsibility to his constituents. Now to get those questions on network TV . . .”
My reply:
Barry Goldwater has always been a favorite of mine. I did campaign work for him in 1964 (before I could vote), and I met and talked with him for a few minutes. He was a very personable and generous man. I did not always agree with him, but he was a good citizen with good intentions.
I am far more interested in reality than the imposition of anyone else’s moral judgment and values. Some are far more outraged by his extra-marital affair, but I repeat my opinion that element is family matter only. We shall see how he fairs in this one.

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