Update no.415

Update from the Heartland
No.415
23.11.09 – 29.11.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina [393] is under investigation for 37 ethics charges stemming from his disappearance for an extramarital affair with an Argentine woman. The charges, if substantiated, may well lead to impeachment proceedings.

An express train enroute late Friday from Moscow to St. Petersburg derailed, killing at least 26 people and injuring scores of others, with 18 still unaccounted. Early reports suggest sabotage of at least one of the rails by an explosive device and suspicions that it may have been the work of Chechen terrorists and/or al-Qaeda operatives.

The Associated Press reported public announcements and statements by the Islamic Republic of Iran to build ten (10), industrial-scale, uranium enrichment facilities – a dramatic expansion of the program in defiance of U.N. demands it halt enrichment efforts and a direct slap in the face of the United States and its Allies. My suspicion that there will be blood remains.

News from the economic front:
-- The National Association of Realtors reported existing-home sales rose 10.1% in October to a 6.10 million annual rate – more than expected from September as a tax credit offset fears about joblessness. The median price for an existing home last month was $173,100, down 7.1% from $186,400 in October 2008.
-- The U.S. Department of Commerce reported consumer spending rose in October by 0.7% as incomes rose and inflation remained low – another positive sign of economic growth. Personal income rose by 0.2% for the second straight month. However, a contrary sign came with manufacturers' orders for durable goods declining 0.6% to a seasonally adjusted US$166B in October, brought down by the defense sector.
-- The U.S. Department of Labor reported initial jobless benefits claims declined by 35,000 to 466,000 in the most recent week.
-- Unexpectedly, new-home sales rose 6.2% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 430,000 in October, while the median price for a new home slipped 0.5% to $212,200.
-- The dollar traded at ¥87 – its weakest level in 14 years – as central banks across Asia looked for ways to deal with the weakened U.S. dollar and uncertainty in the currency markets.
-- Dubai World reported trouble meeting its US$60B debt obligation, which in turn sent shockwaves across world financial markets. The fallout from this latest trauma will have to be watched closely for the next few months.

Comments and contributions from Update no.414:
“It was very interesting to read of your ‘close call,’ but also sad to read of the end result. Regarding the Ft. Hood incident, I was forwarded the following recently [Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West, USA (Ret.) opinion]. Please note, I have not verified.”
My reply:
I did not have the time to verify Colonel West’s opinion, but it seems generally correct, even if a little farther down the road than me. I am not there yet, but I certainly hold similar suspicions.

Another contribution:
“I’m with you on the Jefferson thing. No wonder so many in Congress feel they can break the law. Even when they get convicted, someone comes up with some ruling to make sure their punishment isn't too harsh. Talk about a double-standard.
“Good point on the PC crap. Even with everything coming out about this guy, people are still afraid to say radical Islam was a big part of the reason he went on this shooting spree. We are at war with terrorists, yet it's like if we point out who the enemy is, we're somehow racists. Crazy, man. Sometimes I feel like this country is an extended version of high school, where if you don’t believe what the so-called ‘popular people’ believe (i.e. the lamestream media, elitist pundits, left-wing academics, etc) then you're treated like a pariah. God forbid we disagree with someone yet still respect them as a person.”
My response:
Some convicts are allowed to remain free on appeal, but usually it is the judge who does not perceive the convict as a flight risk and there are grounds for appeal. Perhaps the judge sees something the rest of us peons do not. Based on what I know, “Dollar Bill” certainly did not deserve to remain free on appeal. But, it is what it is; so we move on.
Indeed! Some folks are cowed by their PC ethos. I am not one of those. Like the Tim McVeigh terrorist event, I suspect a larger connection but I have not seen any evidence to substantiate or validate my suspicions. Spot on, again; there are far too many people who judge the worthiness of others by their perceived coherence with their political positions – opponents are considered unworthy Neanderthals.

A different contribution:
“What I don't understand about the Northwest pilots' overflying their destination is that they missed the radio messages from the controllers. As I understand it, when the controllers received no response to their queries, that is when the ANG F-16's started to warm up and when everyone went into high warble over a possible terrorist incident. As you noted, there has to be something other than computer use that was going on.”
My reply:
They missed a lot more than just radio calls. Modern avionics systems present a variety of alerts and prompts to the crew, with the intent of helping the pilots maintain situation awareness. Plus, most big iron aircraft have company text messaging systems. Those two Northwest pilots missed a lot of things; not least of which, is a burning 6th sense that all pilots feel when they don’t hear anything on the radio for an extended time and especially approaching the boundary of controller regions. There is far too much we do not know, yet. On the ground side, aircraft do occasionally go NORDO (= NO RaDiO), which in itself is unusual since most modern aircraft have at least two radios; airliners like the A-320 have 3, 4, sometime 5 radios. There are NORDO procedures that have existed for decades. The controllers would have assumed NORDO since the aircraft was cruising at altitude and did not descent at its TOD (= Top Of Descent) point, which is what they would have expected for a NORDO aircraft, and is thus when they notified NorCom. I suspect the procedures may change that will scramble the fighters after so many minutes of no radio, transponder, or message contact. I get distracted when I’m focused on a research or writing task, but never distracted for over an hour. Yes, there is much more to this story than we know, and given the pilots’ sense of self-preservation, I suspect we may never know what happened in that cockpit on that day.

Another contribution:
“Regarding the notes of the Saturday night ‘procedural’ vote, I ask only this: I understand that for any domestic financial obligations be created the Internal Revenue code is a logical place for the law(s) to be established and documented, however, what does the ‘first-time’ home buyers credit have to do with health care? I'm amazed we can find anything in our financial accounting systems....or can we? This might also be a clue as to why we cannot find graft, mis-use, etc. with the current entitlement programs.”
My response:
The procedural vote was to end debate on the financial bill in order to open the floor debate on the health care bill. The two bills are not related, except by closing debate on one opened the debate for the other.

Our last contribution this week:
“Right on with the PC diversity discussion on the good raghead major. I'm surprised that no one has the nerve in the media to mention that he stayed in the service only because everyone who knew better was afraid to confront him because of the issue of diversity. It's was the same issue some years ago when ADM Stan Arthur was ‘Bork-ed’ by the PC police (Sen. Pat Schroeder) from his assignment as CINCPAC because, after no one in the chain of command had the nerve, he told some young female pilot that she didn't cut it. Same story with the female commander of the Abu Greb (sp?) prison who was obviously promoted far beyond her capability. I'm sure you've also noticed the USNA drill team where two members were replaced to show diversity. The message to our military members is obvious, do the PC thing, not the right thing.”
My reply:
I did not know the Stan Arthur story directly – only indirectly via the Pat Schroeder episode. I’m not so sure about the USNA Color Guard event; that was not a life-or-death situation like flying, and as I understand it, all 26 or 29 Mids were equally qualified to perform those duties. If so, then other selection factors may well have been appropriate.

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

Update no.414

Update from the Heartland
No.414
16.11.09 – 22.11.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
I have another furlough week to help the company reduce cost and save cash. And so it goes!

The follow-up news items:
-- I have offered my opinion on Attorney General Holder’s decision to try KSM (et al) in civilian, criminal court [413]. I urge anyone who is even remotely interested in this topic to read these two essays.
>>> “Deciphering the Mohammed Trial”
by George Friedman
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: November 16, 2009
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091116_postsept_11_legal_dilemma
and
>>> “A Terrorist Trial in New York City”
by Ben West and Fred Burton
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: November 18, 2009
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091118_terrorist_trial_new_york_city
All other opinions are welcome.
-- Just when I thought “Dollar Bill” Jefferson [413] finally would feel the weight of justice for his corruption, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Selby “Tim” Ellis III [245, 305, 345-46] of the Eastern District of Virginia has allowed the convicted and sentenced felon to remain free until his appeal to the 4th Circuit is decided, which could take another few years. These are instances when we are painfully reminded that there is NOT one justice for all – some of us are more privileged than the rest of us common citizens. Why do I feel the urge to vomit?
-- Saturday night, the Senate took a procedural vote to end debate on H.R. 3590 – to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit [Senate: 60-39-0-1(0)]. The vote opens the door for full floor debate on the Senate’s US$848B health-care reform bill [396-413] after the Thanksgiving recess.

In the tumultuous wake of Nidal Hasan’s heinous crime [412], the paramount focus of public debate appears to be the consequences of “Political Correctness” (PC) on the Army Medical Corps, as if this is some new phenomenon. The PC mentality has been around for a lot longer than Hasan. Please indulge me. My personal, direct brush with the PC ethos that seems to have tolerated Hasan’s “peculiarities” goes back to 1976. I flew a training mission as a tactical instructor pilot in an AH-1J attack helicopter on what was supposed to be the final check ride for one of our soon-to-be, new, aircraft commanders. This particular mission called for a high-speed, low-altitude, ingress to a pop-up delivery point and ripple off 28 - 70mm Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets (FFARs) with 10 lbs. High Explosive (HE) warheads at a distant target. The young stud armed up at the proper time. For reasons we shall never know, he hit the red fire button before he reached the pitch point. Now, for those who may not fully appreciate the unique characteristics of helicopters, what the prior sentence means is the aircraft nose was still pointed down at a very low altitude (in this case approximately 25 feet above the ground) when all these HE rockets fired off into the ground just ahead of us. Fortunately, the warheads did not have time to arm, but huge clouds of dust were mixed with burning chunks of rocket propellant as the motor casings broke up on impact. Needless to say, we survived the event. I took control of the aircraft and made him hold his hands where I could see them for the duration of our return to base. Luckily, we had fairly minimal damage to the aircraft. Safely on the ground, I conferred with other senior instructor pilots who had different adverse experiences with this guy; collectively, we recommended that the errant pilot not only be disapproved as an aircraft commander, but he should face a proficiency board to take his wings. Our commanding officer overruled us all and approved his papers, so he could deploy to an overseas tactical squadron. Less than nine months later, he managed to fly into the side of a mountain, killing himself and his hapless co-pilot. You see, the young stud who nearly killed me 33 years ago had dark skin pigmentation . . . and the Marine Corps (along with the other services) was in the middle trying to fulfill our obligations for racial integration. I could accept my brush with PC all those years ago (before it actually had the title) if the young stud had been the only casualty, but he was not. The officers who passed Hasan along to Fort Hood will have their burden to bear. PC is never a good thing when lives are at stake. The Army Medical Corps is by no means the only susceptible service. I just hope we can come out the other side of all these introspective machinations without onerous rules and regulations, and perhaps we might realize enhanced sensitivity to the consequences of being “too tolerant.”

I have resisted commenting on the bizarre episode of Northwest Flight 188 – the distracted pilots who flew 150 miles past Minneapolis (KMSP) [21.October.2009]. Any pilot that misses a destination airport for any reason is open to criticism – this crew amply so. Yet, there are still far too many holes in the public stories (so far) for me to condemn the pilots. While I wait for more information, I am prodded to words by the oh-so-typical, knee-jerk, pabulum-for-the-masses, congressional “actions” in the aftermath of the event. We have a growing pile of legislation, hurriedly drafted and placed upon the record (for constituent credit, presumably), that seeks to more tightly “regulate” cockpit activities from banning laptops and cellphones to eavesdropping on cockpit conversations to ensure “professionalism.” The Northwest pilots screwed up for some reason(s), which we do not know as yet. By the way, I do not buy the laptop distraction nonsense, and I am not yet convinced they were asleep; something else was going on in that cockpit for them to miss all the usual prompts, alerts and whatnot common to modern airliners. Regardless, this bevy of so-called “laws” is an insult to professional aviators and seeks to punish 100% of professional pilots for the apparent mistake of a mere sliver of a fraction (2 pilots), when we do not yet know what happened or why. Congressional grandstanding offends me far more than the mistake(s) of two pilots. While my resistance toward condemning the pilots remains contained, I angrily condemn ALL of this damnable legislation that invariably is a sledgehammer to swat a fly. I have seen nothing yet that is worthy of becoming law and the associated extraordinary intrusion into the professional domain.

Several contributors passed along this article:
“Beware The Revisionists”
by Senator John Kerry
Newsweek
Published: November 7, 2009 (from the magazine issue dated Nov 16, 2009)
http://www.newsweek.com/id/221623
As much as Kerry’s myopic view of the Vietnam War angers me, I must admit to my concurrence with his assessment of the Battle for Afghanistan. Despite the fact that I am an “any action is better than no action” kinda guy, I am thankful President Obama deliberates carefully. Whatever the President’s ultimate decision, I want him to be convinced it is the correct course, and I want him to convince the American People as well. As John Kerry noted, the paucity of any credible, functional government in Afghanistan compromises orders of magnitude greater military effort and sacrifice. He was correct that the situation in Vietnam did not pose an immediate or imminent threat to the United States or our Allies. That is not the case in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban offered safe haven and overt support for al-Qaeda as they continue to do in the tribal regions of Pakistan. The keystone U.S. national security issue in Afghanistan is the support of the Taliban and tribal groups for Islamo-fascist terrorists. If the administration could find a way to contain and eliminate the Islamo-fascist threat while abandoning the Afghan government to its own devices, I would be OK with that position. However, abandoning the fight in the Hindu Kush without such a plan or mechanism would ultimately be self-defeating and injurious to U.S. national security. I can accept the choices of any indigenous people regarding the type of community they wish to live in; my hackles raise up when violent oppression and repression overwhelm the will of the people; and, consequently, I advocate for aggressive containment or suppression when that community turns to exporting their violence or repressive values. That is what bothered me in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. I really do not care how primitively anyone group chooses to live; I care immensely when any group seeks to impose its standards and values on any peace-loving people.

“Mr. Obama’s Task”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: November 18, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/opinion/19thu1.html?th&emc=th
While I am often at odds with the Times’ editors, especially regarding national security issues, they have sketched another perspective of the decisions before President Obama with respect to the Battle for Afghanistan in the larger War on Islamic Fascism. Their opinion is worth your time to consider and contemplate.

Leaders of the 27-nation, European Union selected Belgian Prime Minister Herman Achille van Rompuy, 62, as the first President of the European Council, and Catherine Margaret Ashton, 53, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, PC, as the EU’s first High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy

An interesting and evocative editorial:
“The Trouble With ‘Zero Tolerance’”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: November 11, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/opinion/11wed2.html?th&emc=th
Needless to say, I do not agree with the underlying premise of the Times’ editorial. However, the specific point noted in this editorial is worthy for all districts to consider to find a more rationale reaction to potentially threatening situations. As with so many issues of this nature, we implement indiscriminate, general regulations and laws that inappropriately punish hundreds of innocent people, in this case children, in a foolish, feel-good, effort to catch an Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold before they act, when the reality is such laws would NOT have stopped the two Columbine killers. The fundamental issue is NOT guns or other weapons in schools, but rather it is the attitude, behavior and conduct of children and the contribution of parents that should be our focus. The Times along with so many of us continue to ignore the root cause of violent or injurious events, while we concentrate on the tools of the killers.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force issued a controversial report radically changing guidelines regarding breast cancer. I can understand the mammography finding in that exposure of human flesh to ionizing radiation without demonstrable benefit is simply not wise. Further, the medical profession appears to be reducing the use of routine screening means that involve “exposure” of the patient. Based on the available data, the Task Force concluded that benefits did not outweigh the risks. On the other hand, I am baffled by their recommendation to discontinue breast self-examinations. They cite reduction in doctor / nurse hours to train women (and presumably men) regarding the proper procedures for examination. As our British cousins say, I am gobsmacked. Where is the harm or risk in manual manipulation of a breast to detect lumps or changes? Even if the return (early detection) is relatively low, what possible downside could there be? To suggest that women should discontinue self-examination of their breasts seems counter-intuitive, callous and verging on foolish; but hey, that’s just me. I think it safe to say there are not many women who enjoy having the breasts squished to the point of pain for the purpose of a mammogram, yet the consequences of missing a malignant tumor vastly outweigh the inconvenience of routine mammography or any unease with self-manipulation. Sterile data analysis works in the confines of scientific review; however, every analysis must be placed in the context of living reality to have any tangible value. The Task Force failed in that last task.

I knocked off a few more readings this week on my Judiciary “to do” list. One in particular reflects our contemporary debate regarding the legal basis for the War on Islamic Fascism. The Prize Cases [67 U.S. 635 (1862)] dealt with the authority of President Lincoln to institute a hard blockade of the seaports for the Confederate States. The legal wrangling centered upon the inherit authority vested in the President as Commander-in-Chief by the Constitution to respond to invasion or insurrection versus the authority of Congress to declare war. President Lincoln issued a proclamation on 27.April.1861 (two weeks after the attack on Fort Sumter), directing the Navy to blockade the South. They allowed for a 15-day grace period from the day the Navy declared the blockage in effect – 2.May.1861. The Prize case addressed various claims of four separate captures of merchant vessels attempting to run the blockade shortly after it became effective. It was not until an act of Congress on 13.July.1861 (a week before the First Battle of Bull Run), that a state of war was declared – and even then, the legislation did not explicitly use the phrase “declaration of war,” rather the law endorsed and validated the President’s actions since his inauguration. The Court’s four dissenters focused on the timing of the congressional action, i.e., prizes captured between the President’s proclamation and the 13.July congressional act were taken unlawfully and should be returned in tact. The Court majority emphasized the President’s fundamental national defense authority, thus affirming the President’s inherent authority to act against the insurrection. The Court rejected the appeals of the claimants and determined the ships had been lawfully seized and their value salvaged. I learned a little more about history. Also, I understand better the counsel of John Yoo [381, 384] in the early days of the War on Islamic Fascism. Using the rationale of The Prize Cases, there is no question the President has wide authority to confront our enemies and defend the nation.

News from the economic front:
-- The Commerce Department reported U.S. retail sales increased 1.4% in October – a sign the economy continues recovering despite high unemployment. Removing the automotive sector, October sales rose just 0.2%. The government revised September sales down to a deeper dip of 2.3% from the previous estimate of a 1.5% decrease.
-- The House Financial Services Committee voted 41-28 to approve two amendments to a sweeping financial-overhaul bill that would establish a fund of as much as US$200B to help dissolve large, troubled institutions, and would give federal watchdog agencies new authority to audit the Federal Reserve – a measure sought by Representative Ronald Ernest “Ron” Paul of Texas and opposed bankers.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that some of the largest shareholders of investment bank Goldman Sachs have asked the firm to reduce the size of its bonus pool and pass along more of its massive profits to investors, which could make it the biggest employee payout in the firm’s 140-year history. Isn’t it refreshing to know that some companies that benefited from the generosity of We, the People, are doing so well in the deepest recession since the Great Depression?

The Blago Scandal [365]:
-- The Senate ethics committee reprimanded Senator Roland Burris of Illinois [368, 392] for his relationship with indicted former governor Blago, who appointed Burris to the Senate after being arrested by the FBI for allegedly trying to sell the seat once held by President Obama.

Comments and contributions from Update no.413:
From the Blog:
“(A) I noted the results of NASA's experiment. I would encourage caution if I thought NASA would listen to me. Humans have already done extensive damage to a much more abundant and forgiving orb.
“(B) Thank you for noting the need for preventive or prophylactic care. As a person with hypertension, emergency rooms cannot do much to help me unless my conditions goes dramatically out of hand, as my wife's hypertension did a few months ago. Extreme high blood pressure, as it turns out, can behave much like a heart attack. My wife sought help for those symptoms at the nearest emergency room, was admitted to the hospital, and the bill for the whole excursion (to the taxpayers) is far higher than would have been the two years' worth of $4-list-medicine and occasional office visits to treat the hypertension in a rational way.
“(C) The real interest in this blog for me was in ShotSpotter and the ensuing discussion. As a kind of disclaimer, George Orwell's story 1984 was required reading in a high-school course I took thirty-some years ago and I have not forgotten that. Here's my understanding of what my fellow contributor finds scary. ShotSpotter, of which I had not been aware, is being used currently to investigate potential murders. That surely is a good cause. The expansion that he and I fear would be the coverage, at least at first, of other crimes. Human speech could be detected easily enough by existing technology and used to enforce existing laws. For example, infidelity remains a crime in some states if I remember correctly. Let us set up a (hypothetical) situation. Let's make you and me polyamorous, people who openly have more than one sexual relationship at a time. We do this in one of the places with leftover morals laws such as the fidelity law. We are, as with most polyamorous people, not open with the general public about this. So, say we talk with our wives outside a restaurant, after our meal, about our various relationships. We don't have any conflict among ourselves about any of this, but somebody somewhere in the monitoring system or the prosecutor's office used to date one of us, hears the omni-present monitoring, and has a lingering resentment about whatever ended that. What are the odds of some or all of us being pursued and prosecuted under these laws? That would all be perfectly legal, per your argument above that things detectable by human senses may be monitored. Imagine the potential for further abuse if people didn't stick to the letter of the law.”
. . . my reply to the Blog:
Caution is always a good thing whether exploring the ocean floor or the Moon. Yet, our existence alone can be construed as damage, i.e., nothing is the same for our presence. Am I to understand you advise against exploration of the Moon, Mars or objects in or beyond our solar system?
Very good point. It is in routine, preventative, health care, e.g., annual physicals, prophylactic actions such as hypertension medication, that an equivalent [British style] National Health Service makes the most sense – an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Our system has clearly failed you and your family. Obviously, something must be done to improve the lives of all citizens.
Your analogous example is well stated. I certainly share your concern, suspicion and wariness. If you will allow me, a couple of additional thoughts . . .
1. If government occupied its proper place rather than its current position, our attitude toward technology might be vastly different. If we did not have the myriad of morality laws on private conduct, we might not feel so threatened by the government’s use of technology within the public domain for proper government purposes. It takes just one case of the government using the enormous power of warrantless wiretaps to prospectively harvest juicy, little, salacious tidbits that in turn are somehow “leaked” to the Press to ruin a political opponent by innuendo or suggestion, for us to see the damage done to the freedom of every single citizen.
2. Little reminders from Yahoo that Internet communications are not secure become far more ominous when placed in the context of the government’s professed interest in “net neutrality” – ostensibly a good objective but ultimately more government intrusion into our “reasonable expectation of privacy.” When it only takes one leaked disclosure to ruin a career or life, the seriousness of this debate takes on far larger dimensions. An agent eavesdropping with his normal hearing on “private” conservation in a public arena is one thing; using highly sensitive, directional microphones is altogether something different; and, using LASER audiometers to detect microscopic acoustic drumming on the window of a private home or office is another order of magnitude more intrusive. What is our “reasonable expectation of privacy” will be the central question on the battleground of civil rights for many years to come. Some are even saying the Internet is open, and privacy is gone . . . get over it. Perhaps. If so, then we have yet one more reason to get government out of the private, non-injurious, morality business.
We must remain ever vigilant and jealously defend our “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.”
. . . a follow-up comment off-line:
“I'm not opposed to exploring as much of the universe as we can reach. The solar system, in particular, has been an interest of mine for decades. I simply urge caution. The reports I have read on the discoveries about water on the moon have that "Oh, boy, here's something we can have fun with!" tone that typically needs a more adult voice to remind them of the dangers in a situation. I'm all for exploring every planet in the solar system, but in ways that do no needless damage.
“Note on the Internet: Facebook et al have always been open. I see email and Internet Messengers (IM) as private communication, but whatever I post on Facebook, MySpace, etc., is public. Likewise EBay, Amazon and their kin. And, like it or not, the Internet is very difficult to regulate without removing its value. I favor keeping the Internet open.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
Whew! There are enough voices against the entire space program; I was hoping you were not another. Yes, I agree. Thoughtful, careful exploration is indeed warranted. As with so many of our discussions, we invariably come to definitions. What is damage, and what is use? What is acceptable?
I finally gave into family pressure and joined Facebook. I do not check it as often as they would like, but at least I do; and generally, I only respond to some stimulant rather than just put stuff out there. I also have my website, which has some personal information, but just about everything is public domain stuff anyway. Like you, I have considered eMail, including Yahoo & YahooIM, to be private; but, technically, unless something is actually encrypted by some variable key, then it is technically not private.

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

Update no.413

Update from the Heartland
No.413
9.11.09 – 15.11.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The historic event that garnered the most attention this week was the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall – 9.November.1989. On that day 20 years ago, GDR Lieutenant Colonel Harald Jäger opened the East Berlin checkpoint at Bornholmer Strasse and the dominoes began to fall. As we celebrate the euphoria of the German people and their reunion, let us also remember a not-so-happy tragedy in Germany 71 years ago – Kristallnacht (Night of Broken Glass), when the gloves came off regarding the Nazi Judenfrage – lest we ever forget. The next day, the Brotherhood of Marines celebrated 234 years of service to this Grand Republic, and as tradition has it, we read Marine Corps Order no.47 (series 1921) from our 13th Commandant of the Marine Corps, Major General John Archer Lejeune, promulgated 1.November.1921. We are proud to be Marines and to have done our duty. Then, the following day, we remembered the service of all veterans in the shadow of the horrific sacrifice commemorated at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month. May God continue to bless all patriots who have served and continue to protect the Liberty we cherish.

This year, the honor for me and my service came from each of our grandchildren. The youngest, Grandson Judson James, 2, sent a video clip thanking me for my service. Our Granddaughters Aspen Shae, 12, and Shalee Lynn, 8, invited us to attend school ceremonies to recognize veterans within our family as well as the wider community. Words cannot possibly convey the pride an old man feels with his grandchildren and with our children who are developing the next generation of citizens.

The follow-up news items:
-- Scientists began to report the results from last month’s NASA LCROSS mission [408], Earth’s only natural satellite has more water than remote scans indicated. If the continuing analyses validate the initial findings and assist in the refinement of preliminary estimates, we could see a substantial shift in our planetary exploration plans
-- Disgraced and now convicted felon, former, Representative William Jennings “Dollar Bill” Jefferson of Louisiana [233, 240, 252, 258, 287, 295, 330, 346, 360, 364, 399] was sentenced to 13 years in federal prison. Finally! I trust he will enjoy his stay at taxpayer expense.

In the wake the House passage of H.R. 3962 (the health care reform bill), a few additional thoughts:

Go to any metropolitan emergency room and I am certain you will see “patients” in there with a sprained ankle, or a tooth ache, or even just a simple head-cold. When an indigent citizen goes to an emergency room for treatment, who pays for his medical care? Answer: we do! Unrecoverable expenses go into the hospital’s overhead expenses pool, which is divvied up and attached to every single dollar received by hospitals for patient care – one of numerous reasons hospital charges are so outrageous. The only thing we are not paying for is preventative or prophylactic care that might preclude emergency room visits. So, what is the difference between paying under- or non-insured treatment via higher hospital costs or taxes? I am not convinced national health care in the form of the British National Health Service or any of the other myriad forms is the way to go, but I need no convincing that the status quo is simply not sustainable or healthy – pun intended. No matter what system is put in place, there will be abuses, i.e., people who seek undue benefit from the generosity of We, the People. I suppose, for some, any reason to stop any health care reform legislation is sufficient and appropriate for them. Heck, more than a few folks are against health care reform simply because President Obama is advocating for it, or because they do not want the Democrats to claim any political victory. So, when the social conservatives conjured up “death panels” or even the abortion issue, no problem. Good to go. Yet, it is the use of the abortion issue as a bludgeon that I find irritating and disgusting, and another example of trying to use government to make personal, intimate decisions . . . the folks that such prohibitions will hurt the most are the less fortunate among us. This is just not the way to deal with the abortion issue or even the death with dignity question . . . make poor folks the pawns in the ideological conflict between political extremes. It just about makes my puke.

“The Hasan Case: Overt Clues and Tactical Challenges”
by Scott Stewart and Fred Burton
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: November 11, 2009; 18:41 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091111_hasan_case_overt_clues_and_tactical_challenges?utm_source=SWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091111&utm_content=SecTitle
The problem is the War on Islamic Fascism has never been about Islam, as a revealed religion in general. The issue and our enemy in the current war has been, is and will be a radical, fundamentalist minority who use religion as their rationale for violence, intimidation and oppression. The Islamo-fascists among Muslims seek to impose fundamentalist ideology of every living human being. Islamo-fascists even seek to depose governments in predominately Muslim nations because those governments are not fundamentalist enough. These guys are not just against the United States and its Allies; they are violently opposed to any government or person who resists their rabid ideology. They happily kill Muslims as well as infidels. The difficulty for us has been and will remain sorting out the rabid vermin among the majority of good Muslims both within the United States, the European Union, and even predominately Muslim countries. Islam and Muslims are NOT the enemy. Hasan’s demonic action was clearly a terrorist event and must be punished in the same manner as the Oklahoma City bombing. As yet, I have not seen sufficient evidence to link this tragedy to the Islamo-fascist movement. If that linkage is made, then his actions go beyond Islamo-fascist terrorism; they would be treason. The consequence should be the same.

“A National Disgrace”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: November 11, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/opinion/11wed1.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
The Times’ editorial, published on Veteran’s Day, caught my attention. The editors admonished the en banc (on the bench) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and claimed an Italian court in a similar case {Egyptian Islamist cleric Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr (AKA Abu Omar) [412]} got the judgment correct but the American court did not. The case that attracted the ire of the New York Times editorial staff was Arar v. Ashcroft [2CCA 06-4216-cv (2009)] – another challenge to our principles and legal processes imposed by the Islamo-fascist enemy we face in war. Maher Arar holds dual citizenship – Canada and Syria – and alleges that he was detained while changing planes at Kennedy Airport in New York (based on an alert from Canadian authorities that he was a member of al-Qaeda), mistreated for twelve days while in U.S. custody, and then removed to Syria (via Jordan) under the USG’s extraordinary rendition process and subjected to interrogation under torture by Syrian officials. Chief Judge Dennis G. Jacobs wrote an unconvincing opinion for the majority, affirming the district court’s dismissal of Arar’s case, largely on the government’s invocation of the state’s secrets doctrine. The weight of this ruling lies with the dissent – 122 of 181 pages. We can see the very essence of the majority’s concern in the rationale of the dissent – particularly the version written by Circuit Judge Barrington Daniels Parker, Jr. The dissent advocates for a virtually open application of Bivens criterion, in which the Supreme Court tried to define a tight boundary around, without closing the door on, an individual filing a compensatory damages claim against government agents who violated his constitutional rights. The result in such cases inevitable becomes a test of government decisions and policy. Once more, we take up the challenge of where do we draw the line? When is secrecy appropriate? It is strikingly odd especially in the dissenting opinions that a prevailing presumption, if not assumption, is the veracity of Arar’s claims and paucity of strength in the government’s assertions. We acknowledge a presumption of innocence until proven guilty for accused citizens. Apparently, there is no such presumption for citizens serving We, the People, as civil servants, and trying to defend the country. The most cogent and convincing of the dissenting opinions came from Judge Rosemary S. Pooler. The essential and key element in her argument is the connection between American and Syrian agents. If the Americans knowingly sent Arar to Syria for the purpose of torture, i.e., circumventing U.S. and international common law, then those agents have violated the law and should be held accountable. Yet, to me, the overriding factor remains our current state of war. The state’s secrets doctrine has different meaning and consequence during wartime – American lives are directly at risk. As with so many political issues, timing is everything. If this case was being adjudicated in the equivalent of 1947 vice 1942, my opinion would be different. As I read cases like this, I constantly return to the larger reality – we are at war! The purists among us will argue that the law is the law regardless of time or circumstance. I will argue, nay, nay; whether the Judiciary likes it or even acknowledges it, we remain at war and that establishes special conditions. I encourage legal consequence and historic examination in the aftermath of war. I remain highly resistive to such activities while our troops remain in harm’s way. Reluctantly, I must side with the majority in this case and condemn the Times’ editorial opinion as naïve and counter-productive.

United States Attorney General Eric Holder announced the government’s intention to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM) [068 & sub], Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. I understand, appreciate and accept our need to abide our societal processes, to stand up for our principles, and to defend our national reputation. I am proud to be a citizen of this Grand Republic. I want anyone who has caused injury to others to be held accountable for his actions. I even accept those among us who seek retribution and condemnation for an administration they despised, perhaps even hated. However, to be direct, blunt and even perhaps a little offensive, Attorney General Holder’s announcement brings nothing but dread to my consciousness, a torrent of unanswerable questions in the shadow of that dread, and a deep, intellectual, focused animosity toward the political forces that continue to corrode the very fabric of this Grand Republic. As General Julius Caesar so succinctly and eloquently said, “Alea iacta est!” We shall endure this episode as we have all the others; however, please indulge me and allow me to bleed. A criminal trial before a jury is NEVER a slam-dunk, e.g., the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Judge Barrington’s dissent in the Arar case (above) accentuates the risk we are about to take in a KSM trial. Decisions made shortly after KSM’s capture in the context of a criminal trial – for better or worse – will draw U.S. policy into judicial review. The United States of America – each and every one of us – chose to seek the intelligence KSM and others possessed rather than prosecute him as a common criminal. The consequences of that decision in the light of the Government’s decision to try KSM (and others) as common criminals means that the whole process from capture to trial will be placed before the bar and before a jury, and far more ominous before the public, the World, and the worst of all our enemies. If so, the intent is to place the CIA, extraordinary rendition, and enhanced interrogation techniques on trial in open court. So many questions . . . What if the jury finds him innocent, are we going to set him free? Can we sue any government employee for monetary damages when we disagree with any action he takes? Does every citizens in the world have access to sue the government when they disagree with U.S. action? This is why there must be limits.

A new topic opened by a contributor:
“I don't know if this type of stuff scares the be-jesus out of you all, but I can it surely does me. Sure this is not a sinister device declared to overthrow our liberties...but then again how many things actually carry that tag? On the surface it seems like a great idea and even seems to be helping, but when you factor the cameras that increasingly monitor our COMMON areas this swiftly becomes a slippery slope I would much rather stay away from. Today it's monitoring gunshots but I wonder what upgrades it will soon receive and begin monitoring other things. I am not your everyday conspiracy theorist and I will admit I briefly supported the Patriot Act, that is until I read its pattern of usage for years after its birth. As with most government plans this one has begun nobly but I wonder how and when this too shall become perverted. Empire's seldom, if ever, fall with a bang...it is far more common they perish from a thousand cuts and end in a whimper. I hope I am way off on this but thought it important enough to send out when I just saw it, so as many people as possible could become aware.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/09/smallbusiness/ear_for_crime.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2009110904
“For those of you that have gotten this far....thank's for humoring me.”
My response:
I supported the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 [PL 107-056]; much longer than you did. It took me longer to recognize the clarion call of caution you sounded . . . just slow I guess. Given that reality alone, I must give weight to your observation.
Nonetheless, I am not quite so leery of this technology. There is one huge difference between ShotSpotter and the Executive Branch’s implementation of the PATRIOT Act – public versus private. ShotSpotter listens in the public domain and then triangulates the source of a very specific gunshot report. The deployment of such a system would only make sense in an urban environment, i.e., hunting dinner is not viable. ShotSpotter just provides information. Law enforcement must then determine whether the gunshot was felonious, self-defense, accidental or official. Whatever the cause, law enforcement would not be wrong to investigate. ShotSpotter is not a warrant. The Bush administration chose to use the power of warrantless, electronic surveillance for purposes other than waging war successfully; the intrusiveness of the State into private communications far beyond the purpose of the original power is stark testament to the potential abuses by the State.
That said and given the abuses of the PATRIOT Act you allude to, we must have protections and firewalls between information generated in the public domain and the intrusive reach of the State. Those protections were not put in place for the PATRIOT Act. They must be intimately interwoven into the use of any technology that gives the State greater power – the ability to see, hear, smell, touch, learn or otherwise sense is power. Thus, the question is, what constraints go along with the use of ShotSpotter or any other data collection technology.
. . . round two:
“I agree that at the moment ShotSpotter is a noble implementation indeed, I can both appreciate its purpose and its result. My hesitation comes from Federal funding of the operation, through most likely grants (much like highways) which in turn can be used to greatly persuade individual states legislatures. I pray it never comes to it and I believe it is not there now, but putting listening devices of any kind into public domain is a very painful step towards Orwell’s apocryphal vision. But yes, I could most likely be wrong as well [?], this was just something that raised the little hairs on my neck.”
. . . my response to round two:
Your caution is wise and justified. A Supreme Court case – Kyllo v. United States [533 U.S. 27 (2001)] [313] – illustrates the very question you raise; in that case, the police used thermal-imaging to “intrude” upon a citizen’s home. The technology to “see,” “hear,” even “smell” inside a private residence exists today. The Orwellian “Big Brother” is much closer than any of us want to admit. By the same token, that very same technology can and does save lives from simple crime to the War on Islamic Fascism. Kyllo put some controls on Big Brother’s tools, but certainly not enough to make me feel better.
Semper Vigilantia,
. . . round three:
“I have not read Kyllo but I thought the gist of it was the government had no rights to view the escaped heat from a home. In essence that was separate from how smells are typically justified as 'abandoned property' once they have left an object/place but I thought thermal imaging was not covered by the same idea. Either way you are correct and I concede that point, these technologies DO stop bad people and lives can be saved...I also remember a Senator from Wisconsin who started off with a good idea some years back and was rapidly perverted. Again though you are correct and as I stated this was simply an act of vigilance that if we willingly close our eyes because the images are too frightful, we have no right to complain about the horrors that come. In the end though I fear it's the young Roberts court which has me most concerned, I do not yet know how they feel about civil liberties. Only time shall tell.
“Long live the Republic.”
. . . my response to round three:
You got it correct; Kyllo was about the government using sensitive, thermal-imaging equipment to prospectively “search” Danny Lee Kyllo’s home for signs that he was using his house to grow marijuana plants for sale. The government argued that the technology was passive, i.e., it simply amplified infrared energy that was in the public domain. The Court said, nay, nay. The technology allows the government to detect what no human can sense; further, passively “probing” a private residence violates the 4th Amendment. Even more impressive, Antonin the Impaler wrote the opinion for the divided Court and for limiting the government’s power. The difference between Kyllo and the current Sowell case in Cleveland rests on detectability by any human being. The odor of decaying flesh should have been sufficient probable cause to investigate and perhaps even to get a warrant to search the house. Applying the Kyllo criterion to ShotSpotter, the technology simply does what the human ear can and does accomplish, just with more precision and correlated to a map; thus, I perceive ShotSpotter as acceptable, kind of like a traffic camera. Nonetheless, your apprehension and caution regarding the deployment of additional technology is warranted and valid.

News from the economic front:
-- Two former Bear Stearns hedge-fund managers, Ralph Cioffi [372] and Matthew Tannin [372], were found not guilty of securities fraud in federal court. Their trial was seen as a test of the limits of the financial industry’s penchant for putting a positive spin on bad results and where outright fraud begins.
-- Intel agreed to settle all antitrust and patent suits with rival Advanced Micro Devices for a US$1.25B billion payment and a new five-year cross-license agreement between the two companies.
-- The latest Wall Street Journal survey of economists suggests they do not expect the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates until September 2010. They also expect unemployment to rise to 10.3% by the end of this year and to remain above 9.5% through most of next year. The economists expect the American GDP to expand at roughly a 3% seasonally adjusted annual rate through 2010.
-- Germany's Federal Statistics Office reported the country’s GDP rose 0.7% in the 3rd Quarter -- the second straight quarterly growth. The French GDP also grew for the second consecutive quarter, rising 0.3%.

L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- The FBI has arrested Jerome O'Hara and George Perez, and charged them with conspiracy, and falsifying the financial records of a broker-dealer and an investment advisory company. The two men were computer programmers for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities in the early 1990s, and allegedly helped perpetuate the largest Ponzi scheme in human history. They face a maximum of 30 years in prison if convicted.

Comments and contributions from Update no.412:
From the Blog:
“Thank you for your comment on the sexual freedom article. I had not made that connection clearly before, and it matters. After all, the antics of corporations affect their employees, customers, shareholders, and competitors and have the potential to affect innocent bystanders and the environment in many cases. Events in my bedroom or my marriage affect me and any other people in my bedroom or marriage and nobody else. So why is important to free corporations do as they please but regulate my bedroom and my marriage?
“I noted on TV news reports this past week that experts see increasing temporary employment as an early indicator of an improving employment picture. My experience as a temporary worker supports that temporary employment is increasing dramatically. In a one-week period at the end of September 2009, I received separate calls offering me four different assignments. That is a dramatic change over the spring and summer temporary-work climate here in Columbus, Ohio, when I often went two weeks without any work at all.”
My response to the Blog:
The really hard part about connecting with individual citizens regarding Freedom and Liberty remains the personalization of the intrusions by government and/or others, i.e., unless something affects them directly, most folks ignore it – doesn’t matter to me. Apparently, most folks do not take the time to research issues or think things through. I try very hard to translate issues into tangible terms . . . with demonstrably limited success.

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

Update no.412

Update from the Heartland
No.412
2.11.09 – 8.11.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Last May, Governor John Baldacci of Maine signed into law a bill allowing gender-neutral marriage [386] within his state. The law in question was Maine Public Law 2009, Chapter 82 - An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom (6.May.2009), but suspended implementation in deference to a pending public referendum. A sufficient number of state residents sought to challenge the statute by referendum – Maine Referendum Question 1 – People’s Veto - An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom: “Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?” The final tally was 53% in favor. It remains absolutely and fundamentally amazing to me how easy it is to discriminate against a minority and deny them equal rights, simply because they do not approve of the choices of other citizens. As Kurt Vonnegut so succinctly said, “And so it goes.”
Side note:
In the same election, the residents of Maine approved Question 5 - Citizen Initiative: “Do you want to change the medical marijuana laws to allow treatment of more medical conditions and to create a regulated system of distribution?”
-- Late Saturday night, the House of Representatives passed another hurdle regarding health care reform [396-411]. A few hours before the vote, President Obama made an unusual, direct, closing argument before the chamber. The House passed the landmark H.R. 3962 - Affordable Health Care for America Act, health-care reform bill [House: 220-215-0-0(0)]. I am still collecting information about the bill; so, I will hold my comments and opinion for the time being.
-- The Washington Post reported that Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran Grand Ayatollah Sayed Ali Hoseini Khamenei, [229, 240, 392] rejected several personal overtures from President Obama. The Shiite Muslim cleric went on to warn his government that negotiating with the United States would be “naive and perverted” and that Iranian politicians should not be “deceived” into starting such talks. Well now, so much for diplomatic initiatives. The Great Satan lives. I could make a snide remark about clerics and politics, however, I shall refrain.

At 13:30 [S] CST Thursday, a shooter opened fire with two, semi-automatic, hand guns in the Fort Hood Soldier Readiness Processing Center, killing 12 soldiers and 1 civilian, and wounding 30 others. Considering the number of killed and injured, there were either multiple hit shots or the shooter reloaded several times; the latter suggests a deliberate, pre-meditated, act of violence. Fort Hood Police Sergeant Kimberly Denise Munley, 34, and her partner, Sergeant Mark Todd, rushed to the scene, arrived within three minutes, and entered the building to aggressively confront the situation. Despite being shot herself, Sergeant Munley dropped the shooter and undoubtedly saved many lives. The shooter has been identified as Major Nidal Malik Hasan, USA, MC, 39. He is a natural-born American citizen, of Jordanian (or Palestinian, depending on your point of view) heritage, who entered the Army in 1995, and became a service psychiatrist. Hasan was about to deploy for the first time to Iraq. He is reportedly alive, unconscious, on a ventilator, but expected to survive his wounds. It appears he will enjoy a lengthy opportunity to chat with a passel of FBI and CID agents, and Texas Rangers; the investigators will figure out this one. Based on what we know so far, I believe there is much more to this tragedy than what we know to date, and I suspect it is much worse than the deaths of so many patriots. One of the Army wives was reported to have remarked, “I wish his name had been Smith” – the implication, of course, that there is a huge difference between an incident act of violence and an attack by an imbedded al-Qaeda operative.
Postscript:
The American Muslim community was quick to condemn the tragedy, and regrettably they felt the need to caution their believers to watch for backlash. We can hope the caution does not become reality.
Historic note:
Fort Hood is a massive, 339 square mile, military base located near Killeen, Texas, and home to the headquarters of the III Corps. The post became operational in September 1942, and was named for General John Bell Hood, Confederate States Army, who commanded renown units [4th Texas Infantry, the Texas Brigade, the Army of Tennessee] in key battles [Bull Run, Antietam, Gettysburg] during the Civil War [or War Between the States, for the Confederates] – an unusual recognition for a rebel.

On Wednesday, a court in Milan, Italy, convicted 22 CIA operatives and one USAF colonel in absentia for the 2003 rendition of Egyptian Islamist cleric Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr (AKA Abu Omar). Three American and two Italian higher-ranking officers were given diplomatic immunity and not prosecuted. Nasr is reportedly a member of al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya – an Islamic fascist organization dedicated to overthrowing the Egyptian government. I can understand folks like Judge Oscar Magi being angry about the policies and actions of George W. Bush, but this was not a good thing to do. What little satisfaction some folks may enjoy will be paled to inconsequentiality when compared to the damage done to international intelligence operations in the War on Islamic Fascism. Yet, it is what it is; the reality being the Americans involved will no longer be able to travel outside the United States – sad commentary for patriotic and loyal agents who carried out the orders of their country. Curiously, why did the Italians even allow Abu Omar into their country? Even worse, why did they allow him to stay? This be-nice-to-our-enemies mentality in the middle of a freakin’ war is just beyond the comprehension capacity of my little pea-brain.

We have discussed the challenges of intelligence versus law enforcement operations in the context of modern terrorism and the current War on Islamic Fascism. The following essay is one of the best presentations I have seen regarding what the authors refer to as “protective intelligence.” In the light of the Italian convictions noted above, this essay is quite timely and apropos.
“Counterterrorism: Shifting from ‘Who’ to ‘How’”
by Scott Stewart and Fred Burton
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: November 4, 2009; 19:18 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091104_counterterrorism_shifting_who_how?utm_source=SWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091104&utm_content=readmore
The difficulties of intelligence versus law enforcement the middle of a war bring to a fine point precisely why we must sort this out and find a reasonable balance that protects our freedoms and ferrets out the bad guys before they can execute their heinous plans.

Beyond the horrific tragedy of so many lives lost at the hand of rapist-murderer Anthony Sowell in Cleveland, Ohio, we must bear witness to yet one more case of what happens when any community does not care enough about itself and its neighbors . . . one more case of citizens who knew something was wrong and did nothing, or at least not enough. Until we can overcome this “Don’t Snitch” or “Don’t Get Involved” mentality, I have virtually no interest in talking about more morality laws to punish hundreds of people in some lame attempt to find the Anthony Sowell’s and Phillip Garrido’s of this world. Don’t even bother trying to convince me we need gun control, or more metal detectors in schools, or stronger, more intrusive laws. Being an eternal optimist, I believe someday we will care enough about each other to take action when we know something is not right and hopefully save lives in doing so – when we see the litterer, the turnstile jumper, the school yard bully, the animal abuser. Until then, I shall continue to write and lament the failures of our society.

An exchange from a regular contributor to this humble forum:
“Obama said during his candidacy that no earmarks (pork) would get by him. That he not only would veto the bill, even if we needed it badly, such as the defense authorization bill he just signed the other day amongst much pomp and flourish. He also said that he would name by name those who had floated that amendment, and those who had signed on to it.
“That did not happen! There are literally millions and millions of earmarked pork included in the bill, having nothing at all to do with defense appropriations, thus taking away from $$$ for our troops. NO media reported on it. No reporter there at the signing spoke up about it.”
. . . to which I added my opinion:
If I'm feeling generous, I'd say he's got bigger fish to fry at the moment. In my cynical moments, I would say he's just another bloody [expletive] politician who lies to our faces and tells us what we want to hear to get elected. However, even worse, we fall for the same old crap time after time; we tell ourselves, this one is going to be different; this one is actually going to do what he says and clean things up. The reality is, POTUS would simply have to publish the list of earmarks along with sponsors, and the brilliant light of public scrutiny would do the rest. I'm fairly adept at working the Library of Congress database, but I've tried numerous times to search out these earmark offenders. Fortunately, there is a Press in Washington who can ferret out some of this graft. On the unfortunate side of the ledger, I think the Press just gets tired dealing with the massive volume of these damnable earmarks.

I finally got around to reading one of the Supreme Court cases on my “to do” list – Reynolds v. United States [98 U.S. 145 (1878)] – a church & State case that established the State’s preeminence henceforth. George Reynolds was charged with violation of the polygamy statute in the Territory of Utah, having married Amelia Jane Schofield, while his first wife, Mary Ann Tuddenham, was still alive. He argued that he was compelled to violate the law by his religious belief, dictum and duty; George was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Chief Justice Morrison Remick “Mott” Waite writing for the Court said, “The inquiry is not as to the power of Congress to prescribe criminal laws for the Territories, but as to the guilt of one who knowingly violates a law which has been properly enacted, if he entertains a religious belief that the law is wrong.” He went on to say, “Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society” – punishable by death in the 17th Century, I might add. The Chief Justice oddly refers to Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance” and Jefferson’s “Danbury Baptists Letter,” and then failed to recognize the consequence on the issue at hand. While Reynolds was a pivotal case for several generations, it now lies with Plessy v. Ferguson [163 U.S. 537 (1896)] in the mound of poor jurisprudence. Waite concluded, “Congress, in 1862 (12 Stat. 501), saw fit to make bigamy a crime in the Territories. This was done because of the evil consequences that were supposed to flow from plural marriages.” The Court upheld the rulings of the lower courts and made religious beliefs submissive to the will of the State.
In “Memorial and Remonstrance” [20.June.1785], James Madison observed, “Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, ‘that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.’ (Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 16 [12.June.1776]) The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. Right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men.” Madison went on to say, “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?” We conveniently choose to ignore or discount Madison’s wisdom and caution, it seems to me.
Perhaps it is equally appropriate to reprint the full salient paragraph from Jefferson’s “Letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists Association” [1.January.1802]: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” Jefferson’s amplifies Madison’s observations.
The leaders of the Danbury Baptists responded ten months later [no electronic media back then]. One sentence best summarizes their opinion, “It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.” In their response, we see the very struggle we endure to this very day regarding the primacy of the church or the State.
Since I am on a history bent with this topic, I would like to add a couple of quotations from Associate Justice Joseph Story’s magnum opus “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” [January.1833]. In his analysis of the Federal oath of office, he observed, “[The oath] had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government.” [Vol.3, §1838] Story went on to note, “It is easy to foresee, that without some prohibition of religious tests, a successful sect, in our country, might, by once possessing power, pass test-laws, which would secure to themselves a monopoly of all the offices of trust and profit, under the national government.” [Vol.3, §1843] Story’s constitutional analysis validates and punctuates the necessity to keep religion out of the political arena and specifically excluded from secular governance.
In the light of the history noted above, Reynolds represents a classic example of blind faith in the State and the Court’s inability to see the relationship to a citizen’s Liberty as envisioned and codified by the Founders and Framers, and contrary to the separation the Founders sought, to avoid the sectarian entanglements and violence their forefathers endured. Sadly, the same mentality exists to this very day.
Polygamy remains a touching subject, although I am gambling that it is not as sensitive as abortion, child pornography, or homosexual marriage. The practice does represent the intersection of public and private, and thus attracts my attention in the debate regarding my so-called “front door” criterion.
The Court in Reynolds refers to polygamy as “an offence against society,” and yet presents no rationale or evidence to support such a statement. I suppose they just expect everyone to trust their lofty judgment. Unfortunately, I do not; I seek logic and reason for things that affect my life.
The roots of the polygamy prohibition in Judeo-Christian practice and common law appear to go back to the Reformation. Some can argue the Christian religion’s focus on monogamy began with interpretation of biblical scripture by Augustine of Hippo (5th Century) or Thomas of Aquin (13th Century). According to Chief Justice Waite, the English common law prohibition dates back to King James I (circa 1605) and was largely based on the religious dicta of the day. Regardless of its genesis, I continue to return to my root question – why? Why is polygamy “an offence against society”? What harm is caused, especially in the context of modern society? Why are we so afraid of how some other citizens choose to live their lives? Regardless of my philosophical questions, the fact remains Western culture has retained its taught and learned aversion to polygamy. Yet, when placed in the context of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” such mindless adherence to tradition seems as antithetical as slavery, women & children as property, landed male voting rights, and other such practices. Certainly, the Court drove the nail in the coffin of sanctioned polygamy with its Reynolds ruling. Perhaps it is time to add polygamy to the list of reforms that are long overdue and might help us return to the Freedom articulated by the Founders. I do NOT argue for polygamy; the issue here is freedom of choice and the fundamental right to privacy. My objective is removal of the State from private matters that do not cause injury or affect the public domain. Chief Justice Waite and the Court were wrong. Congress was wrong. The issue before the Court was precisely whether Congress held the authority under the Constitution to enact a prohibition against polygamy, as there is NO demonstrable justification for the State to intrude on a private matter between consenting adults. Just because the English did it 400 years ago does not offer sustainable or supportable rationale – no more so than slavery did in those days.
The argument of the so-called strict constructionists most likely will be that only legislation should overturn tradition. The Judiciary should stay out of the debate. Unfortunately and undoubtedly, they will also gloat that such legislation has little chance of passing, so don’t waste our time. The sad reality is such laws should have never been passed in the first place. Congress had no authority to do so. Thus, standing behind legislation-is-the-only-true-path argument rings quite hollow. Taken to its logical conclusion, such argument essentially proclaims the enactment of law(s) by a willful group (regardless of whether they are a majority or minority) is quite alright as long as it is for purposes they support or believe, but not acceptable in the reverse. We do not need to pass more laws. We need to repeal the laws we already have that are so corrosive to our Freedom and Liberty.
To me, these arguments are simple. Are we equal or not? Do all of us have the same rights or not? If we are truly a nation that believes “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” then we must walk the walk, not simply babble on about meaningless, unilateralist tripe. By what right does any government or person have to tell me or anyone else how I must live my private life? By what right!
Side note:
In doing research for this topic, I discovered more than a few, fundamentalist, Christian sects (excluding LDS & FLDS) that advocate for circumvention of the polygamy laws and procreation to the greatest extent possible as a duty to their faith, ostensibly to populate their communities with believers. Ain’t life grand!

A generous contributor to this humble forum sent along this article-link:
“Sexual freedom as a fundamental human right”
by Gaylen Moore
Cleveland Open Relationships Examiner
Posted: October 29, 2009; 7:35 PM
http://www.examiner.com/x-17712-Cleveland-Open-Relationships-Examiner~y2009m10d29-Sexual-freedom-as-a-fundamental-human-right?cid=email-this-article
An odd thought struck me as I read the article. Socially and politically conservative citizens argue vehemently for a genuine free market devoid of meddlesome government regulations, and in virtually the same breath, argue equally as vehemently that government must have oppressive morality laws and the strictest enforcement of those laws that dictate how citizens must live and act in the privacy of their homes, their relationship(s), and even their bodies. So, free markets – yes, but free homes – no! What an odd dichotomy, doncha think?

News from the economic front:
-- Ford Motor Company reported 3rd Quarter net income of US$997M, or 29 cents per share, and a return to profitability – the first for the company’s North America unit since 2005. The company expects to be “solidly profitable” in 2011.
-- The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) Manufacturing Index for October rose to 55.7 from 52.6 – its third consecutive month of growth. A reading over 50 indicates expansion. The report also showed growth in the employment subcategory for the first time in 15 months.
-- New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo filed antitrust charges against Intel, accusing the company of threatening computer makers – Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Dell, among others – and paying billions of dollars in kickbacks to convince them against using competitors' chips. Intel is being investigated on multiple continents and by numerous regulators, including the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.
-- The U.S. Federal Reserve left interest rates near zero, reduced its purchases of agency debt to US$175B from US$200B, and reiterated plans to complete US$1.25T in mortgage-backed securities purchases by the end of March 2010. The Fed slightly upgraded its assessment of the nation’s economic health and indicated they plan to keep rates at record low levels for an extended period in the current environment of high unemployment and low inflation.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee left interest rates at 0.5% and expanded its eight-month-old bond-buying program by £25B (US$41B) to £200B. The WSJ also observed that growth prospects are more remote for Great Britain than nations such as France, Germany and the U.S., since the British economy is heavily dependent on the financial-services industry and fueled by high levels of consumer debt.

L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- On Tuesday, Bernie Madoff’s longtime accountant, David G. Friehling [379], pleaded guilty to three counts of obstructing the administration of the federal tax laws. He is scheduled for sentencing on 26.February, and remains free on bail. He has been cooperating with investigators and prosecutors. Friehling was responsible for preparing 20 years of tax returns that protected Madoff’s enormous Ponzi scheme.

No comments from Update no.411.

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

Update no.411

Update from the Heartland
No.411
26.10.09 – 1.11.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- France has decided to spend another €20M to renew the search for the wreckage of Air France Flight 447 [391, 394] in the mid-Atlantic Ocean. I certainly laud the tenacity of the French government. As an aviator, I truly hope they are successful. Yet, as with many such events in life, there comes a time when we must recognize reality. Again, I hope the French are successful this time.
-- The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act [245, 264-66, 281-83, 289, 297, 309-10] was finally signed into law when the President approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 [PL 111-084; H.R.2647; Senate: 68-29-0-3(0); House: 281-146-0-6(2)], which makes any hate crime on the basis of sexual orientation a Federal crime. I doubt the law will improve the safety of non-heterosexual citizens in the short-term, but it is a start toward a better day. Violent bigotry takes several generations to be dampened or eliminated. We have a long way to go.
-- The Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced the House’s revised, consolidated, version of health care package – all US$894B worth. [396 & sub] The new proposal is comparable in size and breadth as the Senate’s consolidated version. As this legislation moves inexorably toward its final form, we must step up our vigilance, focus and interaction. It is our duty afterall.

An interesting and valuable representation of presidential popularity tied to significant events from Truman to Obama.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/presidential-approval-tracker.htm

An informative assessment of the tenuous triangle:
“Russia, Iran and the Biden Speech”
by George Friedman and Peter Zeihan
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: October 26, 2009; 17:26 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091026_russia_iran_and_biden_speech?utm_source=GWeeklyA&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091026&utm_content=readmore

Circa Wednesday midnight, President Obama flew to Dover AFB, Delaware, to solemnly recognize and honor our fallen – soldiers and DEA agents – upon their return home from Afghanistan. Also in the line were Attorney General Eric Holder, Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz, and acting DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart. The President stood straight and tall with a flawless, salute form. He arrived back at the White House at 04:45 EDT to begin another busy day as Commander-in-Chief. Well done, Mister President! At occasions such as this, I am always reminded of President Lincoln’s letter of condolence to Missus Lydia Bixby – a widowed woman who lost all five of her sons during the Civil War. There are no words to soften the extraordinary loss of our patriots’ precious blood. Perhaps the President’s generous gesture will provide even just a modicum of solace to the families of the fallen.

The public hand-wringing over the President’s private deliberations regarding United States strategy in the Battle of Afghanistan continues unabated and just the progression alone is being construed by his detractors as inability. As I have confessed previously, I am an “any action is better than inaction” kinda guy. Nonetheless, I am confident and thankful the President is taking his time with this one. I have stated my opinion. All other factors aside, I would rather fight the jihadistanis “over there” than anywhere closer to home; but, it is not up to me. One of the President’s primary tasks in waging war successfully is public support. In some respects, he is at the mercy of We, the People. Yet, more importantly, he shapes public opinion. Barack Obama has rare rhetorical skills that can and should be used to accomplish his task in waging war successfully. In that process, a major factor in his decision must be his ability to focus public support for winning the Battle of Afghanistan. If he decides that such support is beyond his capacity, then withdrawal is the logical choice. If we pull back from the fight in Afghanistan, then the next question is and should be, where? Africa, Europe, Asia, the continental United States? Where? Where do we draw the line and fight the inevitable battle?

The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (AKA the ethics committee) completed its confidential, preliminary report of the investigation into allegations against more than 30 Representatives, including Representative Todd Tiahrt for the 4th District of Kansas since 1995, and now candidate for the Senate. The report was leaked. Whether inadvertent and intended, this government leak is as foul and onerous as all the other leaks of classified information. This is not how freedom is supposed to work. As much as I want corruption in Congress rooted out and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, these citizens are entitled to due process. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Regardless, my opinion is not a court of law.

In 1778, John Adams wrote in his diary, “The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families.” I cannot imagine many of us would argue with the venerable statesman and former president. Yet, it seems to me, we have lost our way and forgotten Adams’ wisdom. Morality, like integrity it is said, is what each of us does when no one is watching or can see us. Morality includes many elements; however, there is at least one common denominator – respect for others. As Adams observed, if children are not taught from birth to respect the person and property of others, they will mature with a distorted and immoral attitude toward life and citizenship. Morality can never be legislated or codified, as so much of what makes up life is hidden from public view. Of course, the advent of modern technology gives government unprecedented and even unimagined ability to penetrate the private domain of our “castle” as well as our bodies – the vessel of our personhood. We have the ability to pass laws enabling government’s use of those technologies to enforce our vision of morality, but I really do not think we want to go there. Thus, we can or should focus on public safety and public conduct as reflections of each citizen’s morality rather than attempt to dictate private behavior. A thief does not respect another person’s property. A murderer or rapist violates another citizen’s person. These “morality” laws are easy to justify and rationalize. They are, after all, steeped in millennia of civilized conduct. Where we appear to get crosswise comes when we extend our desire to control morality into the private domain of person or property. As the old adage goes, one person’s pain is another person’s pleasure, and therein lies the rub. The very essence of Liberty is our individual pursuit of Happiness free from interference by the government or our neighbors. Yet, anarchy is freedom taken to its logical extreme. So, where should we draw the line, i.e., where can we permit individual freedom while protecting public safety? Our dalliances with the law into the private domain have diminished our freedom whether we choose to recognize reality.
Why am I ruminating over morality, the law, and citizenship? A coalescence of unconnected events, thoughts, worries and concerns would be my succinct answer. The health care reform debate and the serious uncertainty as to how much farther into the tent the camel’s nose of government is going to reach is the predominant factor. I recently wrote a rebuttal letter to the editor of our local newspaper regarding repeal of the fireworks prohibition law that sparked my consternation. This same argument can be extended to so many other social issues – gambling, prostitution, smoking, seat-belt usage, consumption of psychotropic substances including common intoxicants, motorcycle helmet usage, high fat content foods, carbonated drinks, ad infinitum. To me, the public solution to virtually all of the “self-infliction” sins rests on freedom of choice. As long as no one else is injured, an individual citizen should be able to make his choices in life without interference from the rest of us. We may not like his choices. We may even see the adverse outcome in stark, clear terms, but that does not give us the right to take away his freedom of choice. We waste extraordinary resources in a vain attempt to control private conduct, i.e., personal morality.
Our focus should be clearly on the public domain and the intersection of the public and private domains. We should prohibit smoking in closed, common, public spaces; however, attempting to ban consumption of tobacco products is wrong in just about every way beyond our revulsion of the practice. Operating a motor vehicle, from a motorcycle to an airliner or a ship, while under the influence of intoxicants presents a very real danger to public safety independent of passengers and must be regulated. One of the most intimate of these intersections remains abortion – the conflict between a woman’s most fundamental right to privacy and control over her bodily functions and the perceived “rights” of the rapidly dividing cells to which her body has become host. We clearly have not found a balanced solution. I am convinced an equitable solutions exists; we just have found it yet.
In my most humble opinion, we have been fighting the wrong fight; focused on the wrong things, simply because they are obvious, or offensive, or otherwise disgusting. As long as we allow ourselves to be distracted by peripheral, salacious, façade issues, we will never have the capacity to focus on the genuine intersection issues.
As Dennis Miller so eloquently said, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

In the spirit of honesty, candor and forthrightness, I confess my failures [112, 171] as well as my successes. In this instance, I acknowledge my failure to make the cut in the Washington Post’s “Next Great American Pundit” contest. I wrote four pieces, chose one, tweaked it up as best I could, and submitted it. Friday evening, the Post notified the contestants. I share my submittal and their rejection.
Roman Polanski’s 1977 “mistake,” and the morality clash between the glitterati of Hollywood and the remainder of this Grand Republic, triggered a series of public and private debates regarding his crime and punishment. We even have the victim, now 45, then only 13-years-old, along with the former prosecutor, urging forgiveness, which muddies the water to the point of coagulation.
Beyond the obvious that has garnered so much public attention, I am struck by a critical, nay crucial, missing element in this sordid affair. Where were her parents? How and why did she wind up in Jack Nicholson’s home alone with Polanski? I am troubled by these questions, not to lessen, condone or mitigate Polanski’s crime, but for what they say about us – We, the People.
We seem to have a deep and prevailing penchant to blame everyone else except ourselves, to look to government to solve our problems and resolve our differences. Yet, I simply cannot get past the notion that parents are ultimately responsible for the conduct and welfare of their children – not schools, not the government, not a village, not the police or prosecutors – just us.
Roman Polanski did a bad thing, took advantage of a young girl, and showed terribly bad judgment for hedonistic self-gratification, but at the end of the day, it was that 13-year-old girl’s father and mother who ultimately failed her.
As President Obama likes to say, “This is a teaching moment.” Perhaps we can all take away some introspection about our parenting, about our children, about our place in society.
For reasons we know not, Susan Gailey did not see the signs, did not teach Samantha about the risks, or perhaps inflated Samantha’s curiosity with her adoration of fame.
The school yard bully does not spontaneously happen. The careless litterer or blatant turnstile jumper does not just sort of appear out of the ether. We are all a product of our parents, of the teachings of our childhood.
In the years leading up to that March day in 1977, Samantha’s parents failed her, failed us, and we should be as outraged at them as we are at Roman Polanski. Until we decide as a society, as a body of law, to hold parents accountable for their contribution to the conduct of their children, we shall continue to realize faux-satisfaction for a bandage on the symptoms rather than treating the root cause.
The Post’s rejection:
“Thank you for entering the first season of the America’s Next Great Pundit contest. You didn’t make the judging easy for us. Not only did we get nearly 5,000 entries, but a great many of those entries were really quite excellent -- smart, interesting, funny, well written and well argued. So while we’re sorry to say that we can’t include you as one of our ten finalists this time around, we hope this isn’t the last time we hear from you. We hope you’ll follow the rest of the contest and participate as voters. But even more important, we hope you’ll pitch us more of your work. The various ways you can send various types of pieces are outlined here:
“Thanks again for giving this a try. We enjoyed reading.”
Best,
The Editors
Perhaps, I chose the wrong topic or words – too controversial, too direct, too blunt, not fresh, not funny. Perhaps my opinion was just not well written or up to the standards of the Washington Post. Who knows? Oh well, at least I tried.

I also submitted a short essay to the Strategic Forecasting, Inc., opinion contest, which is actually individual perspective regarding an interesting retrospective hypothetical question. Here is my opinion to their question.
Question: What would be the thrust of U.S. foreign policy today if the 9/11 attacks had never occurred?
The aftermath of the 1991 disintegration of the Soviet Union brought realignment of U.S. and Allied foreign policy since the end of World War II. The Soviets and their expansionist endeavors had been the single paramount threat to which the United States constructed its approach to international affairs. After the collapse, by necessity, the Russians turned their attention to minimizing the perceived consequences to their security, induced by the breakaway republics. With the Soviet Union no longer a security threat, commerce moved up the scale of American international interests.
The turmoil of the 2000 election altered the dynamic of federal politics by amplifying the divisions within the country. Perhaps George W. Bush would have taken an introspective approach regardless of the closeness and dispute of the election. Perhaps one of his first actions once inaugurated would still have been Executive Order 13199 – his faith-based organizations initiative – and the associated outreach to religious groups for community activities. President Bush seemed to be more interested in his socially conservative domestic agenda rather than in foreign policy. The principal exception during those months prior to 9/11 was the confrontation with the People’s Republic of China regarding the intercept, mid-air collision and subsequent detention of the U.S. Navy EP-3 surveillance aircraft and its crew. Even Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld concentrated on reformation of his massive organization, its approach to warfighting, and the ever burdensome acquisition process.
With domestic affairs attracting Executive Branch attention, the foreign policy would not have changed substantially. Islamo-fascism has been growing steadily from the recognition of Israel, and took on greater, more expansive and ominous dimensions after the Iranian revolution and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Even the warnings from American and Allied field operatives who recognized the threat posed by bin Ladin and the birth of al-Qaeda did not fundamentally alter U.S. foreign policy. The 9/11 attack provided that catalytic re-direction. Thus, without 9/11, the Bush administration most likely would have been content to muddle along as the previous five administrations had done. His administration would not likely have performed differently. There would still be a unilateralist bent.
The wildcard in such a revisionist question is al-Qaeda as the embodiment or at least moniker for the Islamo-fascist movement. If 9/11 had been thwarted, bin Laden and his brethren would have continued escalating attacks on U.S. interests throughout the world as they had done since they created al-Qaeda. They sought violent jihad. If the supposition is correct, al-Qaeda would have continued escalating attempts until they achieved the success they wanted. A 9/11-like event was inevitable and only a matter of time. The response, even by a late second-term Bush administration would not likely have been appreciably different. The response by an Obama or subsequent administration probably would have been different in detail but not objective. The Islamo-fascist threat would still have dominated U.S. foreign policy.
The other wildcard is clearly the People’s Republic of China. The PRC has matured as an economic engine and as a player in international affairs. Fortunately, so far, the Chinese have relied on their economic strength to purvey their interests. While the specter of Chinese military projection remains a cause for vigilance, it remains a rather distant cloud on the horizon. Since Mao’s passing, the PRC has moved steadily and with success toward competing directly with the United States in the arena of international commerce, and stands in contrast to the Soviets and even the contemporary Russian actions.
If we assume the United States would have pacified the Islamo-fascist movement and the Chinese would remain commercially oriented, socio-environmental issues would dominate U.S. foreign policy. The inevitable pressure of population growth, balanced against agricultural production and efficiency, will demand progressively more attention and will become a paramount national security challenge. Regardless of the validity of the global warming hypothesis or the human-inducement corollary, mankind must face the pollution issue – water, air, land. The only question is priority, i.e., what is the greatest threat to the security and well-being of the American people.
The Islamo-fascist threat has dominated U.S. foreign policy for nearly ten years. Without that threat, the perception regarding socio-environmental threat would have taken the paramount position. The Bush administration would still have moved away from the Kyoto Protocol and tried to distance the nation from the international environmental movement. Likewise, the Obama administration, as it is doing, would extend its hand to the international community and strive to convince the American people the short-term economic impact was the responsible thing to do and would yield long-term benefits by reducing ominous elements of the socio-economic situation.
Nonetheless, layers upon layers of conjecture do not alter the bottom line reality. The rooting and growth of the Islamo-fascist movement will dominate U.S. and Allied foreign policy for at least the next several decades just as Soviet expansionism dominated international affairs for nearly half a century in the post-world-war era. The Islamo-fascist threat is real, violent, here today, and not going to be dampened or deflected for many years. The 9/11 attack happened to be the dog that bit, but if not 9/11, there would be some other comparable event.

News from the economic front:
-- A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll suggests Americans are growing increasingly pessimistic about the economy after a mild upswing of attitudes in September. Of those polled, 58% say the recession still has a ways to go, up from 52% in September and back to the level of pessimism expressed in July. Only 29% said the economy had “pretty much hit bottom,” down from 35% last month.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that GMAC Financial Services and the Treasury Department are in advanced talks to shore up the lender with its third dose of taxpayer funding – a stark reminder of how some battered financial firms remain dependent on government lifelines. According to the Journal, the USG is likely to inject another US$2.8-5.6B into the Detroit company, on top of the US$12.5B that GMAC has received since December 2008.
-- The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – the output of goods and services – increased at 3.5% annual rate in the 3rd Quarter, ending a full year of decline – an unofficial confirmation that the longest and deepest recession since the Great Depression has ended.
-- A day later, the USG reported consumer spending decreased 0.5% in September – the largest drop in nine months – reflecting the end of the “clunkers” program and continued stress in the labor and credit markets. The USG also reported that personal incomes for September remained unchanged, which when combined with the decrease in spending suggests improving confidence.

L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- Longtime friend of and investor with Bernie Madoff, Jeffry Picower, 67 [388, 407], drowned in the pool of his Palm Beach, Florida, home as a result of a massive heart attack. The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan has been investigating Picower and others in a criminal probe regarding knowledge of or complicity in the fraud. I trust the investigation will continue and every attempt will be made to recover ill-gotten gains, if any.

Comments and contributions from Update no.410:
“One of my rare responses, born of an increasingly cynical attitude based on empirical evidence gathered painfully from biased leftwing and rightwing news coverage:
“Let's keep it simple.
“1. Repandercrats try but cannot outpander Democrats. The only current potential political solution to our rapid slide into socialism and ultimate demise as a free nation lies in the Libertarian Party, but because of some of its unpopular platform planks there is little hope there. When Obama gets through loading the federal and Supreme Courts, that second branch will speed up the process by which our Congress is becoming irrelevant compared to the executive branch. Constitutional government is no longer a reality in the U.S.A.
“2. The so-called public option is designed and destined to eventually make it financially stupid to buy more expensive private health insurance. The market will prevail, and short-sighted "free choice" will favor socialism. Only daring non-partisan congressional independence will stop this tragedy, and there are no daring non-partisan politicians.
“3. As an Episcopalian more than fond of our general open mindedness and our hope for an Anglican Communion of non-uniform churches, I have no time for hand-wringing over narrow-mindedness or Roman imperialism. I say let the 1000(?)-year-old trend of splitting off denominations continue, with its contribution to secularism. It looks like we'll all be under Muslim control in another century anyway, because our Creator has given us the power to chose our poison.
“4. The Nobel prize is what it is. Inflation has cheapened everything.
“5. I wish I could properly credit whoever first said ‘We are drowning in information and starving for wisdom.’
“6. ...but keep up the dialogue! The intelligent minority can at least go
down fighting. I may feel better tomorrow...”
My response:
1. This is a cycle, as has existed since citizens involved themselves in republican governance. For many years now, I have seen the two principal political parties as colors of the same thing – they both seek bigger & bigger government to further their political power and value as political currency; they both spend like there is no limit or reason; they seek political divide and encourage extremists of their color to ensure the divide is maintained. This caustic and toxic political environment is corrosive to the very foundation of this Grand Republic. That said . . . I am not quite so dire or morose regarding the future of this Grand Republic.
2. As I have written, I am not so pessimistic regarding some version of the public option to cover those less fortunate. If not structured or managed properly, it certainly could turn into a debacle; but, I am not yet willing to throw in the towel.
3. One could argue the “splitting” of the Christian religion took demonstrable form 1,700 years ago, or perhaps more appropriately 400 years ago with the Reformation and the genesis of Protestantism. Nonetheless, there is an ebb-n-flow to these things. What I find disconcerting is the intransigence of some theological ideology and the inability to rationalize theology with republican governance, freedom and Liberty. If there is an undoing of religion, it will be its dictatorial stance regarding freedom of thought and choice. Perhaps, Liberty is a poison; I think not.
4. Indeed, the Nobel Prize is what it is; its value was diminished dramatically when Yasser Arafat became a recipient.
5. Can’t help you yet with a citation for the quote, but I do ascribe to its message.

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