Update from the Heartland
No.414
16.11.09 – 22.11.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
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 :-)
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 :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment