27 December 2010

Update no.471

Update from the Heartland
No.471
20.12.10 – 26.12.10
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- As sometimes happens with legislation signed into law late in a given week, the title of the bill as enacted is changed by some as yet unknown process. Last week [470], I acknowledged the President’s signing of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010 [PL 111-312] – the congressionally identified title. On Monday, the title of the same bill as enacted by the President’s signature was published as the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. So, there you have it.
-- The Washington Post reported that the Obama administration is preparing an executive order that would formalize the indefinite detention without trial of unlawful battlefield combatants (captured during the War on Islamic Fascism) at the U.S. military facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba [124 et al]. Under the administration’s proposed rules, detainees would be allowed to challenge their incarceration periodically, possibly every year, in a more adversarial, quasi-judicial process. Took ‘em a while but at least they eventually figured it out.
-- On Wednesday, President Obama signed into law the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 [PL 111-321; H.R.2965; S.4023; Senate: 65-31-0-4(0); House: 250-175-0-9(1); repeal of 10 U.S.C. §654], which repeals the 17-year-old law [PL 103-160] [312, 408], preventing homosexuals from serving openly in the U.S. military. This moment in history is only the end of the beginning. Now the hard work must layout the execution plans. The law does not take effect until the President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify to Congress in writing that they have completed comprehensive plans that implement the recommendations of the Defense Department’s “Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” dated: November 30, 2010 [please see review below]. The new law also states, “Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to require the furnishing of benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’ and referred to as the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’)” {re: Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 [PL 104-199; 1 U.S.C. §7 (21.9.1996)]}. There is a very long way to go on our journey to attain equal rights and protection under the law for all citizens without regard to sexual orientation
-- The Macondo Well disaster [436, 442, 456] has and will command considerable attention for years to come. In such accident events, I prefer the cold facts of scientific or engineering examination to the emotionalized rendition often used by the Press. Here is an exception:
“Deepwater Horizon’s Final Hours”
by David Barstow, David Rohde and Stephanie Saul
New York Times
Published: December 25, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/26spill.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a2
While the experience of those aboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig that fateful day in April of this year does not give us better insight into the root cause and contributing factors that led to the accident, the Times lengthy essay does provide a worthy view of the human dimensions of the accident.
-- A few weeks back, I noted the final reparations payment by Germany as a consequence of the Great War [1914-1918] – the War to End All Wars – World War I [459]. We have another opinion.
“Ending the War to End All Wars”
By Margaret MacMillan – Op-Ed Contributor
New York Times
Published: December 25, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26macmillan.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a212
Margaret Olwen MacMillan, OC, is a historian, University of Oxford professor, Warden of St. Antony's College - Oxford, and author of several scholarly history books. Clearly, she has laudable, respectful, impressive credentials. She said, “[The final payment] also, unfortunately, brought back to life an insidious historical myth: that the reparations and other treaty measures were so odious that they made Adolf Hitler’s rise and World War II inevitable.” Nonetheless, as I read the words of Margaret’s Op-Ed opinion, I repeatedly wondered whether she has actually read the Treaty of Versailles or Mein Kampf. Margaret makes a valid point regarding the appropriateness of reparation payments and specifically those imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. Unfortunately, as Margaret makes her point about the applicability of the German historical experience to the financial management of contemporary beleaguered states like Greece and Ireland, she neglects or overlooks the massive dimensions and consequences of the Treaty. As such, I shall respectfully disagree with Margaret’s convenient simplification and generalization.

Celestial history occurred early Tuesday morning. A full lunar eclipse happened on the Winter Solstice – the last time was in 1638. Europe was in the middle of the intellectual transformation of the Renaissance; England was on the verge of a metamorphic civil war; and the British Colonies of the Americas struggle to sink roots – 138 years from statehood. Needless to say, a very rare event!

After Congress passed the DADT repeal bill and before the President signed the bill into law, Richard Cohen wrote an Op-Ed column advocating for the resignation or removal of General Jim Amos, USMC, 35th Commandant of the United States Marine Corps, for his advice and counsel against repeal of DADT while Marines are fighting the War on Islamic Fascism.
“Marine Corps commandant has to go”
by Richard Cohen
Washington Post
Published: Monday, December 20, 2010; 8:00 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122003908.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
I have struggled with words to convey the anger and resentment I feel, while remaining objective, calm and direct. I appreciate Richard’s support for sexual orientation integration in the military; however, his objection to General Amos and presumably other Marine general officers that preceded General Amos in their opposition to the repeal of DADT is precisely the worst possible action and absolutely, categorically, emphatically WRONG! How many more times must we learn the terrible lesson of disastrous consequences of “yes-men” who spew the politically correct drivel that Richard Cohen appears to advocate? I disagree with General Amos for a host of reasons, however, I am proud of his strength and courage to call it as he sees it in such an emotionally charged environment. I urge anyone even remotely interested or inclined to share Cohen’s opinion to contrast General Amos’ public remarks with those of General Peter Pace, USMC [275]. I want – this Grand Republic needs – General Amos and his leadership skills to contribute to and implement the integration plan. Richard Cohen is flat wrong! We need General Amos to do his job.

With the flurry of recent legislation from Congress and feverish signing by the President, many of us may have missed the historic and significant action taken by a divided Federal Communications Commission. On Tuesday, the FCC approved new rules for Internet service providers by Report and Order FCC 10-201. The FCC declared that their action was “an important step to preserve the Internet as an open platform for innovation, investment, job creation, economic growth, competition, and free expression;” and to provide greater clarity and certainty regarding the continued freedom and openness of the Internet. The Commission adopted three basic rules:
“1. Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services;
“2. No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services; and
“3. No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.”
It all sounds like great stuff, huh? Two important facts provide additional illumination. A.) The congressional attempt at similar legislation – H.R.3458 - Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 – never made it out of committee, and
B.) The FCC commissioners passed these rules by the narrowest of margins. Genachowski approved; Clyburn approved in part and concurred in part; Copps concurred; McDowell and Baker dissented.
FCC 10-201 mentions privacy a few times, but only to acknowledge the concern and the existing law. A citizen’s fundamental right to privacy is not a stated or even implied objective. Perhaps, the Obama administration’s recently announced initiative to create a Privacy Policy Office [470] – charged with developing an Internet “privacy bill of rights” for U.S. citizens and coordinate privacy issues globally – will help fill in some of the gaps. I suspect the legal challenge to FCC 10-201 is inevitable, unless the 112th Congress can establish law rather than regulatory policy. I laud the government’s initiative to keep the Internet free and open; however, my primary concern remains . . . who will protect our most fundamental rights from voracious commercial interests and intrusion by the government?

The Washington Post reported the U.S. birth rate continued to fall in 2009, pushing the teen birth rate to the lowest level in nearly 70 years, according to reliable data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics.

The U.S. Census Bureau announced the results of the 2010 constitutionally mandated counting of citizens. The total U.S. population grew 9.7% to 308,745,538. The political parties always show the greatest interest due to the inevitable apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives. The big winner for 2012 and beyond is Texas, which will add four seats. Florida will add two seats, and Georgia will add one. Ohio and New York will each lose two seats. The balance of power in the country is tilting away from Democratic strongholds in the Northeast and Northern Midwest to warmer states in the Sunbelt, where Republicans tend to dominate.

On Wednesday, Congress passed and the President reportedly signed the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 [PL 111-xxx; H.R.847; House: 206-60-0-168(1); Senate: voice vote] to “establish the World Trade Center Health Program (WTC Program) within the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to provide:
“(1) medical monitoring and treatment benefits to eligible emergency responders and recovery and cleanup workers (including those who are federal employees) who responded to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; and
“(2) initial health evaluation, monitoring, and treatment benefits to residents and other building occupants and area workers in New York City who were directly impacted and adversely affected by such attacks.”
I cannot confirm the conclusion of the legislative process, as the Library of Congress was apparently a few hours behind the actual events of that busy day. I believe this bill was the last law passed by the 111th Congress. Reflective of the 23rd hour of the legislative session and the impending holiday break, the House barely achieved a quorum to vote and the Senate consented by voice vote only. I am sure the US$4.3B billion package is an important action to support the 9/11 first-responders and recovery personnel injured by their work at the World Trade Center AKA Ground Zero, but the conclusion does not leave me with a positive impression.

Also on Wednesday, the Senate ratified the so-called “New START Treaty” – the latest strategic-arms treaty with Russia and a major foreign policy goal of the Obama administration, which viewed the pact as a key element of rebuilding relations with Moscow. The formal title is the Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, signed in Prague on April 8, 2010, with Protocol [Treaty Doc 111-5; Senate: 71-26-0-3(0)]. While ratification had appeared in jeopardy only days prior to the vote, the Senate exceeded the two-thirds majority [67 yay] required, including 13 Republicans. We can argue the wisdom of the treaty or the sincerity of the Russians. I think we can all agree that reductions in the massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons are a positive step. The real point of contention appeared to be the restrictions on U.S. anti-ballistic missile defense technology. I can understand and appreciate the apprehension of the Russians regarding missile defense; however, in time, those apprehensions can be diminished by positive negotiations. The Government achieved a major objective.

With the repeal of DADT noted above, the focus now turns to the legally mandated implementation plan and certification by the military that all of the recommendations of the Defense Department’s “Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’” [468]. I tried to boil down the report’s recommendations to a manageable set of kernels.
1. Leadership, Training, and Education. The report pointed to the words from a number of senior officers and senior enlisted leaders in all the Services, “If the law changes, we can do this; just give us the tools to communicate a clear message.” They were setting the stage for the essence of what must be done.
2. Standards of Conduct. The study group believed that it is “not necessary to establish an extensive set of new or revised standards of conduct in the event of repeal.” They also recommended that the Department of Defense “issue guidance that all standards of conduct apply uniformly, without regard to sexual orientation.”
3. Moral and Religious Concerns. The group acknowledged that a “large number of Service members raise religious and moral objections to homosexuality or to serving alongside someone who is gay.” They recommended special attention be given “to address the concerns of our community of 3,000 military chaplains,” presumably so that the Chaplain Corps could effectively deal with the moral issues. The study group also believed that “policies regarding Service members’ individual expression and free exercise of religion already exist, and we believe they are adequate. Service members will not be required to change their personal views and religious beliefs; they must, however, continue to respect and serve with others who hold different views and beliefs.”
4. Privacy and Cohabitation. The study group recommended that the Department of Defense “expressly prohibit berthing or billeting assignments or the designation of bathroom facilities based on sexual orientation.”
5. Equal Opportunity. They recommend that non-heterosexual service members “be treated under the same general principles of military equal opportunity policy that apply to all Service members.” They further recommend that sexual orientation “may not, in and of itself, be a factor in accession, promotion, or other personnel decision-making.”
6. Benefits. The group acknowledged that the issue of benefits is itself large and complex, and implicates the ongoing national political and legal debate regarding same-sex relationships. They recommended that the particular issue of a “qualifying relationship” status for couples not in a Federally-recognized marriage be revisited as part of a follow-on review of the implementation of a repeal of DADT.
7. Re-accession. The group recommended that Service members who have been previously separated under DADT be permitted to apply for reentry into the military, pursuant to the same criteria as others who seek reentry.
8. UCMJ. They supported revision of Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and remove private consensual sodomy between adults as a criminal offense, warranted irrespective of DADT to be consistent with Lawrence v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003)].
9. Follow-on Review. Lastly, they recommended that one year after any repeal of DADT has been in effect, the Department of Defense conduct a follow-on review to monitor the implementation of repeal and to determine the adequacy of the recommended actions that are adopted. This should include a reassessment of the same-sex partner benefits issues referred to earlier.
The report contains a large amount to data regarding various aspects of the integration of non-heterosexual citizens in the military. The recommendations are founded in fact and represent the skeleton of an implementation plan. No timeline has been offered as yet. Presumably, now that the law has been properly altered, the military will move out smartly to finalize and execute the implementation.

News from the economic front:
-- According to the Wall Street Journal, New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is close to filing civil fraud charges against Ernst & Young for its alleged role in the collapse of Lehman Brothers, saying the accounting firm stood by while the investment bank misled investors about its financial health and as such contributed to the financial crisis. It is about time the prosecutors go after the enablers and collaborators. Hopefully, other states and the federal government will join the prosecution.
-- Under a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan and the IRS, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay a US$553.6M fine and admit criminal wrongdoing in a long-running probe of the bank’s sale of certain tax shelters marketed by KPMG LLP between 1996 and 2002. Prosecutors claim the tax shelter scheme generated billions in false tax losses.

Comments and contributions from Update no.470:
Comment to the Blog:
“I will leave the body of this week's Update alone. I have a headache at this moment, and discussing politics right now will only aggravate that.
“I regret that I did not receive your reply to my posting as I usually do. I would certainly have replied to that.
“Re: your discussion of “empire”; if we do not assume the control of the other nations involved to be necessarily a formal, legal control, we’re back to a valid definition. Certainly in terms of economic control, the simile holds, thus fitting the definition of “neocolonial.” My parallel for this is “war,” specifically in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. None of those was a “war” in the legal sense, but people shot at one another, dropped bombs, etc. If we look at actual events rather than legal definitions, Vietnam was a war and the US has an empire.
“Whether the U.S. remains an influential player on the world stage remains to be seen. The trend can be derived from statistics taken over the past twenty years. Such information as I have seen points to a decline in US leadership in most fields, with notable exceptions for military spending, energy consumption and consumerism.
“I will skip the details of integrating gay and lesbian people into the U.S. military. I share your hope and assumption that the process will proceed approximately as racial and gender integration have.
“I study the most interesting subjects in depth rather than attempt to keep up with all fields. Thus, I have come to understand addiction to a reasonable level. I still contend that your plan fails to deal with the human factors of addiction. My quote on this one for this week is from my Organizational Communication textbook. "It's not what you tell them, it's what they hear." That one comes from Arnold Auerbach, a successful basketball coach.
“You are an engineer, and it shows in your ideas. Among other things, you do not reckon with the families of addicts. Plenty of the families discourage addicts (including alcoholics) from seeking treatment even when the addict is ready. How many more will keep people out of your camps by any means available?”
My response to the Blog:
Interesting analysis re: empire. I will not quibble, and we shall respectfully disagree. I do not think the United States has ever sought empire by any definition.
Like so many things, “influential” depends upon context, definitions, expectations and such. Frankly, I do not care whether the United States is influential on the world stage or not. My primary concern remains protecting the Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness for the American People. Whether Americans are perceived as influential is irrelevant. What matters is freedom – freedom of travel, freedom of trade, and peace on earth.
We are agreed regarding non-heterosexual integration in the military (and eventually in American society at large).
“Red” Auerbach is spot on, correct; stated in a different manner, perception is reality. Yes, you are correct. I have failed to deal with the “human factors of addiction.” I am not sure why that is relevant. My stated objectives mentioned nothing about treating of addiction. I think most folks familiar with addiction recognize, there is no treatment for addiction . . . until the addict internally decides to abandon his addiction. Until that point, there is nothing any of us can do to stop his addiction. My sole or rather primary objective is to eliminate the collateral damage the addict’s addiction causes to other citizens and society in the main. I choose to recognize and accept the right of the addict to consume their substance(s) of choice in their pursuit of Happiness. I do not want to understand the addict; I simply want to prevent the addict from hurting anyone else. When the addict decides and commits himself to overcoming his addiction, I would support appropriate treatment. I simply recognize the power of addiction and acknowledge than I am powerless to stop the tide.
You make a good point. The enablers are a perverted twist. Under my proposal and your scenario, an enabler who purposely discourages or prevents treatment, and perpetuates addiction would eventually be discovered and overcome. I would also argue such conduct is criminal – no different from physical abuse. I can imagine there are evil people who fit that scenario, and in that case, the enabler is injuring the addict, just as a deranged parent or guardian might physically abuse a child. Most enablers I know are victims of the addict’s addiction as well; I’ve not met one enabler who sought to perpetuate the addict’s addiction, but I can imagine they exist.
A postscript to my response:
After I sent my reply and after her work, I talk to our daughter who works for a privately owned, out-patient, addiction recovery service. I read her what you wrote, specially “Plenty of the families discourage addicts . . .” I asked if her experience validated your observation. Her answer, “Oh yeah, everyday; it is a constant challenge.” She mentioned they have seen spouses, parents, other enablers and such who act as you noted, for a host of reasons like a false sense of superiority or caring, protection of their selfish economic interests, ad infinitum. She went on to say, “When you take away somebody’s pain, you take away their ability to change.” I interpreted your observation as suggesting criminal culpability, which I doubted occurred. Jacy corrected me; they see it all . . . the worst of humanity.
I still think my point is correct. My proposal will eventually separate the addict from his enablers. Once the addict can no longer abide the rules, he is given the option to voluntarily enter the isolation camp or face criminal prosecution for endangering other citizens. Conversely, as long as the addict causes no injury or potential for injury to others, then they stay on their own.
Nonetheless, valid point and important topic of discussion. No system will be perfect. There will always be those that slip through the cracks. Thanks for raising those important points.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“On a relatively personal note, you might want to spend time talking to your daughter about her work. It would expand your horizon at the same time it would give you much more depth on the human factor. (Non-addicts are not as different as they may seem from addicts, and there are a great many addicts.) She is an unusual asset: a person you love whose professional experience and perspective will be very different from yours. I imagine each of you can gain from the other.”

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

20 December 2010

Update no.470

Update from the Heartland
No.470
13.12.10 – 19.12.10
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- On Monday, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson of Virginia issued his ruling in the case of Virginia v. Sebelius [USDC VA ED(RD) civil action no.3: 10CV188-HEH (2010)], which declared a key portion of the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) [PL 111-148] [432] unconstitutional. The Minimum Essential Coverage Provision (PPACA §1501) and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution were at issue. As the judge noted, “The Secretary [Sebelius] characterizes the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision as the vital kinetic link that animates Congress's overall regulatory reform of interstate health care and insurance markets.” Judge Hudson observed, “A thorough survey of pertinent constitutional case law has yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme. The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.” [emphasis added]. The judge rejected the request for an injunction to prevent implementation. Other states have challenged PPACA. This issue is destined for the Supreme Court, as the implications to constitutional law are profound.
-- After a positive bail hearing for Julian Assange [453 & sub] and a subsequent appeal by Sweden, Queen’s Bench judge, the Honourable Mister Justice Sir Duncan Brian Walter Ouseley, KT, QC, granted the WikiLeaks founder £240,000 bail. Assange must suffer his conditional bail at Ellingham Hall on the 650-acre estate of journalist Vaughan Smith in Suffolk, England, about 100 miles northeast of London. Now, we wait for the legal system to grind through the extradition process. Of course, Assange could not resist yammering on about all the State agencies conspiring to smear his “good” name.
-- After several failed attempts as part of the annual Defense appropriations bill debate, the Senate finally cleaved off a separate bill to repeal the controversial “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) law [PL 103-160] [312, 408]. On Saturday, the Senate passed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 . As a consequence of Senate amendments, the bill must go back to the House for affirmation before being presented to the President for signature. We are approaching the end of the beginning. Secretary of Defense Gates issued a statement proclaiming the military will faithfully execute the new law once signed by the President in a careful, methodical manner; I trust he is correct.
[Please see the DADT discussion in the Comment section below.]

This particular lame-duck Congress seems unusually vigorous, feverish and productive, and it is not done yet.

President Obama signed into law the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010 [PL 111-312; H.R.4853; House: 277-148-0-8(2); Senate: 81-19-0-0(0)] – the US$858B, two-year extension of the Bush tax cut as well as an extension of the employment benefits.

The Obama administration moved to create a Privacy Policy Office, charged with developing an Internet “privacy bill of rights” for U.S citizens and coordinate privacy issues globally. The action came in trail of a U.S. Commerce Department report regarding the burgeoning personal data-mining industry and fragmented U.S. privacy laws that cover certain types of data but not others. This is all well and good. I appreciate the efforts of the Obama administration to protect our privacy. However, who will protect us from the Government?

News from the economic front:
-- The Commerce Department reported U.S. retail sales increased by 0.8% last month as in-store and on-line, holiday shoppers exceeded expectations. October sales were revised up to 1.7%, from a previously estimated 1.2% increase.
-- The Federal Reserve determined that the pace of economic recovery is “insufficient to bring down unemployment,” and the central bank will move ahead with its plan to buy US$600B in government securities through next June as well as keep its short-term interest rates near zero. The Fed statement suggested that it remained preoccupied with the high unemployment rate (9.8%) and with employers' apprehensions about hiring, while they saw little threat of accelerating inflation.
-- The so-called core inflation rate, which excludes energy and food prices and is closely watched by the Fed, rose by a slight 0.1% from the prior month – the first move after three flat months. Energy prices saw their smallest increase in five months. The annual underlying inflation rate was 0.8%, well below the Fed's informal target of between 1.7% and 2%.

L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- Federal prosecutors and the Madoff recovery trustee, Irving Picard, announced a settlement with the estate of Jeffry Picower, a major investor and reportedly the biggest benefiter in Bernie's Ponzi scheme. The Press has portrayed Picower’s widow, Barbara, as a wise and generous woman for doing the right thing, returning the US$7.2B of ill-gotten gains of her late husband. The settlement is reportedly the largest civil forfeiture in American history and the largest related to the Madoff affair, and would quadruple the amount of money recovered for victims to date. The cynic in me suspects Barbara was given a choice between dignity and money. She wisely chose the former. Even with this unprecedented settlement, only a fraction of estimate US$50B+ losses have been recovered.

Comments and contributions from Update no.469:
“I'm interested in your comments. Some, maybe not all, of the general's questions seem to need answers, not dismissal as if motivated by bigotry.”
[The forwarded subject thread:]
“This article brings up some interesting points I hadn't thought of ~~~; the decision as to implementing any policy like this should be left up to the chiefs of staff of each military service ~~ not to political 'touchy-feely' liberals.
“Written by a retired Marine officer with excellent command credentials.”
[The article cited in the thread . . . origin and authenticity unknown.]
“I was skeptical of DADT also. But, it worked because the objective was to permit individuals to serve. Not once did I ask a Marine if he or she was a homosexual or a heterosexual. It was not an issue for me, and the Marines with whom I served never made it an issue.
“Unlike DADT, the current agenda in not about individual service. It is a political agenda focused on total integration and acceptance not of individuals but of the homosexual lifestyle.
“I think ending DADT suddenly is a major distraction to combat readiness and good order and discipline. Special interest groups whose primary intent is fostering total acceptance not only of homosexuals but the homosexual lifestyle are using the Armed Forces as a judicial lab rat.
“I am suspect of any person who puts any personal issue above devotion to duty and accomplishment of mission. Are we Marines 24/7? What is more important one's sexuality, one's religion, one political party, or the imperatives of duty?
“On a practical level:
“I am not sure what serving "Openly" as a homosexual means. I would like to see a definition Is all homosexual conduct permitted? Such as, cross dressing and going to the PX? What conduct is not permitted? From a command and leadership perspective these questions need to be addressed, and the Congress needs to make the necessary adjustments to the UCMJ.
When someone joins the Armed Forces must he/she declare their sexuality? i.e. male or female; homo/hetro?
“I want to know how Federal hate speech laws apply to the Armed Forces. For example, “If a non-homosexual Marine calls a homosexual Marine a ‘faggot’ is that hate speech? Will company commanders be required to take judicial action? If no judicial action is taken, will commanders be subject to civil or criminal suit by various homosexual political groups and their elected sponsors.
“Will a career Marine's personal opinion on homosexuality become an impediment to promotion or assignment to key billets?
“Specifically, is the belief that homosexuality is a choice and homosexual acts immoral not compatible with military service?
“Do the Senate and the House Armed Services committees intend to demand sexuality statistics to make certain that homosexuals are being promoted at the same rate as non-homosexuals? Will homosexuals be promoted at a faster rate to "compensate" for previous years of discrimination?
“Since same sex marriage is not authorized by Federal Law is a married homosexual from MA authorized to enlist? Does the spouse of a married homosexual rate a dependent's ID card? Will "partners" of homosexuals be given dependent status?
“If yes, what is the definition of a "partner", one night stand, one year relationship. How often may a homosexual change partners and the partner still rate dependent benefits? Will partners of homosexuals be assigned to on-base housing? Do former "partners" of active duty homosexuals retain dependent benefits (like a divorced spouse) when divorce is not a legal option?
“Will homosexual Marines be permitted to date each other? Live with each other as ‘partners’ in theBOQ/BEQ"? How does this affect fraternization regulations?
“Will homosexuals be deployed to countries where there is no SOFA in place in which homosexuality is a crime? If no, who picks up the slack?
“Are there any assignments to which homosexuals must be or may not be assigned? For example, may an elected official demand a homosexual officer as a military aide?
“Will homosexuals who become HIV positive still be discharged? Is being HIV positive now a "service connected" injury which rates disability?
“These are just the tip of the ice berg. I have no doubt that right now there are active duty colonels who are just now discovering their real sexuality and can't wait to be the FIRST OPENLY HOMOSEXUAL GENERAL [emphasis as written].
“To sum it up, it is approaching FUBAR status!! I fear for the future of our Corps.
“Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps, Retired.
“It should keep the “supreme court” busy for the next 15 years. Congress= pass it to find out what’s in it.”
My response to the query:
First, as with the author, I am a retired, field-grade, Marine officer, but I do not have “excellent command credentials,” so I suppose my opinion should be appropriately discounted.
I do agree with Myles, as was done during the days of racial integration, the implementation process must be in the hands of the service chiefs – policy is defined by the politicians, execution must be controlled by the professional military.
Second, as the author notes, service should be about performance and conduct, NOT about perceptions, rumors, and innuendos. I fundamentally disagree with his assessment that this question is about acceptance of some mystical “homosexual lifestyle.” This is solely about equal rights under the law. I also agree that sudden integration by court order is an unwarranted and unneeded distraction to combat readiness; however, if you were included in that discriminated segment of our population, how would you feel as you continued to wait for equal rights? Further, like the author, I would not look kindly upon any soldier who put personal issues before devotion to duty & mission accomplishment; homosexuals have served honorably in the militaries of all nations for millennia, including the entire history of the United States. It is all about performance.
I’m not sure what “serving openly” means either, but I would interpret it to mean that non-heterosexual soldiers would not have to hide their private lives anymore, that sexual orientation would not and could not be used for disciplinary or service purposes.
Permitted conduct would be the arena of allowable conduct. IMHO FWIW, conduct in uniform or under the aegis of military service would be no different from today. As a side note, I think ultimately there should be unisex (or omnisex) facilities as there are in many other countries, but I digress. On duty conduct is defined, established and understood; there is no need or reason to amend those standards. Private behavior should remain private. Where the real challenge will be faced rests in the gray area between public & private, e.g., leaving barracks/ship on pass/liberty, or social functions, et cetera.
To some of the colonel’s questions . . .
1. “When someone joins the Armed Forces must he/she declare their sexuality?” No! Sexual orientation / preference should not be a criterion for military service.
2. “If a non-homosexual Marine calls a homosexual Marine a ‘faggot’ is that hate speech?” It should be dealt with in the same manner as a Marine using the term “nigger” to refer to another Marine with dark skin pigmentation, or any other derogatory term.
3. “Will a career Marine's personal opinion on homosexuality become an impediment to promotion or assignment to key billets?” No! Personal opinions are not at issue; performance and conduct are. This is no different from a Marine who adamantly believed in racial segregation in the 1960’s; it did not matter what his personal opinion was; what mattered was his conduct and behavior regarding Marines with dark skin pigmentation, or lack of same.
4. “Specifically, is the belief that homosexuality is a choice and homosexual acts immoral not compatible with military service?” See response directly above . . . beliefs, opinions, or personal preference are NOT at issue; only conduct and performance are relevant.
5. “Do the Senate and the House Armed Services committees intend to demand sexuality statistics to make certain that homosexuals are being promoted at the same rate as non-homosexuals?” Oh my Lord, no! Again, I do not see homosexual integration as any different from racial integration – same process applies.
6. “Will homosexuals be promoted at a faster rate to ‘compensate’ for previous years of discrimination?” There was some of that in the 60’s & 70’s. I thought it was wrong then, and I still believe it would be wrong today.
7. “Since same sex marriage is not authorized by Federal Law, is a married homosexual from MA authorized to enlist?” The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA) [PL 104-199] remains Federal law. Given the repeal of DADT and the existence of DOMA, the answer would be yes, he can enlist, but he could not declare his partner as a spouse. Clearly, the ambiguity under the law must be properly remedied.
8. “Does the spouse of a married homosexual rate a dependent's ID card?” No; see no.7 above.
9. “Will ‘partners’ of homosexuals be given dependent status?” No; again, see no.7 above.
10. In the series of question re: “the definition of a ‘partner’,” any answer would be irrelevant given the existence of DOMA. However, IMHO, what should be . . . the rules for heterosexuals would apply to homosexuals, or rather non-heterosexuals. A heterosexual Marine does not get to designate a one-night stand sex partner as a spouse; only the State can sanction such recognition. Given only half-dozen states so far that recognize non-heterosexual monogamous marriage, then only those service members from those states would have spousal privileges. Bottom line: same rules should apply to both heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals equally.
11. “Will homosexuals be deployed to countries where there is no SOFA in place in which homosexuality is a crime?” Yes, absolutely. There must be no distinction based on sexual preference. Just as Marines with dark skin pigmentation were cautioned about expectations and conduct when posted to South Africa during Apartheid, so non-heterosexuals should be cautioned on liberty conduct in countries where homosexuality is criminal. Our position should be . . . a Marine is a Marine, full-stop.
12. “Are there any assignments to which homosexuals must be or may not be assigned?” I sure as hell hope not; see no.11 directly above.
13. “Will homosexuals who become HIV positive still be discharged?” I do not know the current policy for HIV+ heterosexual service members. Nonetheless, whatever the criteria applicable to the continued service of HIV+ service members should apply equally to non-heterosexual service members.
“Tip of the iceberg” perhaps, but the issue of homosexual integration is not as difficult as some would have us believe. I do NOT fear for the future of our Corps; I have far deeper faith in the leadership than is implied by the colonel-author, but then again, I only reached the rank of lieutenant colonel and never commanded a regiment or even a squadron, so perhaps I am just not wise enough, or experienced enough, to recognize the problems.
. . . round two:
“Well, Cap, I must respectfully point out that you did not, because none of us can with certainty yet, answer the questions! You merely gave your opinions in terms of "should" this and "hope" that. I am not surprised at your opinions, and I actually have some of your same hopes of better treatment for all service members, including the very short, the very thin, the very shy, the very effeminate males, the masculine females, etc. However, the unanswered questions still bother me and, I dare say, should at least give you pause.
“Not only do I suspect you may have the wrong impression of the author because he dared pose such fair but controversial questions, but I suspect one of the fundamental differences between our views could be summarized in our very likely different answers to these questions (not posed by the author): is the push for ‘equal rights’ in the military for this particular minority part of the homosexual agenda that is gaining strength nationwide as they seek to normalize abnormality, rather than teach tolerance and simply forbid mistreatment, and if not, would the establishment of such ‘rights" serve that agenda, making the services federal accomplices in that agenda and undermining military efforts to simply enforce civil and respectful treatment among all troops? (strong words, I know). I predict that you will pooh-pooh both questions and possibly may even assume that anyone asking the same must be another homophobic bigot. I am not, and I am tired of asserting my claim of respect and tolerance for others every time I try to exam such sensitive questions. I hope you will forgive me if I am off=base by suggesting that possibility, for it is probably beneath you.
“Before DADT, as you point out, homosexuals and others with abnormal sexual preferences served honorably and often admirably, but sometimes they suffered abuse akin to that suffered by anyone with differences from the norm (see above partial list) at the hands of bullies, racists, and homophobes. I wish we could concentrate on minimizing that very old problem and quit trying to single out certain minorities for the special granting of ‘rights’ that already exist and just need to be uniformly and aggressively preserved by good leadership.
“BTW, as I may have opined before, I feel the same way about homosexual ‘rights’ as I do about the folly of the recently proposed constitutional amendment to give females rights they already have.
“As my brother often says when he runs out of words temporarily, enough.
“Oh, on a completely different subject, I highly recommend ‘Liberty’ magazine, an excellent publication of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, containing every month good articles on every angle of the matter of separation of religion and government, with very little proselytizing.
. . . my response to round two:
I am not the law. I am not even someone who is important, influential or even relevant. I am not an authority or even expert on any topic. I am just a citizen who cares about my family and this Grand Republic.
You asked for my comment on the author’s statement. I offered my comments, my opinions, my whatever you want to call my thoughts. They are mine only, no one else’s.
The colonel-author’s questions are all relevant and important. I tried to answer them to the best of my ability – limited as it is. Perhaps I do have the wrong impression of the colonel-author; I have no idea who s/he is. I simply responded to the words as written. His opinion is no better, no worse, than mine.
I am not trying to dominate the public debate; quite the contrary. I seek wider / deeper debate on these important issues. I try not to use labels, as they are rarely accurate; yet, I do fall victim to the practice at moments of weakness.
“Homosexual agenda” . . . I’m not sure what that is. Is freedom and equal rights under the law an agenda?
“Abnormal sexual preferences” . . . according to whom? Anyone can define anything as abnormal. Each of us is entitled to think anything anyone else chooses to do is abnormal. Thinking and acting upon those beliefs are two entirely different things. The issue is this debate is you imposing your definition of abnormal upon me or vice versa; it is about actions, not thoughts.
Interesting perspective on “equal rights.” Until 1920, the doctrine of coverture maintained women (wives) as the property of the husband/father. I suspect many women did not feel very equal. In 1868, the 14th Amendment guaranteed equal treatment under the law for all citizens, including those with dark skin pigmentation. I suspect Emmett Louis Till did not feel very equal before he was lynched in 1955. Let us not kid ourselves. The Constitution proclaimed equal rights for all citizens, but federal, state and local laws took those rights away from citizens that the “powers that be” did not approve of their choices. To be blunt, thinking homosexual soldiers have enjoyed equal treatment under the law either before or after DADT ignores the reality felt by homosexual soldiers. Let’s call a spade a spade here.
. . . round three:
“Thanks, Cap. Let's keep up the chatter and look closely at each other's words. I try hard to understand opinions, but I probably take everything too literally, because I think my own words should be taken literally. Sometimes I read my brother's response to an email of mine and wonder if he read what I wrote. Age old problem of communication.
“BTW, I'm reading Creighton's ‘The Great Train Robbery’ (1974). Really good.”
. . . my response to round three:
To be candid, I am not quite sure what to take from your reply. Literal interpretation of words is usually a good starting point, but context, mood and such (usually picked up in the eyes, meter, or tone of voice, and such). Perhaps I misinterpreted your words; if so, my most humble apologies.
Most unfortunate that we lost Michael Creighton; always enjoyed his work. I don’t think I’ve read all his work, but all the books I’ve read of his are really good. I’ve always listed him as one of my favorites.

Comment to the Blog:
“It's ‘Lady Bird Johnson.’ Another nice thing about Austin: the temperature is 31 degrees warmer in Austin than here in Columbus, Ohio, as I write this. I envy them.
“With respect to the Wikileaks issues, I am not certain how you determined that Wikileaks (and, presumably, its allies) is smaller than Al-Qaeda. Certainly they have made a strong, immediate response to the attack on them. Regardless of membership, which is probably not known, the Wikileaks community certainly has powerful resources. The National Affairs article that you linked in an unrelated item discusses the importance of information; this is an example. Meanwhile, the Al-Qaeda that the US attacked so long ago was decimated, but is probably much stronger by now due to enhanced recruiting as a result of the attack. How do you compare the two groups?
“An additional question has not been addressed here. All ethical and legal questions aside, is it still possible to maintain secrecy? We may assume that someone somewhere will seek to reveal almost any information. Can they still be stopped?
“On the Continental Airlines verdict: the courts ideally make their determinations based upon law, not upon the opinions of people representing the industries that fear they will be affected. This is as it should be.
“Whether or not you see US power as constituting an ‘empire’ may be a matter of semantics. Among other considerations, we make nearly half of the world's total military expenditures. If that money is not supporting an empire, what is the purpose of those expenditures? Altruism is not a believable answer. We might spend a few millions or even a few dozen millions to benefit others, but not the kind of money we put into the military. Added to that is money we spend in various foreign aid and other uses designed to control other nations.
“The future of that power is certainly in question. The Foreign Affairs article you linked to states, "Many observers have interpreted the 2008 global financial crisis as the beginning of American decline. The National Intelligence Council, for example, has projected that in 2025, 'the U.S. will remain the preeminent power, but that American dominance will be much diminished.'" I myself see the decline as beginning not later than the disputed 2000 Presidential election. That kind of national embarrassment damages the entire world's perception of us and thereby diminishes our power.
“The lengthy thread on legalizing drugs reveals attitudes (not including yours) based on blind hostility and ignorance. The only new-to-me constructive idea that I saw was providing a choice of whether the use of alcohol and other drugs would be insured, with added premiums. This seems at first a reasonable attempt to require responsibility for using. The result, however, would greatly increase the bankruptcy rate. Medical care is very expensive, and addicts of any stripe rarely foresee the consequences of their usage. Thus, astronomical medical bills would bankrupt more people than they already do, with ensuing economic damage to everyone, not just the bankrupt users. Considering that addicts (including alcoholics) number in the millions or tens of millions, that could become very serious. Also, the person who proposed that revealed his or her attitude toward human rights with the phrase "freedom filth" and his or her ignorance of history by proposing a ban on alcohol, which has been tried in the USA with disastrous consequences.
“One of my historical points about use of drugs is that various levels and types of punishment have been imposed for usage throughout history, with negligible results. I understand that you don't see your "isolation camps" as punishment, but users will. Perception trumps intention in the real world. We need to try something really different about substances that do damage.”
My reply to the Blog:
Oh my, yes; what was I thinking? I stand corrected and edited the Blog. Thank you for the catch . . . again.
Not a determination, just an assumptive estimate based on the expanse of al-Qaeda. It would appear both groups have common objective elements with dissimilar primary objectives. They both seek diminishment of the United States and our Allies. They both seek to blunt U.S. power. I do not think WikiLeaks seeks domination, while that is clearly the primary objective of al-Qaeda. WikiLeaks is more anarchistic, while al-Qaeda seeks to replace U.S. power and influence with their brand of fundamentalist Islam; they believe everyone should live the pure life as they define or perish.
I should hope to shout it is possible to maintain secrecy. The leakers can be stopped, although it does not appear the USG thought through the crosstalk accessibility issue very well when they removed firewalls & filters in the aftermath of the 9/11 Commission.
The issue with aviation accident investigations hangs upon the reality that human judgment remains the central vital element of aircraft control. Remove the human being and I would endorse your perspective. As long as humans control aircraft, we must get into the mind of the pilot. In the legal framework, the 5th Amendment dominates. The genesis of the aviation accident investigation process has evolved around insulating the pilot from prosecution in trade for access to his thinking. That trade has been a critical factor in improving aircraft safety. Once we force a pilot to seek 5th Amendment protection, we will degrade aircraft safety. The rule in aviation has long been safety trumps prosecution. These court decisions threaten to alter that equation, if they have not already done so.
Empire is control of other regions, countries, territories and such, e.g., the British Empire. By my understanding of history, the United States has not sought control of other territory since 1898, and even that was a consequence of war. Military expenditures are not a measure of empire. We can certainly argue whether the military budget/expenditure should be as high as it is and that is a valid argument. Personally, I think the military has had difficulty with transformation from the Cold War to the War on Islamic Fascism initiated by Rummie and Bob Gates is trying to push home.
I do not share the opinion of those who see the demise of the United States as an influential player on the world stage.
I interpreted the discussion regarding insurance relative to the drug abuse as a reflective indicator of the larger problem elements. Yes, I agree, the isolation camps may be seen as punishment, and depending upon one’s definition of punishment, it may well be so. My point was the voluntary isolation camps are for those who cannot or choose not to meter their consumption, i.e., abide the public usage rules. The inducement (not punishment) would be free access to the substances of choice as long as they follow the rules of the camps. If not, then they move on to the criminal camps which are not voluntary and no substances. If they continue to offend, then it is on to prison and eventually the Black Hole prison. An ancillary objective in a more gradual gradation of “isolation” would be to give the user ample opportunity to decide his fate – either comply with the rules of civilized society or choose your mode of self-destruction. Please remember, my proposal’s number one objective is to eliminate the collateral damage caused by individual substance abuse. The medical coverage / insurance question is vital to this system, i.e., part of using responsibly is paying the premium for the personal damage consumption causes. For example, alcohol consumption up to a threshold might not cause any deleterious physical effects; above a higher threshold, cirrhosis of the liver is more likely in 20 years, so you pay a higher premium for the inevitable liver transplant or hospice care you will need; above an even higher threshold, toxicity and death are close with a concomitant cost. I have no empathy for someone who seeks the oblivion of psychotropic substances, and yet I am comfortably tolerant of an individual’s freedom of choice as long as they cause no collateral damage.
There are contributors to this forum who condemn all sinful pursuits, including but not limited to tobacco, gambling, alcohol, prostitution, drugs, and advocate for denial of those sinful activities for everyone else. The public debate is essential. By examining the spectrum of opinions, hopefully we will find solutions. At its most basic, fundamental, distilled down level, freedom is about choices. Citizens should be able to make their choices for their pursuit of Happiness. Our objective should be to tolerate the choices of citizens as long as those choices cause no collateral damage / injury and abide the rules of public conduct.

Another contribution:
“I do not know how you manage to stay abreast of so much going on in the world. When do you have time to work at your job? I am assuming you still have a job, which must take up some time. But maybe you are now retired totally and can do all this, which you do. If so, I’d think that if nothing else it would interfere with your Science-Fiction writing. That is something which at least once was a priority for you and something you wished very much to pursue.
“I will not burden you with comments on this latest blog, though I do have things I might chat about there, since I too tend to at least try to keep up with what is going on.
“However, as I get older I find that no matter the significance of events, world or local, I become less inclined to get involved. Maybe because I feel I have less to offer in rebuttal or in support of, or even in offering my thoughts on issues.
“I know my only real way to speak is through trying to keep up and then by my votes. I still do that religiously, but other than that I just find myself more tired of it all, and so less willing to actively step out into the fray.”
My response:
The short answer to “how I manage” is, I make time. My inherent curiosity about all things human, events in our lifetime, and the science around us drives me to read. I’ve developed quite an array of sources that enable me to keep track on a broad spectrum of history and political thought. The reality is, the Update consumes my available capacity. I am rarely without access to a computer and the Internet. I am fortunate that Jeanne tolerates (to a degree) my passion for political debate. The one major sacrifice has been my book writing. I went to Italy in 2001 with all my notes and the intention of writing the next few books lodged in my brain. The Update began in Italy and supplanted that intention for now. The urge to write the next chapter in the lives of Anod (my sci-fi heroine) or Brian Drummond (the young Kansas boy who flew Spitfires in the Battle of Britain) remains strong and unfulfilled; but, I’m afraid they must wait until I do retire. I will return to those characters (too much of their story left untold) and well as develop new stories. We’re trying to figure out electronic publish now.
Yes, I continue to work . . . still in the aviation industry, which does keep me close to flying machines. I am in the retirement window. I have survived a handful of layoffs since the recession began in December 2007. I will probably continue to work as long as I can remain in the position I have; the job is stimulating and rewarding – kinda like a forensic problem solver. I figure another 1-4 years . . . maybe more depending upon circumstances.
I appreciate your reluctance to voice your political opinions. I accept that. However, I always enjoy reading your opinions.

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

14 December 2010

Update no.469

Update from the Heartland
No.469
6.12.10 – 12.12.10
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
This edition is a day late; my apologies for missing the deadline. Jeanne and I drove to Austin, Texas, for a long-weekend visit with Melissa, Tyson, Judson James and Avalon Mar. Saturday night, we all went to the Illuminations celebration at the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center in Austin. None of us imagined the popularity of the event. They had live music and an intriguing puppet show for the kids. For the people watchers, the event was a cornucopia of humanity. We had a great time with the kids and grandkids. All is right with the world . . . well, except for the late Update.

Navy beat Army, 31-17, for the 9th straight year. ‘Nuf said! I do not need to rub it in on my hapless cousins. The worm will turn someday. Go Navy, Beat Army!

The follow-up news items:
-- WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange [453 & sub] surrendered to police in London. A judge at London’s Westminster Magistrates Court ordered Mr. Assange remanded into custody until his 14.December extradition hearing. Of course, the conspiracists and sympathizers cry foul over some mystical, masterful, CIA plot to frame Assange. As usual, with all things Assange, the issues go far deeper.
“‘Condomgate’ for WikiLeaks’ Founder”
by Carol King
Ms. Magazine Blog
Published: December 6, 2010
http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/12/06/condomgate-for-wikileaks-founder/
I suspect the veracity of the accusations is strong, which if so, provides ample illumination as to the kind of character Assange is. It does not matter whether the women were prostitutes and got paid for sex, or simple innocents caught in the moment. When a sexual partner says no; it means no; and stop means stop at any moment. The worst of it was his refusal to be tested for HIV and STDs afterward. No one has a right to violate another person's concerns, constraints or limitations. My guess is Julian Assange holds tightly to a very inflated opinion of his importance and significance on the world stage. Royal prerogative disappeared years ago, and to use the vernacular, he ain’t royalty. Then, there is the potential for his prosecution for greater crimes.
“Wikileaks Has Committed No Crime”
by Trevor Timm
Legal As She Is Spoke Blog
http://www.lasisblog.com/2010/11/12/wikileaks-has-committed-no-crime/
Timm is probably correct, although two pivotal questions could invalidate his argument against prosecution under the Espionage Act of 1917 [PL 65-030].
1.) Is WikiLeaks a proper & legitimate Press outlet?
2.) How did they acquire the classified material?
The key in the New York Times Co. v. United States [403 U.S. 713 (1971)] [453] ruling was Ellsberg himself as the source, i.e., the Times was simply publishing what had been made public information, according to the Supremes. On top of all this, we have the so-called “hack-tavists” who initiated a mini-cyber-war, opening denial of service attacks on those websites they perceived as anti-Assange or contributing to his arrest. Dutch police arrested a 16-year-old boy who admitted being involved in the attacks against the credit cards' websites.
-- On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Reid again offered a motion to invoke cloture on S.3454 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 [Senate: 57-40-0-3(0) {60 yes votes required}] – that also failed last September [458]. The journey to equality is a long, windy, and bumpy road. This latest setback only delays the inevitable.

On Monday, a court in the Paris suburb of Pontoise found Continental Airlines and its mechanic John Taylor guilty of criminal wrongdoing in the crash of Air France Flight 4590 on takeoff from Charles de Gaulle airport [25.July.2000] – the only supersonic Concorde jet to crash. All other defendants were acquitted. Investigators claimed a titanium strip fell off of a Continental DC-10 that took off just prior to the Concorde. As the Concorde sped down the runway, one of the left main tires hit the strip, causing the tire to disintegrate, damaging the no.2 engine and propelling bits of rubber into the underside of the wing, which was also one of the main fuel tanks. The deluge of fuel was ignited by an engine afterburner. The serious loss of thrust and diminished control brought the magnificent jet down. This judgment comes on the heels of a similar criminal proceeding regarding the mid-air accident high over the Amazon Jungle in Brazil [29.September.2006] [253]. The aviation community resoundingly condemns the court cases and verdicts for a host of reasons, not least of which is the enormous chill on the aviation accident investigation process.

Senator John McCain of Arizona initiated his own game of whack-a-ball as he leads the resistance to the inevitable repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the service of non-heterosexual citizens in the military.
“Commentary: McCain vs. the Pentagon on gays in the military”
Editorial
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Posted: Thursday, December 2, 2010
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/02/104588/mccain-vs-the-pentagon-on-gays.html

A regular and reliable contributor sent along this article and link:
“Taking down America”
by Alfred W McCoy
Asia Times
Published: December 7, 2010
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LL07Ak01.html
To which I replied, “There is one fatal flaw in his logic . . . the United States has NO empire. Rumors of America's demise are grossly exaggerated.” The following article was added:
“The Future of American Power – Dominance and Decline in Perspective”
by Joseph S. Nye Jr.
Foreign Affairs
November/December 2010
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66796/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-future-of-american-power
Regrettably, I have not yet had the opportunity to read the latter essay . . . hopefully, next week.

In an event rarely seen in the United States, the Senate voted to convict U.S. District Judge Gabriel Thomas Porteous, Jr., of Louisiana on all four impeachment charges, and then voted to forever disqualify him “from holding any office of honor or profit under the United States.” According to the charges, Porteous had a serious gambling problem, which induced him to take bribes and favors from people who had business in his courtroom. Porteous became just the eighth federal judge in U.S. history to be impeached and convicted by Congress.

The FBI arrested Antonio Martinez, 21, a Baltimore construction worker and a U.S. citizen who recently converted to Islam and changed his name to Muhammad Hussain, for attempting to blow-up a van laden with explosives outside a military recruiting office in Maryland. He is the latest in a growing number of converts and fringe radicals to be apprehended in this manner. As should be expected in a liberal society, some folks are bemoaning the “entrapment” technique utilized by the FBI. I say tough! I laud the FBI’s ability to translate actionable intelligence into an arrest and conviction. If guys like Martinez did not harbor murderous thoughts or take multiple, successive steps to carryout their terrorist intentions, there could be no entrapment. We owe the special agents of the FBI our praise and gratitude for their success, again.

Another relevant-topic thread from another forum in as many public debate groups as possible. I share my opinions and perspective along with others and encourage every concerned citizen to add their voice to the Debater’s Corner argument. This thread opened with a reference to and citation of:
“Why Don't Conservatives Oppose the War on Drugs?”
by Laurence M. Vance
LewRockwell.com
Posted: December 9, 2010
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance217.html
Vance closes his essay with the essential question: “Why do conservatives, who profess to revere individual liberty, free markets, private property, limited government, and the Constitution continue to support the war on drugs?” Great question! So, this exchange began.
Message no.2:
“The use of illegal drugs always creates expense for those who do not use the drugs. So, all should be opposed to the illegal use of drugs unless / until those using the drugs pay all the expense and no medical insurance / Medicare / medical will ever pay any of the medical expense associated with the illegal use of drugs.....including the far too often ambulance ride for an overdose. AIDS only occurs from the illegal use of drugs to gain an extra ejaculation or two. Why should the rest of use incur all this expense for something that has no value to society?”
Message no.3:
“Loose thoughts on my part as I'm sleepy and have not organized this reply:
“Cap Parlier has suggested drug islands (sorry Cap if I am not quoting you just right, you can correct me) where people who want to abuse, go there, or go to parts of our country where they cannot hurt others in their drug or drunken high (or with alcohol, low, since it is a depressant).
“A key here is the concept of 'victimless crimes.' Does the drug user on the island become the victim? Should we allow anyone to have free access and freedom of choice to victimize themselves, as long as the cost of doing so is not passed onto the collective?
“I am not in favor of promoting free use of drugs, at the same time I'm not for more GOV and more GOV regulations, crime enforcement, etc., related to drugs, because it seems we're not winning, and the costs are excessive to keep the battle going.
“The schism in economics from illegal versus legalized $ale of drugs, is entirely another topic than I could address here.
“There is no societal value from drug and alcohol abuse, we agree (some would argue this point). The complex part of this equation is how to educate the populace that it is in their best interest to abstain? Now we're getting into the scope of addiction, which too, is entirely another topic.
“My problem with drug wars is our acceptance of Asset Forfeiture & Seizure and the Treasury's "Know Your Customer" program that amounted to snooping where privacy once was considered the norm.
“And how about Mexico, the drug war their government is waging, has seemingly weakened some cartels while strengthening key players, which is a red flag for me, that the goal is not really to squash the surviving cartels long-term. And then take a look at overall violence of the drug wars south, the 'net-effect.' One wonders whether 22,000 deaths since the more recent round of this decade's drug wars there, has been good for society to our south.”
Message no.4:
“We charge more for home insurance where there are hurricanes so why not charge more for medical insurance that covers alcohol / illegal drugs. I have had a drop of alchohol and it pains me to pay much more for my health insurance by having to subsidize health insurance for the problems caused by alcohol for those who do drink. To my mind health insurance should be a group of tables where prospective insured pick out the type of insurance they want and pay what it costs. If they elect to not pay the costs of insurance for certain illegal drugs and die from a lack of insurance because of its cost the world would be a better place than the way it is now where people like me who do not drink pay much more for their health insurance to cover the problems of alcohol for those who do.”
Message no.5:
“Well now you know how I feel, I have carried insurance for my automobile(s) for decades, and never yet submitted a ‘claim’ to any insurance carrier for an accident, incident, theft, etc. Though I have low rates for many reasons, I still end up paying, don't I, for many people who submit claims every year to their automobile insurance carriers.”
Message no.6:
“Auto insurance relates to the number of tickets. Lots of tickets and car insurance can not be had at ay price. But if one talks about taking alcohol off the market the freedom filth is up in arms about taking away their right to drink.
“But no one is ever up in arms....except me, seemingly....over my being forced to pay for health insurance for those who drink instead of just make health insurance cover alcohol problems for those who paid more to get health insurance to cover alcohol problems.”
Message no.7:
“Insurance rate/premiums are adjusted using algorithms based on many factors. You are correct that one's driving record using the "points" system from DMV (tickets/accidents), is primary for setting a car owner/driver's rates. I'm not sure about geography, was there a law that now prohibits auto insurers from using your zip code for rating? Other factors do include previous claim history; what kind of car you drive (style); of course car value (if you do the collision/comprehensive add-ons); your education; profession; age; and credit score; etc.
“I insure with AAA (not Alcoholic Anonymous :o), and have been very satisfied with their service though I've never had to submit a claim. But they do treat me like a member and not a number. Previously I had 20th Century (now of course 21st Century) and was very happy with them as well. Both companies tend to have some of the lowest rates for good drivers.”
Message no.8:
“The late William F Buckley suggested legalizing a number of the most common substances (such as marijuana) which proliferate naturally, although not for general use. He found the grey area of man-made or man-enhanced pharmaceuticals (whose effects range from mild euphoria to instantaneous death) a difficult one to navigate.
“In the end, he himself settled on the classic gin fizz (gin, seltzer, and a slight twist of lemon over ice).
“Alcohol, he noted, has a punishment factor. If you abuse it, it tells you all about it the next day.”
Message no.9:
“Interesting about our friend WFB.
“One of the areas I wanted to go into early this morning but did not have the time then, is that as many ills as are reported in society from alcohol abuse, there are likely many that could rightly argue about some of the positive from alcohol use in moderation. I suspect many have studied and reported on this. One of the areas I could see as a positive is the stress reduction factor, with many studies now showing how a couple few glasses of wine have a positive effect for stress reduction, lower heart rate, and lower heart disease.
“How many deals have been successfully struck, over alcohol?
“The problem is that slippery slope where people lose the good judgment to stop drinking, and abuse it for the effect of being drunk (or numb). Without great self-discipline, the physiology of drinking seems to necessitate increasing amounts of the fluid to achieve the same effect, and that is when the spiral can start.
Message no.10 (I jumped in here):
The objectives of my proposal are:
1. minimize / eliminate collateral damage,
2. eliminate the criminal sub-culture that is the current supply,
3. provide a medium for those so inclined to genuinely seek help.
Drug islands . . . OK, that will work. Actually, my term was "isolation camps."
Under my proposal, all psychotropic substances would be legal & regulated, i.e., standard packaging & dosage, and controlled access, e.g., alcohol & tobacco sales. If you handle your consumption below the threshold of impairment, can pay for the substances without violating any other laws, and use within the scope of civilized society, then no interference from the law or other citizens, i.e., acceptance/tolerance. If you violate any of the conditions, you are given a choice of self-committal to an isolation camp or enter the criminal system. At the isolation camp, substances are provided, indulge at will, harm no one, remain in the camp, very basic services provided. You violate the rules, you enter the criminal system. I would also recommend a more graduated or layer prison system for drug abusers, 1.) isolation camp that is not voluntary, 2.) conventional prison, and 3.) a "Black Hole" prison, i.e., you go in, you do not come out alive (only perimeter guards, jungle rules) [essentially persona non grata]. In the criminal system, no substances provided or available. No more three strikes. No more multiple DUI charges/convictions.
There is much more to the proposal, but that is the gist of it. Now, the inevitable Q: how do we pay for it? I would propose we eliminate DEA, empower FDA to control monitor supply, and apply a portion of every drug sale to the operating fund. There are other elements like reducing prison populations by releasing all non-violent drug offenders; reducing the burden on local law enforcement, et cetera.
Hopefully, this is a brief enough sketch to enable productive public debate.
Message no.11:
“Thanks Cap for that update. You have thought this out well.
“After seeing some people walking around in San Diego today, between those that might have been on meth, drunk, or using psychotropics for ‘be-happy today’ desires, I think I was in one of those drug islands already. :o)
“Your concept of the ‘isolation camp’ for those that cannot be released, sounds like a good script for a movie ya know, we could make money with this Cap. Kidding aside, the economics of making your system work is intriguing in itself.
“Does your concept of the legalization and minimized regulation (if I have that correct) applicable too, for let's say Mexico?”
Message no.12 (my contribution):
I would like to point to the vast amounts of money, blood and damaged international relations spent on this foolish "war on drugs," but that is water under the bridge and can never be recovered. My prima facie response would be, with the extraordinary expenditures of the past, what makes us think the expenditures are going to decrease? We are going to continue to spend huge amounts of money, blood and reputation trying to hold back the tide. What is that old saw, the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing you've always done and expecting a different result.
Mexico (well actually all the other supply-affected countries) . . . yes, absolutely. The suppliers & transporters would be given the opportunity to produce, package, transport, and sell controlled materials legally and properly. Continued smuggling (like we did during the aftermath of prohibition) would be dealt with as it is today. Alcohol & tobacco producers have not gone broke; neither will drug producers. Everybody makes money; the profit motive is a powerful force. To repeat, my no.1 objective above all else is the elimination of the collateral damage associated with consumption today.

News from the economic front:
-- The U.S. trade deficit in October contracted more than 13% to US$38.71B as exports surged to their highest levels in more than two years. U.S. exports rose 3.2% to US$158.72B – the highest level since August 2008. Imports declined marginally to US$197.44B. The U.S. deficit with the PRC narrowed 8.3% to US$25.52B.

L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- As the statute of limitations deadline approached, Madoff asset recovery trustee Irving H. Picard filed a lawsuit seeking US$9B from HSBC, adding the London-based financial giant to the list of targeted major financial institutions – Swiss-based UBS, JPMorgan Chase in New York [468], and now HSBC in London – who provided services or marketing products related to the Madoff fraud. Picard also filed suit against Austrian banker Sonja Kohn, seeking US$19.6B from one of the central figures in the expansive international Ponzi scheme.
-- On the second anniversary of his father’s arrest [365], Mark Madoff, 36, oldest son of disgraced and imprisoned felon Bernie Madoff [378], was found dead in his Manhattan, New York City apartment of an apparent suicide. A family member notified police around 07:30 [R] EST Saturday. I suspect he felt the proverbial legal noose tightening on his own culpability and chose to take the easy [some might say honorable] way out. Wife [and mother] Ruth and younger brother Andrew have not yet been charged regarding their contribution to the massive fraud and might actually avoid prosecution.

Comments and contributions from Update no.468:
Comment to the Blog:
“I did not understand your point with reference to the Waters investigation. I remember well the ‘Saturday Night Massacre,’ but how does this relate to that? Please clarify.
“With respect to Wikileaks, a few points. I would like the precise details of the Swedish charges against Mr. Assange. I have seen a report that I have not confirmed which states that the charges consist of failing to use a condom and refusing STD testing.
“Also, while I agree that someone has violated laws, perhaps including treason laws, I refuse to panic. Some of the deceit by all sides of the diplomatic community may surprise some members of the public, but diplomats know how diplomacy works. We have seen the occasional expression of surprise or displeasure, but no concrete actions. So long as the disclosures are not current, we are not likely to see any actions, either.
“In a related comment, another poster seemed to think that making such things public fifty years after they occur would constitute transparency. Really?
My reply to the Blog:
Archibald Cox was the special prosecutor working on the Watergate Scandal. That Saturday night in 1973, as the scandal was coming into focus, Nixon fired Cox and Deputy Attorney General Ruckelshaus, and Attorney General Elliot Richardson resigned in protest. It was a clear attempt by Nixon to thwart the investigation. Removal of the two Waters’ investigators has the same stink . . . although I must add we do not yet have conclusive evidence . . . it just stinks at the moment.
I’ve seen various versions of what the Swedish charges entail, but I do not have access to the specific accusations. We only have the Interpol alert. If your information is correct, which it may well be, proceeding with sexual relations after a partner has insisted upon condom use would qualify in my book. No one has any right to force another person to have sexual relationship – no one! The sexual assault charges in Sweden are at best a curious sidebar to the far more serious matter at hand.
It is not for us to judge currency . . . only the classified document control board should make those decisions. The issue is not the content but the disclosure.
When it comes to government transparency and classified military or diplomatic information, I advocate for absolute opacity. Classified information should only be declassified and made available to the public (transparency) when it no longer has relevance or value. Such government communiqués are the grain of historians.

Another contribution:
“I hope Assange gets tossed into a deep, dark cell for the rest of his miserable life. What he is doing is helping the enemies of this country and endangering the lives of sensitive sources. As far as I am concerned, this man is scum!”
My response:
You are not alone in your assessment or sentiment.

A different contribution:
[This contribution opened by citing the following article:]
“The Shameful Attacks on Julian Assange”
by David Samuels
The Atlantic
Published: Dec 3 2010, 10:00 AM ET
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/12/the-shameful-attacks-on-julian-assange/67440/
“Julian Assange and PFC Bradley Manning have done a huge public service by making hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. government documents available on Wikileaks -- and, predictably, no one is grateful. Manning, a former army intelligence analyst in Iraq, faces up to 52 years in prison. He is currently being held in solitary confinement at a military base in Quantico, Virginia, where he is not allowed to see his parents or other outside visitors.”
My reply:
If Assange sought to command the world stage, he has succeeded. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, anti-establishment or anarchist characters like to idolize guys like Assange, who ostensibly stand-up to the power of the State. I do not see him or his service in such self-serving, grandiose terms. As several contributors to the Update including myself have speculated, PFC Manning is not likely the sole source for WikiLeaks. If they or their agents acquired the documents by hacking USG computers & servers, then their actions would be espionage, not some faux-heroic defiance of power. The United States is not the bogeyman some among us choose to view this Grand Republic.
. . . an additional comment:
“I knew that would be your response! Couldn't agree more. He will resist his removal to Sweden for certain. That decision hasn't been made as I write but he is in our custody.
“Of course there are two issues here, one is his connection with the now infamous Wikileaks the other the rape charges brought against him in Sweden.
“I have heard it said that the rape charges are a US plot to have him incarcerated at any cost. However Cap the Wikileak outfit will continue without him. There is another article by the Australian PM who says it's not Assange's fault, the real culprits are those who have leaked the contents of the diplomatic mail-bag. Are we chasing the wrong guy?
“Keep taking the pills!”
PS: “Sorry Cap, Australian FM. Foreign Minister He thinks…well you can read what he thinks.”
[The citation:]
“Assange backers in cyber retaliation over arrest”
by Keith Weir
Reuters
Published: Wed Dec 8, 2010 11:36am EST
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL3E6N80HH20101208
. . . my follow-up comment:
He will resist extradition, but he will not succeed. He will only prolong the inevitable. I trust the judge will hold him in custody until his extradition hearing process is complete.
His activities associated with WikiLeaks will indeed continue. He has more than a few minions and plenty of wannabes, as we bear witness with the hackers’ revolt. Like most terrorist networks, as you carve off the leaders, a threshold of sustainability can eventually be broached. WikiLeaks is not as big as al-Qaeda.
Of course he is going to claim his rape charges are a CIA plot, after all, Iran has claimed for decades that the Great Satan is at the root of all the world’s evils, or least theirs. Assange built his reputation upon making Americans the bad guys. As I understand the sexual misconduct charges against him, in his egomaniacal netherworld, he does not believe no means no, or stop means stop . . . after all, he is the holy one. The charges against him are perfectly consistent with his public conduct – rules for normal folk don’t apply to him. I suspect he will soon receive a lesson in equality.
Ozland FM Kevin Rudd is correct in part and dreadfully wrong in the main. Control of classified material is the responsibility of the USG. If Manning’s or anyone else’s trustworthiness was questionable, he should never have been granted access. Certainly the USG is culpable as has been noted previously; however, that culpability does not absolve Assange & WikiLeaks. I suspect there are far more sinister forces at play here, mainly because I cannot fathom how a PFC could access so much material. I suspect Manning may have given Assange or one of his agents a crack in the door, and WikiLeaks rushed through far beyond what Manning or anyone else may have envisioned. If so, we have espionage, not just some abstract quasi-journalistic curiosity or sense of public conscience.

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

06 December 2010

Update no.468

Update from the Heartland
No.468
29.11.10 – 5.12.10
To all,

The follow-up news items:
-- The WikiLeaks disclosures [450 et al] continue as the reverberations within the world diplomatic community percolates. Interesting that Assange has called for the U.S. Secretary of State to resign and accused her of ordering American diplomats to carry out espionage activities. Is that the pot calling the kettle black or what? Assange should read up on a variety of U.S. laws and Supreme Court cases. Interpol issued a general alert for Assange based on Swedish charges of sexual assault. He is reported to be in hiding somewhere. I suspect his troubles with the law are only just beginning.
[Please see further discussion in the Comments section below.]
-- The Defense Department published its anticipated “Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’” [312, 408] on 30.November.2010. The internal group led by General Carter F. Ham, USA, and Jeh Charles Johnson, General Counsel, Department of Defense, addressed all relevant issues associated with repeal, i.e., what would happen if, rather than whether. The study concluded what we all have recognized – the military can and will handle any obstacle to the transition.
[Please see further discussion in an extended eMail thread below.]
-- Senator Thomas Allen “Tom” Coburn, MD, of Oklahoma, proposed Amendment 4697 [S.AMDT.4697] to S.510 [FDA Food Safety Modernization Act], to establish an earmark moratorium for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013. The amendment failed to pass [Senate: 39-56-0-5(0)]. This was a vote by a lame duck Congress, so largely symbolic. Perhaps the 112th Congress can gather up the cojones do what must be done -- abandon the corruptive influence of earmarks [257 et al] and return to the Constitution.
-- Representative Sue “Zoe” Lofgren of California, Chair of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, introduced H.RES.1737 to censure Representative Charles Bernard “Charlie” Rangel of New York [449]. As the full House considered ethics charges and potential punishment for the veteran congressman, Representative George Kenneth Butterfield, Jr., of North Carolina, offered up Amendment 784 to change the punishment from censure to a lesser reprimand. H.AMDT.784 failed [House: 146-267-0-20(2)]. The House then voted on the Committee’s recommendation; the vote was recorded at 17:53 EST [R], 2.December.2010 [House: 333-79-0-21(2)]. Speaker of the House Pelosi clearly did not relish having to execute her duties, calling Rangel to the well of the House for his public censure – the 23rd representative in history to be so dishonored.
-- Why is it that I smell a rat? While Rangel received his public dressing down, two staff lawyers working on the House Ethics Committee investigation of Representative Maxine Waters of California [450] were summarily dismissed. Deputy Chief Counsel Cindy Morgan Kim –the lead attorney on the Waters case – and Stacy Sovereign, who assisted Kim, were placed on administrative leave. Chief Counsel and Staff Director Blake Chisam sought to fire Kim and Sovereign but was unable to do so. I hear echoes of the infamous Nixon “Saturday Night Massacre” on 20.October.1973, in the midst of the Watergate Scandal.
-- The Obama administration announced the extension of the moratorium [445] on offshore oil drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico or off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts for at least the next five-years. The public information available from both BP and the government do not justify this type of moratorium.

Let there be no doubt whatsoever, I believe absolutely that these WikiLeaks disclosures of classified military and diplomatic communications are wrong and traitorous. Tom Friedman gave us a sobering glimpse that most of us can agree with. The communiqués are fascinating, while often boring and mundane; but, they are also a peek into the world beyond our awareness.
“The Big American Leak”
by Thomas L. Friedman
New York Times
Published: December 4, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/opinion/05friedman.html

The following eMail thread was not a direct comment to the Update; however, I believe the exchange could be useful to others in the continuing public debate regarding the service of non-heterosexual citizens in the military. With permission, I have endeavored to reproduce the thread in a logical, near-chronological order since the exchange involved a dozen other citizens and me. I was introduced to and joined the thread with a relevant subject line: Leaked Pervert Pentagon Study. The thread opened with:
Message no.1:
EDITORIAL: “Barack's Brokeback barracks -- Leaked “Don't Ask, Don't Tell' details pervert Pentagon study”
The Washington Times
Published: Thursday, November 18, 2010; 6:29 p.m.
“President Obama and his friends in the media want the public to think Americans serving in uniform are just fine and dandy with homosexual conduct in the military. This view is being spread through a series of selective leaks from the Pentagon's Comprehensive Review Working Group, which is putting the finishing touches on a report regarding the future of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
“Mr. Obama has promised the fringe special-interest activists who helped him win the 2008 election that he will deliver what for them is the symbolic victory of opening barracks to lesbians, gays, bisexuals and the transgendered (LGBT). Last week, the Supreme Court rejected an attempt to use the courts to bypass the legislative process to implement this radical change. After the big GOP win in the elections, ramming the LGBT priority through the lame-duck Congress appears to be the sole remaining option - and an unlikely one at that.
“To improve the odds, anonymous sources have been claiming to the administration's newsroom allies that 70 percent of troops wouldn't object to overturning the long-standing ban on homosexual conduct, citing draft versions of the Pentagon survey. The spin makes it sound as if the troops are fully behind Mr. Obama's campaign pledge.
“Those who know better say this reporting has created a false impression. "I looked very closely at the stories," working group co-chairman Jeh C. Johnson wrote in an Oct. 30 e-mail obtained by The Washington Times. "It seemed obvious to me that whoever spoke to the press was not very familiar with the actual results. The account of the survey presented was convoluted and confused, and it clearly did not come from someone who knew what they were talking about." Mr. Johnson was responding to questions posed by Center for Military Readiness President Elaine Donnelly.
“The Defense Department is enabling these false impressions to linger. "The full report will be made public for all to review early next month," military spokesman Geoff Morrell said in a statement. "Until then, no one at the Pentagon will comment on its contents."
“The unchecked leaks conceal the larger problem with the working-group effort, which has focused not on whether the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military - usually called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" - should be repealed, but how a repeal should be implemented. As sources in the military "listening sessions" have stated in letters to The Washington Times, working-group members have promoted the Obama administration's social revolution from the top down. Military personnel whose religious beliefs conflict with the LGBT agenda will find themselves no longer welcome in the military. Even if the 70 percent number were accurate, that would imply nearly a third of the troops would be on the unwanted list. Forcing so many troops to either undergo special "diversity training" or leave the military would be devastating at a time when resources already are stretched thin. These alternatives further expose the ideological objective in play. This push has never been about making the military stronger and more effective. It is a costly political payoff from a liberal administration that's acting as if it loathes the armed forces. The new Congress should make clear early on that it intends to keep the current ban in place.”
Message no.2:
“We shall see what we shall see. On "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". And we will reap what we have sown. I am not for it (totally open service of gays) and the many things which could easily arise from it like marriage, thus survivor's benefits, plus insurance beneficiaries who were a gay partner of a Service Person killed on active duty. And much more.
“It's a nightmare, and it is going to happen. Not maybe! It will happen. And it will cost the American Taxpayers uncalculated Billions, maybe Trillions of dollars over a long time, to fight, or maybe at times even to defend the new policies and their repercussions. To say nothing about the current Servicemen and Women who must live with decisions from above which they may have strong thoughts about. Maybe it will all work out. I certainly Hope so! Our Service men and women are not the troops of the 1900's. Yet they are just as if not more capable warriors.
“Lawyers must be frothing at the mouth at the prospects of the biggest Law Issue in a hundred or more years, maybe ever. Not all are chasers of such possible opportunities, but many are, and really cannot be faulted unless they are advocating something they themselves do not believe in.”
Message no.3:
“I'm really afraid that you are correct, but only if the Republicans cave in or prove their unworthiness by continuing the GOP's "Big Business Right or Wrong" and "Damn the Deficits" mentality.
“I happened to catch CNN's biased "coverage" of this subject in the form of interviews with a former naval commander and with Sen. McCain. It was absolutely pathetic to see how hard the commentator worked, by interrupting and talking over them and practically making fun of them, twisting their responses to totally discredit their attempts to point out what this article points out: the so-called Comprehensive study was not what the public was led to believe and still is being taught to believe. The bias was astoundingly obvious, and this article addresses the underlying problem quite well.
“The DOD has missed a good opportunity, but it was by direction and the explanation is exposed in the article. The Sec of Def and the Chm of the Jt Chiefs should be ashamed, but instead they are pushing Obama's agenda, with the active help of CNN and others. It is amazing to me how political those two positions have become, but maybe it has always been that way. The problem is that we have never before been faced with such a multifaceted attack from within.”
“I'll bet that a survey of just-retired flag officers using the right questions would produce a markedly different result, basically that the present policy does work and allows loyal homosexual service members to serve honorably and ably, with little adverse effect on military preparedness and only a relatively small number of unfortunate losses of good personnel resulting from violation of policy or stupid leadership mistakes.”
Message no.4 (my contribution):
Since you cc’d me in this thread, I can only assume the purpose was more than my awareness. Further, I do not know all the addressees on this thread, so I must assume the risk of offense; if anyone is so offended, I proffer my most humble apologies.
Upfront and straight to it, I shall respectfully disagree with you and your brother. Beyond that, are there risks associated with elimination of sexual orientation / identity as a basis for service in the military and especially the combat arms? Yes, absolutely! Just as there was risk for racial integration from FDR’s EO 8802 (1941) to Truman’s EO 9981 (1948) to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [PL 88-352].
I question your perspective of the current policy in that I am absolutely certain senior officers with little skin pigmentation in the 1950’s & 1960’s believed that racial segregation in the military worked perfectly well. To say that non-heterosexual service members can serve honorably under the current policy misses the entire point of the issue. For the record, homosexuals have served in every military throughout recorded history, including the U.S. armed forces. This question is not about benefits and such; it is about equal treatment under the law. Non-heterosexuals are not asking for special treatment; they are only asking for the same respect and opportunity heterosexual service members enjoy. I can cite more than a few examples where non-heterosexual service members have borne the brunt of vindictive, intolerant treatment by innuendo, rumor and vengeful conduct of others – not by their violation of DADT. So, let us not kid ourselves about the treatment of non-heterosexuals in service today.
No one, and I do mean NO ONE, is asking any person, citizen or service member to accept the personal, private choices of others. Non-heterosexuals do not seek approval, only acceptance, just as Muslim service members do not seek approval of their religious choices, only tolerance.
Lastly, the military has never asked for or expected heterosexuals to hide their sexual orientation or sexual preferences. In fact, the military has tolerated rather bizarre, and some might even say aberrant, heterosexual behavior . . . after all, boys will be boys. Why on God’s little green earth should we ask homosexual soldiers to hide their private choices?
Let us move on. Let us recognize the freedom and rights for all citizens, not just the chosen majority. Then, let us deal with the bad behavior rather than our disapproval of another person’s pursuit of Happiness.
Message no.5:
“I have to give you credit, Cap, for a very well articulated argument-----one which I can almost totally agree with in theory. But it is not theory about which I worry, it is what will make it work. Reality in the field and barracks will, or will not allow it. How the other soldiers accept those different from them. I think they will accept and be accepted, but their bosses at the highest levels may Not for some time yet. There can lie a problem.
“I hope to God it does work, as other seemingly great obstacles to the service of certain peoples has shown to be false. They did and can serve as well as anyone. So why not the homosexuals (I include both males and females in that group)?”
Message no.6:
“What I see as transpiring here is a discussion bringing forth various points for and against open service of gays in the military. Without re-stating my own position and the reasons therefore, I see a constructive thing going on here. Not sure how widespread that same discussion really is. But I can hope it is.
“But it is Much unlike what is going on in our Government and in the hallowed halls of our highest Military officials.
“Republicans and their Tea Party friends better back off their locked in concrete mentality or they Will lose whatever gains they have made. America is mostly just one side or the other away from "midstream". And many ARE midstream! America Does believe in the precepts of our Constitution. Radicals in either direction away from the nominally Centrist will ultimately fail. My opinion.”
Message no.7 (another contribution of mine):
Everything in life involves risk. The integration of non-heterosexual citizens in the military is no different from the similar processes related to racial and gender integration. Will there be problems? Yes, absolutely, without question. There are bad homosexuals just as there are bad heterosexuals, or bad women or bad people with dark skin pigmentation. I remain profoundly confident that good leadership will prevail no matter the problems or the few bad apples encountered during this journey.
Unless we start making relationships and sexual relations a public spectacle, private familial choices should remain private and not a matter of public debate. The question before us has been, is, and always should be performance; how well does any individual do his/her job regardless of specialty from rifleman to pilot, from clerk to general.
As is so often the case in such questions, jumping in forces us to swim. Homophobia is an irrational fear born on ignorance. Homosexuals are not the bogeymen so many folks want them to be. They are normal, peaceful, accomplished and productive citizens, in fact some of the best minds on the planet. Estimates range from 10-20% of any human population are non-heterosexual-exclusive people. Non-heterosexuals have been part of humanity since man began walking upright. The best possible thing I could say is, get to know homosexuals; they are good, normal folk. Sure, there are bad homosexuals, just as there are bad heterosexuals. So, let us deal with the bad behavior, rather than react to our irrational fears.
The Constitution requires of us moderation and compromise, which by definition marginalizes the extremes to find workable solutions for the common good. I share your apprehension regarding the “locked in concrete mentality.” Such unwillingness to compromise will ultimately fail. The 112th Congress may become quite entertaining as the Center moderates the radicals at the extremes.
Message no.8:
“I think you are right. Though it will not be a totally smooth transition, particularly if those in high places opposed to it run their mouths too much. But those people will cry ‘wolf,’ trying to scare folks, including the Military into thinking that just maybe the opponents could be right, and our military as well as our ability to respond in a leadership role in the world, could be degraded. With entities such as China for instance on the horizon, it might not take too much to scare us into backing off what does need to be done.”
Message no.9 (another contribution of mine):
Oh yes indeedie. You are of course spot on and quite correct. It is a common tactic these days . . . scare the hell out of people with tales of the bogeyman in order to maintain the status quo. Regardless, once the trigger is pulled, I have faith the heavies will do their duty and ease the transition to the greatest extent possible.
Message no.10:
“I agree that the Service Chiefs, once given a clear directive, will implement it as if it were their own. No saying or implying that "Well I have to do this" crap. It is the way we do things in the Military. ‘Aye Aye, Sir.’ And our troops will follow their leadership. That is Also the way we do things.”
Message no.11:
"Well, as you say, we shall see what we shall see. A commentator on NPR this morning said "it's right on a knife edge". There's a good chance, though not quite certain, that all 58 Democrats will vote to end debate, so they'd need two Republicans, more if a Dem or two defect. The two women Senators from Maine and Scott Brown from MA are considered good possibilities. MA is such a liberal state (usually) that Brown doesn't want to antagonize the voters for his 2012 re-election run. So it could go either way.
"The only other comment I'd like to make is in regard to the message from [anonymous] in which he says that the policy is working and that homosexuals can serve, etc etc. That's true if you don't count the invidious effects of people having to hide their natures, avoid socializing with their friends, keep their mouths shut, etc. Don't you think that would be a pretty rotten way to live if you and your family and friends had to live that way? And there have been somewhere between 10 thousand and 15000 discharges under the policy (I forget the actual number), including many people with Middle-Eastern language skills which we definitely need. And there's no way to know how many service personnel we never got because of an unwillingness to volunteer to serve under those conditions. I know it will take some time for some people to get used to it, but just as with integration of blacks in the 40's or early 50's, and women more recently, they will indeed get used to it. And Secretary Gates made clear that it won't happen quickly, not until all proper preparations and education and training have been made. And I reiterate that nobody will have to give up their beliefs; they just will have to change their behavior.
"Times and attitudes are definitely changing. Somewhere around the '30's, Harvard expelled about 40-50 students just on SUSPICION they were gay. Now it has a very active gay community, including more than a few faculty. And recently the Captain of the Water Polo team, who was the toughest guy on the team. Now I know you can't extrapolate from Harvard to the Military, but it's just an indication of the depth and rate of change in the country. So even if DADT survives this Congress and probably the next one or more, sooner or later it's going to be struck down, either by Congress or the courts. And we'll get through it, and that'll be A Good Thing."
Message no.12
“I certainly agree that, as someone on the links commented, a survey of recently retired officers would differ considerably from the more recent Pentagon survey. As I said to [anonymous] a few days ago, young people today are MUCH more tolerant of gays than people of our generation, which I assume would include most of the retired officers.”
Message no.13 (another contribution from me):
A woman ceased to exist as a legal entity when she married a man. Women and children were the property of the husband/father until 1920 through 1964. Americans with dark skin pigmentation became free citizens in 1868, but did not begin to achieve equality as citizens until 1964. Yes, spot on; our children are far more accepting and tolerant than our generation. My parent’s generation and especially my grandparent’s generation openly displayed their social prejudice and bias. Now is the time to recognize equality for an eighth of our population. I am confident our military leaders will stand up to the mark when DADT is repealed.
Message no.14:
“I agree totally with you. To include the thought that our Military Services will get behind whatever laws come from this. They may or may not have doubts about the wisdom of it, but they WILL comply---and do better than our civilian population still does with the ‘problem.’”

News from the economic front:
-- The U.S. Federal Reserve disclosed details of more than 21,000 loan transactions to financial firms, companies and foreign central banks during the financial crisis from December 2007 to July 2010 – the largest release of financial data by the central bank ever.
-- The European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet indicated the ECB will continue to offer special longer-term liquidity measures in 2011. The extra liquidity measures were due to be phased out early next year. The ECB program should offer some relief to the euro-zone's troubled debt markets. The ECB left its main interest rate unchanged at 1.0%, which Trichet said was "appropriate" given "contained" inflationary pressures.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported U.S. securities regulators are in preliminary talks with several Wall Street banks aimed at reaching settlements to resolve a broad probe of their sales of mortgage-bond deals that helped unleash the financial crisis.
-- The Labor Department reported nonfarm payrolls rose by 39,000 in November, far fewer than the 144,000 increase expected by Wall Street. October payrolls were revised up to 172,000 from the previous reported estimate of 151,000. The November unemployment rate, which is obtained from a separate household survey, unexpectedly rose to 9.8% from 9.6%.
-- President Obama created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform by Executive Order 13531 on 18.February.2010, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act [PL 92-463]. On Friday, the Commission’s deficit-reduction plan failed to win official approval by a vote of 11 of 18 commission members with 14 necessary for approval and to trigger congressional action.

L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- The court-appointed Madoff asset recovery trustee Irving H. Picard filed a civil suit against J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. for more than US$6B on Thursday, claiming the bank enabled his massive fraud. The case is one of the largest brought so far in the Madoff disaster.

Comments and contributions from Update no.467:
Comment to the Blog:
“Here comes Mr. Grammar Checker again. Software grammar checkers do not know the difference between ‘roll’ and ‘role,’ but I do. ‘Role’ is a ‘function or part performed’; ‘roll’ concerns motion or shape. Both definitions paraphrased from Merriam-Webster Online.
“I share your gratification at Tom DeLay's conviction and your dread at the Citizens United ruling. This corruption will only be stopped at grassroots level if even the Supreme Court will not protect people.
"I share your view of North Korea as a bully and I would add that they are ruled by people who seriously lack sanity. I imagine that they are treated cautiously due to the horrendous possibilities inherent in nuclear weapons.
"I applaud and respect your willingness to stand against earmarks. One reason people fail to oppose that particular brand of corruption is local news reports such as the one you addressed. Thank you. (Mr. Grammar Checker again. While you correctly name the National Socialist German Workers Party, few of your newspaper readers will know that you referred to the Nazi Party.)
"I am cheered somewhat to learn of the FBI's investigation of insider trading. The news media may be unable to avoid such juicy stories, and that can have important indirect results in votes for or against the politicians who have supported Wall Street's runaway greed.”
My reply to the Blog:
Oh my, yes; good catch. My bad! Fortunately, I can edit the Blog and I have done so. Thank you.
I’m not sure how we shall / should proceed given Citizens United; however, I am fairly certain corporate influence and congressional corruption is going to get much worse before corrected.
Agreed, re: DPRK. Do you treat the schoolyard bully differently if he is armed with only his fists, or a bat, or a knife, or a gun? We must all draw the line sooner or later; it is only a matter of how much pain we choose to endure. There is a line from the movie “The Untouchables” . . . Jim Malone (Sean Connery) counsels Elliott Ness (Kevin Costner), “They put one of yours in the hospital; you put one of theirs in the morgue.” It seems apropos in this context.
I thought about using the German party title rather than English, and of course, you are correct; most folks will not recognize the proper title but would know the popular label.
The politicians will not bear the weight of what they enabled by over-correcting deregulation of the financial industry; most of the perpetrators have retired or been re-elected. Only a mere fraction of the industry perpetrators will suffer for their transgressions, but something is better than nothing.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“‘They put one of yours in the hospital; you put one of theirs in the morgue.’ Sounds great on TV, but applies very poorly to reality when "they" have nuclear weapons. We're not talking about a macho situation somewhere in the streets of the USA in the 1930s. This involves nations and nuclear weapons.
I do not understand the idea that politicians have "over-corrected" deregulation. Deregulation was not a corrective action; it was a gift to the greedy. The regulation resulting from the Great Depression was appropriate, guided decades of growth, and only needed updating for technological changes. I have yet to see any real correction of the causes of the current crash, much less over-correction. "Too big to fail" has not been changed, executive compensation knows no bounds, and neither transparency nor honesty have been given a place on Wall Street. You may be correct that only a handful of perpetrators will suffer for their misdeeds, but hope springs eternal. My specific hope for this is that some politicians will see the marketing value of pursuing the criminals.
. . . my follow-up reply:
“This involves nations and nuclear weapons.” Indeed, which is precisely why rogue states like the DPRK, IRI and others seek nuclear weapons; they want the power to cow freedom-loving nations . . . oh dear my, what are we to do? Frankly, I do not much care whether the street thug / bully carries a bat, a knife, a gun or a nuke; he’s still a thug and a threat to peace. Our choices are: 1.) neutralize him, or 2.) eliminate him. When we give in to him as we did in 1938, millions die instead of thousands. So, yes, perhaps the bravado machismo easy quote does not reflect the seriousness of the situation, but I still contend it is indicative. No weapon is a threat, only the man who uses such weapons against peaceful people is the real threat.
Again, my bad; I was too succinct in my rather flippant comment. Deregulation of the mortgage industry began in part in 1977 (although an argument could be made to peg the change in 1975). The “irrational exuberance” of the dot.com bubble along with sub-prime lending that began in 1993 and virtually all the remaining stops being pulled in 1999 set the stage for the inevitable crash of 2008. The financial reform signed into law in July simply does not go far enough for many reasons, some you have offered. “Too big to fail” should be an anathema in a modestly regulated, free market, capitalist society. Mismanagement and excessively risky conduct must suffer failure. Yet, what happened in 2006-2008 was actually decades in the making. What I meant by my “over-correction” comment was the politicians went too far in deregulating. As I have written before, part of the blame rests with us . . . those of us who signed mortgage papers for loans we could not afford on houses that were grossly over-valued. We are paying the price for our past sins.

Another contribution:
“The Wikileaks disclosure of a trove of U.S. diplomatic cables is a very serious matter, and should be troubling to all Americans. This will make the leadership of other nations wary of discussing sensitive issues with American diplomats.”
My response:
The Italian Foreign Minister called the latest WikiLeaks episode the “9/11 of world diplomacy,” and I certainly concur. You offered one of a myriad of reasons these disclosures are so bloody destructive.
I could imagine how an Army specialist intelligence analyst might be able to access and download 92,000 military documents on the Battle for Afghanistan. I cannot imagine or even fathom how that same specialist could gain access, let alone download, 250,000 diplomatic messages. Something far more sinister is at play here. If the USG can link any of the WikiLeaks media to direct access of classified government servers or storage media, we are talking about espionage, and I trust the USG will use its full resources and our Allies to shut down and silence them. Frankly, I doubt that is the scenario in play. The most likely is a small network of disgruntled employees, who have taken it upon themselves to be the conscience of the nation and the world.
The WikiLeaks talking heads including Assange claim the people have a right to know what their governments are doing, and of course, they are precisely correct. Where their argument fails is timing? It took 50 years for us common folk to learn about Enigma (ULTRA) and Purple (MAGIC) as well as the impact of that intelligence on the outcome of World War II. We have every right to know what those messages say . . . just not now, while we are fighting the War on Islamic Fascism, and while the classification decisions are still enforce. They cannot hide behind the 1st Amendment or FOIA on this one.
. . . round two:
“I am still trying to figure out how one intel spec did this...probably more were involved, but in the wake of 9/11, a lot of walls were 'torn down' to make intel more available. It is unclear what the DIA would have to do with so many dip cables- most don't deal with military issues. But DoD has built itself a shadow State Department, with country and regional desks, just like the real State Department- but without the background, history, and expertise. Often, foreign governments get confused when these people travel to their covered areas/countries. This all is another story, but perhaps part of the problem.”
. . . my response to round two:
Tearing down the walls in general was a good thing – a necessary step – but, that does not mean we should violate one of the axioms of the intelligence biz – need to know. Of the released messages I’ve read so far, I can see no reason whatsoever why a PFC/Specialist intelligence analyst, even at division or corps or army level, qualified under “need to know” what was in those documents. Isolating intelligence for parochial reasons set us up for 9/11.
Clearly, we need to reexamine our intelligence processes. While the diplomatic cables contain valuable intelligence, I saw nothing that could even be remotely useful to an entry-level intelligence analyst. Even the military messages from the prior batches of disclosures are beyond that entry-level need-to-know.
Very good topic of discussion . . . the same conflict existed when our national intelligence apparatus took shape, e.g., the historic conflict between JCS & OSS. Heck, NSA is still technically a DoD agency, although the evolution of DNI has altered that connection even if modestly. Another huge mistake of the Bush/Rummie regime . . . the ridiculous administration of Iraq in those early years after deposing Saddam. Diplomacy & statecraft are NOT the domain of DoD . . . never was, never should be.
. . . round three:
“It gets worse-- apparently at DoD-- or at least the DIA, it was possible for one person to transfer information from the classified system to the unclass (and vice versa) without authorization. At State, for years, it was impossible to do that, without going through the IT people and also (in the case of class to unclass) getting authorization. That is mind-boggling-- and apparently how the private in Baghdad got access to a treasure trove of dip cables.
“NSA is now getting 'more' DoD.”
. . . my response to round three:
OMG, say it ain’t so! You are much closer than me, but such actions violate so many principles of classified document control I cannot count them. In essence, the document classification system has no value or meaning. When I handled such material, an independent classified document control board made the declassification decisions; certainly not operators, even by some de facto process. Mind-boggling is a grotesque understatement.
NSA moving closer to DoD is NOT a good sign, either.
I’m not getting any good vibes from this exchange; in fact, quite the contrary. If these WikiLeaks disclosures are a direct consequence of very poor implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, the Commission or rather the Executive implementation may well prove to be far more destructive to our national intelligence apparatus than the Church Committee ever was. I know the 9/11 Commission strongly criticized the isolated pools of intelligence material and the paucity of cross-talk or sharing as a direct contributor to the events of 11.9.2001, but there is nothing I can recall that even remotely suggests we should trash our classified document control processes as a consequence. I find this extraordinarily hard to comprehend.
I am reminded of the old saw: I have met the enemy, and he is us.
Why do I feel sick?

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