Update no.427

Update from the Heartland

No.427

15.2.10 – 21.2.10

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- A new Washington Post-ABC News poll suggests Americans of both parties are overwhelmingly oppose the Supreme Court’s Citizens United [424] decision that allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns. Further, the poll indicates a significant majority of citizens favor new limits on corporate political campaign spending. I shall take this opportunity to once again state that corporations are NOT citizens, and as citizens we have every right, nay obligation, to regulate the influence of corporations on our government and our society.
-- The Obama administration Justice Department concluded the Bush administration Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) lawyers showed “poor judgment” - not professional misconduct - in writing memoranda [381, 384] authorizing enhanced interrogation techniques for captured battlefield combatants in the War on Islamic Fascism. Coincidentally, a leaked memorandum within the British legal system has caused quite a related stir regarding the alleged complicity of the vaunted MI5 in the also alleged torture and unlawful interrogation by the United States of Binyam Mohammed [289], an Ethiopian citizen. The case is R (Binyam Mohammed) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [case no.: TI/2009/2331/QBACF]. The joint Head of Brick Court Chambers Jonathan Philip Chadwick Sumption, OBE, QC, wrote a private memorandum to the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Lord Judge [AKA Igor Judge, or Baron Judge, PC, QC], the Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger [David Edmond Neuberger, or Baron Neuberger of Abbotsbury, PC], and the President of the Queen's Bench Division Sir Anthony Tristram Kenneth May, QC. I am not familiar with the nuances of the British legal system; however, based on my novice observations, the Sumption letter is rather unusual, if not unprecedented. Sumption wrote, “At paragraph 168 of his Judgment [Neuberger’s – not yet published], the Master of the Rolls makes some observations about the previous ‘form’ of SyS. I assume from the context that he is referring to the Security Service, although in paragraph 64 the Master of the Rolls defines SyS as including the Secret Intelligence Service [AKA MI6] as well, and a reader less familiar with the context might assume that he was referring to both [MI5 + MI6].” While the letter addresses a technicality in the court’s pending decision, Her Majesty’s Government is clearly sensitive to the looming judgment and the potential for harm to the country’s intelligence apparatus. Some may recognize the name Binyam Mohammed; he was a party to a civil claims suit – ACLU v. Jeppesen DataPlan, Inc. [289] – a direct challenge to the CIA’s rendition program [289 et al], which was eventually dismissed. I eagerly await the formal decision statement as it will most likely be the best view into what is ahead regarding our warfighting ability.
-- The Space Shuttle Endeavour landed successfully late Sunday night, ending the STS-130 mission [426], which installed the cupola module for panoramic Earth observation – so ends the last planned night launch and recovery in the 30-year service life of the space shuttle fleet.

The whining, rolling of eyes, and frothing at the mouth by all the anti-Palin intelligentsia continues virtually unabated since her speech to the Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tennessee, on Saturday, 6.February.2010. Most folks have been funnin’ her for the simple crib notes written on her left palm. Frank Rich offers another perspective.
“Palin’s Cunning Sleight of Hand”
by Frank Rich
New York Times
Published: February 13, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/opinion/14rich.html
I listened to and watched the entire speech. Jeanne is one citizen who does not appreciate Palin’s folksy style; Sarah has simply never connected with her. I will be so bold and direct to say that those who boil down her speech and political position to a few scribbled words on her left palm will seriously underestimate a large segment of our citizenry. If you did not listen to and watch the whole speech and you are seriously concerned about politics in this Grand Republic, I strongly urge you to take the time to watch it and listen to her words rather than listen to the naysayer pundits. She is not the dunderhead far too many like to make her out to be.

I am fairly certain everyone has heard the story of movie director Kevin Smith who was removed from a Southwest Airlines flight ostensibly for being “too fat to fly.” I see numerous issues in this kerfuffle.
1. I suspect there was much more to this story than Smith is willing to acknowledge or tell, and Southwest is reluctant to make public.
2. I have a strong suspicion this brouhaha is actually indirect, publicity hype for the director’s pending movie release.
3. I am broadly against the government or anyone else telling another citizen how to live their lives, including obesity, smoking, or even seat belts or motorcycle helmets.
4. Airlines have one primary obligation / responsibility . . . safe transportation of passengers – full stop.
5. Every passenger has an equal requirement / demand to the same seat volume and safety devices.
6. There is no “right” to airline travel.
7. Political correctness can and does compromise safety.
I am not particularly sympathetic to Kevin Smith’s tantrum or his attempt to malign Southwest Airlines. In fact, I condemn his conduct as well as all the size-challenged advocates and pundits who seek to compromise our safety to support their proclivities. To my knowledge, a fat passenger has not gotten stuck in an over-wing emergency exit or blocked rapid egress from a door exit during an emergency evacuation, and if my feeble memory is correct, then only by the grace of God have we avoided such an avoidable, calamitous event. I have been on the receiving end of such an overweight passenger; in my case, a woman who filled 1½ seats. I was returning home from a week’s work in Binghamton, New York; I was the late for the flight, the last person to board, and of course the only seat remaining was the ½ seat next to the large woman. The airline gave me a choice: wedge into the seat or take the first flight out the next day (Saturday). Needless to say, I got about as intimate with the woman as you can with your clothes on. I am sorry Southwest Airlines felt the need to apologize to Smith. The airline did what should have been done 25 years ago in my case. Good on you, Southwest. Now, Kevin Smith . . . shut [expletive deleted] up and go away.

A multitude of news sources reported the capture of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar – allegedly the Afghan Taliban military commander, second only to Mullah Omar – by Pakistani and U.S. intelligence operatives in Karachi, Pakistan. Knowing the climate of political correctness that prevails today, I wonder if they served up his milk and cookies, yet.

The government of Dubai acknowledged the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh – a Palestinian Hamas military chief – reportedly by a team of agents in the 5-star luxury, al-Bustan Rotana Hotel. Mabhouh’s body was discovered by hotel service staff on the afternoon of 20.January.2010. The Times [of London] reported the team included 11 Mossad operatives, 10 males and one female, at least six of the 11 used British passports in the name of real, live, British citizens, and three others held Irish passports. Dubai indicated international arrest warrants have been issued to Interpol. According to the Times report, al-Mabhouh was enroute to the Islamic Republic of Iran – the primary nation-state supporter of Hamas and the leading sponsor of terrorist groups.

I am fairly certain most folks recognize that Kansas is a comparatively conservative state on a variety of levels including the social, or personal, or private level. The latest efforts by the legislature are thus consistent with that background and context.
“House bill would allow 'covenant marriage'” or
“Bill would establish ‘covenant marriage’”
by David Klepper
Wichita Eagle
Published: Friday, 19.February.2010; page 1A
http://www.kansas.com/news/story/1188576.html
For those who may not be aware, “covenant marriage” is a movement among predominately social conservatives in numerous state legislatures across this great land that is intended to “strengthen the marriage bond” and “improve the family unit as the foundation for raising future generations.” On Thursday, the Kansas House passed HB 2667, which begins, “The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract between two parties who are of opposite sex. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void,” and creates a covenant marriage, which “is a marriage entered into by one male and one female who understand and agree that the marriage between them is a lifelong relationship. Parties to a covenant marriage have received counseling emphasizing the nature and purposes of marriage and the responsibilities thereto. Only when there has been a complete and total breach of the marital covenant commitment may the non-breaching party seek a declaration that the marriage is no longer legally recognized.” I understand and appreciate the urge of a significant some to maintain the standard of a mystical ideal of eternal marital bliss; however, this is not the way to do it. Freedom is not and never will be about laws attempting to enforce expected private behavior. Try as we might, marriage is a private affair to be decided by the parties involved. As with all private conduct, legislation of private morality is the antithesis of personal choice as to our “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.” This law is not the way. This attempt is like passing laws against addiction; the only thing that alters the addict’s addiction is the addict’s internal commitment to himself to change – nothing else will be successful. Laws such as these will do far more damage than they ever will do good.

News from the economic front:
-- New residential housing construction increased in January – the highest level in six months and a rate higher than expected – raising hopes the construction industry is beginning to recover from the worst slump in decades.
-- The Labor Department reported wholesale prices rose 1.4% in January, on higher gasoline and other energy costs, and above economists’ expectations (0.7%). Core wholesale inflation, which excludes energy and food, rose 0.3%, faster than the 0.1% economists had predicted.
-- The U.S. Federal Reserve raised its discount rate to 75 basis points from half a point as the Fed's moves away from its emergency-lending efforts. The central bank emphasized that the step didn't represent a broader tightening of credit.
-- The Labor Department also reported the seasonally adjusted Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose 0.2% in January, less than expected, while prices excluding food and energy fell for the first time since 1982, easing worries about inflation.

No comments or contributions from Update no.426.

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

Update no.426

Update from the Heartland

No.426

8.2.10 – 14.2.10

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- A thoughtful opinion on a sensitive topic [308, 425, et al]:
“Abstinence Education Done Right”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: February 7, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/opinion/08mon1.html?th&emc=th
The issue has never been whether abstinence is a viable relationship choice. The key word in the government’s program [308] is “ONLY.” The government does NOT belong in relationship affairs of private citizens including children. The law has seriously eroded the domain of parents and must change.
-- The Islamic Republic of Iran declared itself a nuclear nation, which in turn threatens its neighbors, the region and the World, and decided to permanently suspended Google's email services to further isolate its citizens. We see another glimpse of totalitarianism. Beyond the obvious, this move has a more ominous and sinister shade – could it be preparations for war?
-- The debate continues in the aftermath of the Supremes’ Citizens United decision [424]:
“How the First Amendment Works”
by Stanley Fish
New York Times
Published: February 8, 2010, 9:30 pm
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/how-the-first-amendment-works/?8ty&emc=ty
I am an advocate for corporations making money by selling their goods and services. I am also in favor of balance. Corporations do not need inordinate power or influence to make money. Conferring citizenship on corporations goes far beyond balance. Once again I say, corporations are NOT citizens, and they do not have 1st Amendment rights, despite the opinion of five of nine Supremes.

Being an early morning person, I watched the first attempt as well as the actual launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on the STS-130 mission to the International Space Station. Unfortunately, a moment we knew had to come but I never wanted to see; I witnessed the end of an era, the last night launch of the space shuttle. As we observe the last missions of the shuttle, I am reminded about the last Moon missions of Apollo. Adding insult to injury, President Obama zero’ed the NASA budget for the return to the Moon. I understand the national debt and the deficit budget, but our future lies in space. I trust we shall recover from this setback.

The Press and various pundits from both poles persist in referring to the continuing social and political debate regarding the place of religion in American society as the Culture Wars. I have never embraced that term, and I doubt I ever will; and yet, the movement by more than a few to impose its religious will upon all American citizens remains a very real, tangible argument. The latest worthy contribution comes to us in the form of a rather lengthy newspaper article.
“How Christian Were the Founders?”
by Russell Shorto
New York Times
Published: February 11, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?8au&emc=au
There is no debate whatsoever that the Founders of this Grand Republic or even the Framers of the Constitution were Christian believers, if not always faithful practitioners. Our laws grew from English common law, but our Founders sought a structure of governance that gave no segment of society more power or authority over another and that includes religion. Governance has nothing to do with the faith of the politician, but rather his integrity and focus on this Grand Republic.

News from the economic front:
-- The U.S. trade deficit in December widened by 10% to US$40.18B from a revised US$36.39B the month before. U.S. exports grew 3.3% to US$142.70B, while imports increased 4.8% to US$182.88B.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke prepared testimony for a House hearing that was delayed because of the Mid-Atlantic states’ snowstorm, that indicated the Fed would raise the interest rate paid to banks on excess reserves held at the Fed may for a time replace the Fed funds rate as the main operating target for policy. The Fed currently pays banks a 0.25% rate for the more than US$1.1T the central bank holds. Raising the rate would give banks an incentive to park more funds at the Fed instead of lending it out to companies or households.
-- Eurostat – the European Union's statistics agency – reported that economic growth in the euro zone slowed in the fourth quarter of 2009. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the 16 EU countries that use the euro rose by a weaker-than-expected 0.1% from the previous quarter, and fell 2.1% on an annual basis. The debt situation in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland continues to drag down the EU economy.

L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are pursuing criminal tax-fraud cases against Brother Peter Madoff, and Sons Mark and Andrew Madoff for their part in Bernie’s multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme. I should hope to shout, but I guess that is obvious.

Comments and contributions from Update no.425:
From the Blog:
“The budget is always a fascinating process. Taxing the rich at least a little will probably be useful and will be fairer than what we have now. Those opposed to taxes in general would do well to study the economy of the 1950s and 60s. Income tax rates were far higher than today's and the economy did far better. I realize that other factors also existed, but making low-to-nonexistent income taxes part of dogma has failed us.
“I still think we could make economic progress by no longer wasting money chasing and imprisoning people over marijuana. Prisons are especially expensive, but law enforcement can find much better chores as well. Legalization might not balance the budget (so Obama says), but would be a giant step in the right direction.
“Cherry-picking statistics and other manipulations of numbers is old news. My father used to say, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." He was an adult during the Great Depression (the other one) and he knew this from experience.
“The USA has only two rational choices with respect to AIG and any other corporation "too big to fail." Attempt regulation or break them up according to a plan. I favor breaking them at this point; corruption has affected regulation too much to depend upon it for this function.”
My response to the Blog:
I do agree . . . the incessant chant of “lower taxes” is inherently self-destructive. Taxes are essential for a functioning government, and we DO NEED a functioning government. On the other hand, I think Congress has become so corrupted by the influence peddlers, lobbyists, and parochial advocates that I often question whether we have passed the point of no return in our inevitable decline; thus, my profound disappointment in the Supremes’ Citizens United [424] ruling. Perhaps Alexander Tytler was correct – once the bastards figured out the key to the Treasury, we were doomed. I hope and trust not. I also hope that it is recoverable. However, the fear is ever-present these days. Virtually everything in a free, republican society is predicated on balance between opposing forces. If things get too far out of balance, the system will inevitably collapse – inherently unstable.
My advocacy of legalization / regulation of not just marijuana but all controlled substances is well established and unchanged. Thus, we are agreed. Now, we just need to make it so.
Your father was a wise man.
Since the Sherman Antitrust Act [PL 51-190 (1890)], We, the People, have struggled to find balance in regulating corporations. “Too big to fail” is clearly a failure of that process and categorically unacceptable. AIG took unrealistic and unacceptable risks that made the risk being taken by mortgage, investment and commercial banks seem less risky and foolishly more tolerable. The whole, sordid, stack up became a house of cards as a result. I do not object to banks taking risks, but those risks that jeopardize the financial stability of the nation clearly must be regulated and thoroughly vetted to ensure limited failure is tolerable and not the first domino. I would favor breaking up the larger banks and insurance companies just as we did Standard Oil and AT&T.

Another comment to the Blog:
“This from a colleague ex-RAF who is still in the industry
“We have corresponded on this subsequently, These findings, in both our views still leave some questions unanswered. Such a fuel quality at last re-fuel and water/sediment drain frequency. Something it appears is not considered important to flight safety by BA. (cost)
“Can’t see the relationship of -22degs C and ice formation unless there is a high degree of water contamination held in solution within the fuel.
“I don’t believe the fuel/oil heat exchanger theory either. However…”
. . . the included secondary comment:
“I'm astonished at this...............not sure I believe it!!!
“'Ice problem' in BA jet accident
“Last Updated: Tuesday, 09 February 2010, 01:54 GMT
“- Search: AAIB British Airways
“The British Airways Boeing 777 crash-landed at Heathrow in January 2008
“Plane safety requirements did not cover the particular ice problem which probably caused a Boeing 777 to crash-land at Heathrow Airport two years ago as the risk was ‘unrecognised at that time,’ an official accident report has said.
“The crash of the British Airways 777 on January 17 2008 came after the plane lost power due to a restricted fuel flow to both engines, said a final report from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB).
“The AAIB concluded that it was probable that the engine fuel flow restriction was caused by a build-up of ice within the fuel system on the flight on which 136 passengers were travelling.
“The report said it was also probable that ice had formed within the fuel system from water that occurred naturally in the fuel and when fuel temperatures were at a ‘sticky range’ when ice crystals were most likely to adhere to their surroundings. The AAIB said: ‘Certification requirements, with which the aircraft and engine fuel system had to comply, did not take account of this phenomenon as the risk was unrecognised at that time.’
“The report added that research in the 1950s had identified the problem of ice formation in fuel systems from dissolved or entrained (trapped) water but did not identify the scenario of accumulated ice release and subsequent restriction to fuel flow.
“The AAIB concluded that the engine component called the fuel oil heat exchanger on the crashed Boeing was susceptible to restriction where presented with soft ice in a high concentration and with a fuel temperature that was below minus 10C (14F). The AAIB added there were no published guidelines or tests on the susceptibility of a fuel system to ice.
“Having lost power, the BA plane, arriving from Beijing, came down within the airfield boundary at Heathrow but 330 metres short of the paved runway, sliding 372 metres before coming to rest.
“The left main landing gear (MLG) collapsed and the right MLG separated from the plane. All the passengers were safely evacuated, with one passenger breaking a leg. All told, 34 passengers and 12 cabin crew suffered minor injuries, mainly to the back and neck.
“On November 28 2008 a Delta Airlines Boeing 777 suffered a similar ice problem while flying over the USA, which prompted an investigation by America's National Transportation Safety Board, with the AAIB having an accredited representative. In both the BA and Delta incidents the power loss - or ‘engine rollback’ - came when the fuel temperature was minus 22C (minus 7.6F).
“Nine safety recommendations were made following the earlier AAIB reports into the BA incident. Boeing and aero engine company Rolls-Royce have taken steps to prevent the ice phenomenon from re-occurring. The AAIB has made nine further safety recommendations, including some which address plane ‘crashworthiness’ - the ability of an aircraft to withstand an accident.”
My reply to the Blog:
I continue to struggle with the “official” findings on both the BA38 and DL18 events. They point to an inherent design flaw “not covered by regulatory requirements,” namely ice accretion on the face of the fuel-oil heat exchanger.
The freezing point of Jet A1 = −47°C (−53°F). Static Air Temperatures on the BA flight were recorded at −76°C. The oil running through those heat exchangers is probably in the range of +100±20°C. Plus, those two aircraft are not the only B777 or any other Part 121 aircraft to see those cold temperatures at altitude. I’ve personally seen −72°C and had to descend to keep SAT > −65°C. If the official theory is correct, why haven’t we seen more incidents? This is not some new phenomenon; the dynamics of the atmosphere have remained essentially the same for millennia, and we have been flying at those altitudes and conditions for decades. Ice in fuel systems has been known and dealt with for as long as we have been flying at high altitude. Problems usually occur at the tankage outlets; until these events, I’ve not heard anyone documenting problems at the engine interface (the fuel-oil heat exchanger). Nonetheless, the “experts” have not convinced me of this phenomenon or its effect on BA38 or DL18. It is curious that both flight originated in the PRC – BA38 (Beijing) & DL18 (Shanghai). Also, DL18 lost power at cruise altitude; BA38 lost power on final approach.
. . . a follow-up concurrence:
“We all seem to be of the same opinion.”

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

Update no.425

Update from the Heartland

No.425

1.2.10 – 7.2.10

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Various news sources reported on a new study that points to the better than expected efficacy of abstinence-only sex education programs [308].
“Abstinence-only programs might work, study says”
by Rob Stein
Washington Post
Published: Tuesday, February 2, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102628.html?wpisrc=nl_natlalert
Stein’s article refers to this study:
“Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 Months – A Randomized Controlled Trial With Young Adolescents”
by John B. Jemmott III, PhD; Loretta S. Jemmott, PhD, RN; Geoffrey T. Fong, PhD
Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine
Published: February 2010; vol. 164 no. 2, pp. 152-159
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/164/2/152?home
We are fortunate that the scientific community is studying childhood sex education. On the opposite side of the ledger, studies such as these are used as a bludgeon’s by social conservatives who seek to re-impose and enforce their view of sex – the sole, proper domain of adults and preferably in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage, and even then for procreation-only.
-- A sobering view of American political corruption [146 & sub]:
“This corruption in Washington is smothering America's future – How do you regulate banks effectively, if the Senate is owned by Wall Street?”
by Johann Hari
The Independent
Published: Friday, 29 January 2010
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-this-corruption-in-washington-is-smothering-americas-future-1882349.html
-- In the continuing debate regarding the civil rights of non-heterosexual citizens [110 & sub] and the service of non-heterosexual citizens in the military [265 & sub], I offer three contrasting articles (opinions):
1. “The Case Against Gays In The Military”
by Mackubin Thomas Owens
Wall Street Journal
Published: February 3, 2010; Pg. 17
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703389004575033601528093416.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
2. “Britain’s human rights policies violate natural law, Pope says”
by Ruth Gledhill and Richard Owen
The Times [of London]
Published: February 2, 2010
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7011095.ece?&EMC-Bltn=ABKGL2F
3. “Gen. Powell backs Obama move on gays in military”
by Susan Cornwell (Reuters)
Washington Post
Published: Wednesday, February 3, 2010; 4:26 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020302719.html

“Child Pornography, and an Issue of Restitution
by John Schwartz
New York Times

Published: February 2, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/us/03offender.html?th&emc=th

Always a controversial and volatile topic, child pornography brings blood to a boil instantly. Schwartz reports on an innovative legal action to seek restitution on behalf of a now young woman who claims her uncle subjected her to sexual abuse, took images of that abuse, and distributed those images via the Internet. In this arena, we typically use emotionally charged words like “abuse,” “predator,” “pedophile,” and such, which in turn makes rational discussion and debate virtually impossible. We have proof of the consequences – the result. We do not know the root causes of the associated events. I react to these issues as I did in the TWA 800 incident; I seek the answer to why? I invariably wonder about the parents. Significant differences demark someone who possesses an image of a child and the person who forces a child to make such images, and orders of magnitude of difference with a person who translates their thoughts into physical actions and especially those who use violence for their purposes. Like so many emotionally sensitive topics, we often grossly overreact and punish without understanding the root causes. My objective in using such topics is simple; let us refine the law to illuminate and understand, and hopefully filter out the incidental offenders to focus our efforts on the truly injurious perpetrators. We cannot achieve that objective if we do not discuss and debate the issue and especially the root causes.

There are certain topics that trigger my interest in judicial proceedings. Among those triggers are a series of Nixon era laws; one of which is the RICO law – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 [PL 91-452; 18 U.S.C. §§1961–1968] – one of numerous broadly sweeping laws signed into law by President Nixon that are notoriously abused by law enforcement to this day. The latest object of RICO application was decided by the Supremes – Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York [558 U.S. ___ (2010); no. 08-969]. The City of New York filed a RICO case against the Hemi Group – a New Mexico company – for mail and wire fraud as a consequence of the company’s failure to comply with the Jenkins Act of 1946 [PL 81-363, 15 U.S.C. §§375-378], which requires reporting of the names of state residents to whom the company sold cigarettes. In her concurring opinion, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, “I resist reading RICO to allow the City to end-run its lack of authority to collect tobacco taxes from Hemi Group or to reshape the ‘quite limited remedies’ Congress has provided for violations of the Jenkins Act,” which best summarizes the content of this rather unremarkable ruling. Hemi Group was an over-reach case from the get-go, and the Supremes called ‘em on it. The Jenkins Act offers remedy, albeit limited, for the State, so the prosecutors in New York City, as in so many jurisdictions in this Grand Republic, stretched quite a long way beyond the original intent of RICO. Hemi Group is a simple business, hardly organized crime, the Mafia, or even racketeering. RICO is one of those laws that lend themselves to abuse. For me, this case represents what I believe happens far too frequently – well-intentioned laws that are dramatically abused by prosecutors far beyond the original intent; that is why I read these court rulings and write my opinions. Semper vigilantis!

News from the economic front:
-- President Obama submitted a US$3.8T budget to Congress with new spending to combat persistently high unemployment, to propose a US$30B small-business loan program, to bolster the battered middle class, and to cut funding for hundreds of programs. To make a meager attempt toward balancing, the budget seeks to raise taxes on banks and the wealthy.
-- The Reserve Bank of Australia left its cash rate unchanged at 3.75%, following an unprecedented run of three consecutive increases in late 2009, suggesting the central bank’s caution regarding the economic outlook, and surprising financial markets.
-- American International Group (AIG) offered up another insult as the company proposed US$100M of the People’s Treasury in new employee bonuses. These yayhoos simply, just do not get it.
-- Greece teeters on the edge of financial collapse as the government staggers under massive debt. The European Commission accepted Greece's plan to reduce its budget deficit, but warned that further spending cuts and new taxes might be needed to fix the country's public finances.
-- The Bank of England left its key interest rate unchanged at 0.5%, and voted against extending its bond-buying program, as the U.K. economy started growing again after the deepest recession in more than half a century.
-- New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo filed civil securities fraud charges against former Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis and former Chief Financial Officer Joseph Price, who remains at the bank. The State alleges the two bank leaders decided not to disclose US$16B in losses at Merrill Lynch before getting shareholder approval to acquire the Wall Street firm. Separately, Bank of America agreed to pay US$150M in a settlement with Federal securities regulators over allegations of misleading investors about Merrill Lynch bonuses and losses, in an effort to reach a pact before heading to trial.
-- The government reported that American employers shed 20,000 nonfarm jobs in January and that job losses in 2009 were worse than previously reported. The government also rolled out something they called a “survey of households,” which indicated a decrease in the unemployment rate to 9.7% in January from 10.0% in December. Please pardon my skepticism, but this sounds like desperation cherry-picking statistics to suit political objectives. Regardless, job recovery will be slow.

Comments and contributions from Update no.424:
“[Y]ou might if you have time, explain to me, of Anglo Saxon descent, why if your Democratic party still have a large majority in both houses they have such a problem governing. What's this super majority? Surely a simple majority is all that's needed to pass a motion? The ayes V the nays...No?”
My response:
A hallmark of American republican governance is a varied set of checks & balances across three, technically equal branches of government. The intent is to make change slowly and make big changes even more slowly. One of many throttle points is a requirement that the Senate pass legislation by a 3/5 (60%) “super majority,” thus, all the yammerings about 60 votes. The process forces compromise, which is generally a good thing. “Majority rules” is simply not sufficient. The process of passing a law is more complex, but I think you get the idea. An amendment to the Constitution is even more difficult. So, now you know just a little bit more about us colonists.
. . . follow-up comments:
“Thanks for your explanation of the 'super majority' system. The so called 'filibuster' is an efficient way to prevent a vote and a good time waster. Yes, indeed rules need to be in place to encourage the progress of democracy. We have 'guillotine motions' where the government places a time limit on the discussion. This appears to work.
“In our veteran’s organisation, The Royal British Legion, we have a method of dealing with this situation where any delegate can propose 'That the Motion be Put' Providing he/she is a seconded this motion is put to the conference and if there is a simple majority, i.e., 51% of those present and voting the voting will take place on the original motion, precluding any more debate. Do you know I have never known a motion 'That the Motion be Put' fail. We also have a system of 2/3rds majority, (your super majority, i.e. 60 members) for certain types of motion these include welfare and Royal Charter motions. (This could be read across to your constitutional motions.)
Cap, I find this aspect of democracy totally fascinating.
“Oh, of interest in Paris, the French enquiry into the Air France Concorde accident 10 years ago. I shall watch with great interest as those in the dock (Continental) are adamant that the strip of titanium laying on the runway could not have caused the accident. They claim to have witnesses who will say the aircraft was on fire before she arrived at the location of this strip of metal. There will be much more on this.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Governance and the law have certainly been interests of mine, especially in the last 20-30 years.
The Concorde inquiry will be interesting to review. Tragic event! The sequence of events as we know them so far suggests the magnificent aircraft operated far closer to the boundaries than previously understood (at least by the public), i.e., very low margin for failure tolerance.

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

Update no.424

Update from the Heartland
No.424
25.1.10 – 31.1.10
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Anyone who may be concerned even remotely about the Islamic Republic of Iran and its nuclear weapons program should read:
“The Secret Nuclear Dossier – Intelligence from Tehran Elevates Concern in the West”
by Dieter Bednarz, Erich Follath and Holger Stark
Der Spiegel
Published: 25.January.2010
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,673802,00.html#ref=nlint
-- The confessed murderer of Dr. George Tiller [264, 368, 391] was convicted of first degree murder by a Wichita, Kansas jury. The jury took a mere 37 minutes to convict Scott Roeder, 51, who in turn faces a mandatory life sentence in prison – a sentence that lets him off way to easy for his crime.
-- In the face of rapidly mounting pressure, the Obama administration has abandoned plans to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other battlefield combatants [413] in the Southern District of New York (downtown Manhattan).

I recognize and acknowledge more than a few citizens railed against the McCain-Feingold campaign financing law – Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, AKA McCain–Feingold or Shays-Meehan) [PL 107-155] [322]. The law was far from perfect, but it was a bona fide attempt to lessen the obscene corrupting influence of big money both in electioneering and indirectly in governance. The Supremes decided on a narrow 5-4 margin, in an exhaustive 177-page ruling that an important section of BCRA was not acceptable in a free society – Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [558 U.S. ____ (2010); no. 08-205]. This is a classic case of conflict between perspectives in interpretation of the law, between big and small, between rich and poor, and between opposite pans on the scales of justice. Like this case, perspective must be assessed and interpreted. The Court has historically written its position including the dissenting opinions for direct comparison; so it is with this case and the comparison is enlightening. Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy wrote for the Court, “The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it.” I am certain we can all agree. Tony went on to observe, “These onerous restrictions [BCRA §203] thus function as the equivalent of prior restraint by giving the FEC power analogous to licensing laws implemented in 16th- and 17th-century England, laws and governmental practices of the sort that the First Amendment was drawn to prohibit,” and “This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech.” So, the Supremes declared BCRA §203 unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts spent more than a few words defending the Court’s abandonment of its guiding principle of stare decisis for this decision. Even Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting in part opinion, claiming the Court had not gone far enough to strike down BCRAs donor disclosure requirements. Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dominating, cogent and persuasive dissenting opinion. “In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.” Justice Stevens went onto observe, “It might also be added that corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their ‘personhood’ often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.” What I find rather odd in this whole debate is the paucity of any recognized reality. When I declare an opinion or advocate for one position or another, I am the speaker. I am a citizen. It is my efforts that speak. I am accountable for my words. I cannot afford to do otherwise. Yet, when a corporation speaks, often there is no identity and thus no accountability; corporations notoriously created façades, front or shell corporations to act in their stead and shield them from identity and thus accountability. Corporations possess vast amounts of money for their political ends . . . often driven solely by the profit motive. A corporation is NOT a citizen; it does not possess citizenship. The owner, chief executive or board are citizens; they possess the right to vote and argue their opinion on the soap box at Debater’s Corner, like all the rest of us; yet, in their role as the head of a corporation, they possess the means to significantly amplify their voice without the identity of the soap box. I am a staunch advocate for Freedom of Speech along with our other fundamental as well as constitutionally protected rights. Corporations also possess numerous other means by which to influence legislation, elections and often even subvert the democratic process. With this ruling, the Court has issued a veritable license to kill. To illustrate the issue, let us assume an extreme. What if a corporation or group of collaborative corporations bought up every available minute of advertising time on every television and radio station, such that the only message the public heard was that corporation’s intended message for its chosen candidate or issue? According to Citizens United, the corporation would have every right to dominate public dialogue. The question: Is the owner of a private corporation or the CEO of a public corporation more important or valued within our political system than John Q. Citizen? If the answer is yes, then the Court’s finding seems quite appropriate. If the answer is no, then I am gobsmacked at the myopia of the Supremes. Any material or action carried to an extreme can be injurious or even fatal, e.g., water is vital for life, and yet too much or too little can kill, just as too much oxygen, or any other material. Thus, the key is balance – consumption within tolerable limits. The same analogy can be created for campaign financing. With BCRA, Congress attempted to establish a boundary for tolerate corporate campaign spending. With Citizens United, the Supremes have said, “Nay, nay. The threshold has been set too low.” On the other side of the equation, the Internet has become a grand equalizer, allowing citizens access to virtually any news source publicly available and the ability to connect with other like minded citizens, and to place their voice before the World as is reflected in this humble Blog [Update from the Heartland]. The bottom line is, Freedom of Speech is freedom of speech. As we must tolerate offensive speech, we must tolerate the voice of obscene amounts of money and domination by large amorphous corporations. As much as I see the gross inequity of large corporations or unions overwhelming the information stream, we must find a method to filter and assess without restricting their voice. We survived Yellow Journalism a century ago; we shall survive the corrupting influence of massive money. This is not the end of the struggle of We, the People, to ensure this remains a republic of citizens, not corporations. President Obama was precisely correct in his State of the Union speech – the Court through out a century of law to constrain corporate-political corruption. As an indicator of significance, please re-read:
“Justice for Sale” [310]
by Sandra Day O'Connor
Wall Street Journal
Published: 15.November.2007
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010864
The Citizens United ruling opens the floodgates to a deluge of intentionally polarizing, confusing and otherwise divisive drivel.

News from the economic front:
-- The National Association of Realtors reported the sales of existing-homes decreased by 16.7% in December to a 5.45 million annual rate, after three straight increases. The data also indicated inventories declined and prices rose year over year for the first time in more than two years. Mixed results!
-- President Obama proposed a three-year freeze on discretionary spending unrelated to the military, veterans, homeland security, Social Security, Medicare, and international affairs, in other words only about one-sixth of the federal budget -- a move intended to dampen voter anxiety over the deficit, I’m sure.
-- The U.K. Office for National Statistics reported that the British economy grew in the 4th Quarter of 2009, emerging from a deep recession that began in the second quarter of 2008. Great Britain is the last of the major economies to emerge from the downturn created by the global credit crisis.
-- The Congressional Budget Office reported federal budget deficit decreased to US$1.35T from the US$1.4T previously projected, based on lower spending on the Treasury Department's bank bailout and stronger than expected economic growth. The deficit is expected to improve in the out-years, decreasing to US$480B in 2015, from previous projection of US$560B.
-- The Federal Reserve issued a slightly more upbeat reading of the U.S. economy's outlook and left short-term interest rates near zero to help support the slow recovery.
-- The Senate approved increasing the federal debt limit by another US$1.9T to US$14.3T. I am not really sure what such action means since a limit that is moved like this is not really a limit.
-- The Commerce Department reported that the United States Gross Domestic Product (GDP) expanded at an annual rate of 5.7% in the 4th Quarter, and grew at an annualized rate of 2.2% in the 3rd Quarter – the fastest pace since 2003. For the whole of 2009, GDP fell 2.4% – the biggest drop for an entire year since 10.9% in 1946.

Comments and contributions from Update no.423:
“Regards the FBI imbroglio, you are correct- they are law enforcement and they have to obey the law. Even more disquieting is the fact that when these laws were put into effect, you had the FBI and DOJ leadership swearing up and down they would follow the law scrupulously and to the letter. Now you have this. Somebody out to bring out videos from the past and compare to what is happening today. Whether one is conservative or liberal- or in between- this should be shocking and anger-provoking. This also brings up the question of "can these guys do anything right?" In most world government systems, people in Muller's and Holder's positions would resign.”
My reply:
Spot on! ‘Nuf said.

A comment to the Blog:
“You said ‘removed the bare, 60-seat Democratic Party majority in the Senate’ where you should have said "super majority." Democrats still have a comfortable majority; they just can't pass legislation the Republicans oppose without the threat of a filibuster.
“I have already expressed my opinion of the Senate health care bill.
“I have no difficulty finding outrage at the FBI's disregard of the law. Their mission is law enforcement, not vigilantism.
“You have read my opinion of the Supreme Court decision regarding corporate campaign contributions. I have neither the ability nor the time to perform in-depth legal analysis; besides, I find the published quotes from the various Justices illuminating enough.
“I cannot help you with anything relating to Macintosh. If and when I escape MicroSoft, I'll be headed to some version of Linux or possibly another FOSS system.”
My response to the Blog:
Touché. Spot on! You are of course precisely correct. The Democrats lost their “super majority” (needed to overcome a filibuster) and still maintain a healthy majority in both the Senate and House. Now, they must compromise.
Yes, your opinion regarding health care reform has been well stated.
There are a myriad of reasons to be angry with the FBI’s conduct in those surveillance tasks.
I am still reading the long ruling from the Supremes on campaign financing. I am fascinated by the words, concepts and interpretation of the law. I need their words directly, rather than filtered by the Press. Nonetheless, so far, the Press coverage has been accurate and appropriate, so no need to read the case unless you wish.
So far, I am glad I made the switch to Mac.

Another comment:
“BTW, I read all the comments from your update this week about other people who use Macs. Whoever said there is not a "right-click" on a Mac hasn't used one for a LONG time. Obviously on your Magic Mouse there is one and then on the portable all you do is hold Ctrl and then click.”

A different contribution:
“It was the Presidents best speech to date. If that doesn't inspire Washington to make changes then nothing will. Yes, I know talk can be cheap. He will need to do his part to backup what he talked about. Anyway, I thought it was a great speech and not one that most could have pulled off.
“BTW, did you see our new invention yesterday. The iPad. Pretty cool. It will have it's niche in the market but not for me. If you haven't seen the video it's worth watching. Watch the video, not the Keynote.”
http://www.apple.com/ipad/
My response:
I heard the whole speech from start to stop. I did not think it was one of his better speeches from a rhetorical craftsmanship perspective. His cadence was off-beat, as if he was distracted or apprehensive. I think he is trying to find the moderate middle, which is good. I also appreciate his humility. From my POV, based on his national public speeches, I think he has done better; yet, compared to his predecessor, the SOTU speech was lightyears better. He is impressive to listen to, but the reality is, words only go so far. He must deliver on importance initiatives.
BTW, as I write in this week’s Update, I wholeheartedly agree with his criticism of the Supremes for their campaign financing ruling; they got it dreadfully wrong, and I’m glad he called them out on it. Sam Alito’s smirk and mouthed “not true” showing how much the slim majority just doesn’t get it. You can read more in the Update if you wish.
I saw the replay of Job’s announcement of the iPad. Pretty impressive technology. But, I’m not likely to get one just yet. Watching Apple’s technology deployment certainly is entertaining.

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