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
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 :-)
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 :-)
4 comments:
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.
Calvin,
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; that it is recoverable; but, 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 and categorically unacceptable. AIG took unrealistic and unacceptable risks that made the risk being taken by mortgage, investment and commercial banks seem less risky. 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 failure is tolerable and not the first domino. I would favor breaking up the larger banks just as we did Standard Oil and AT&T.
Thx for yr contribution. Keep ‘em comin’.
Take care and enjoy.
Cheers,
Cap
Dear Cap.
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…
Peter.
Morning Peter. 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.
Peter,
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 affect 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.
Anyway, as always, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment