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 :-)