Update no.439

Update from the Heartland

No.439

10.5.10 – 16.5.10

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

To all,
Occasionally, events from the Chronicles of the Parlier family might rise to a level of interest with a broader audience. This week, one of those moments came to us. Please allow me this detour.

Monday morning, the National Weather Service forecast severe thunderstorms by late afternoon. The bull’s eye of the high-risk area was Northeast Oklahoma and Southeast Kansas. Wichita was in the Moderate Risk zone. A low, thick, heavy overcast, dripping moisture, kept everything wet on the drive to work. Local radio weather forecasts reported conditions ripe for severe thunderstorms from 15:00 to 19:00 CDT. Jeanne had a consultation appointment with a neuro-surgeon at 14:30 CDT, to investigate options for her lower back pain. We talked about whether we should reschedule. I thought we would have sufficient time to complete the appointment before the forecast storms threatened. We joined up at 14:20 CDT, at the doctor’s office. We waited for two plus hours (neither of us were happy campers, I must add) and eventually saw the nurse for preliminary work-up; then, we waited some more, while the doctor reviewed Jeanne’s MRI images. We finally talked to the doctor, who essentially told us Jeanne had one of the best looking spinal columns he had seen in a long time; there was nothing he could do because he could not see anything that could be fixed. He left the room to write a prescription for physical therapy, and while he was out of the room, storm warning sirens went off. The sky did not look that bad. With no access to a weather radar image, television or radio weather information, I felt like I was flying blind in the clag, as we call it, while trying to get on the ground. I told Jeanne to drive home directly and keep an eye on the sky. I went back to the office thinking I could complete a couple of critical tasks. By the time I got there, everyone was gone. The radio was reporting multiple tornados on the ground west of us. Jeanne called my cell phone – upset and very apprehensive – but she was much closer to home. I left and got on the highway heading directly across town and into the storm. I was worried that I had put Jeanne into the center of the storm, on the road, and our animals were inside without supervision. I was going too fast for the heavy rain and high winds; at one point, my truck went crosswise. Fortunately, there are few other cars on the road and none around me. I regained control without hitting anything or causing disturbance. By the time I made it home, the worst of the storm passed to the northeast. Luckily, we all made it home safely – no harm, no foul. Then, just to remind us of the awesome power of Mother Nature, we were treated to another dose of severe thunderstorms Wednesday night. This time of year on the Great Plains is known as tornado season.

The follow-up news items:
-- Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Pakistan and United States governments have conclusive evidence the Pakistani Taliban orchestrated the Times Square bombing [437/8]. Further arrests have been made in both countries as the authorities pursue the collaborators and the money trail.
-- German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced that they are in complete agreement with the deal to rescue the teetering Greek economy [437], crafted by the Ecofin, the group of the European Union's 27 finance ministers. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and consequently the United States, as a major contributor to the IMF, are also parties to this deal.
-- The Hung Parliament in the United Kingdom [438] did not take long to resolve. The Liberal Democrats joined the Conservatives to form the nation’s first peacetime coalition government in 80 years. Gordon Brown resigned. David William Donald Cameron, 43, the Conservative Party leader, has become Britain’s 53rd Prime Minister and the youngest PM since 1812. Nicholas William Peter “Nick” Clegg, 43, the leader of the Liberal Democrats and nascent kingmaker, has become Deputy Prime Minister. The new government moved out smartly to appoint key ministers in what is in reality a delicate political dance to achieve and maintain balance within the coalition.

Space Shuttle Atlantis launched successfully on the STS-132 mission to the International Space Station and the vehicle’s last flight – le commencement de la fin.

From another forum, a title struck resonance with me and captured my attention:
“Is the Marine Corps just another army?”
I had to search for the original article. It turns out to be a short little ditty, buried halfway down the page of a Blog:
by Robert Haddick
This Week at War (smallwarsjournal.com)
May 14, 2010
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/05/this-week-at-war-obamas-nixoni/
The simple answer is, yes. The United States Marine Corps is just another army . . . just as warriors are warriors, whether they drive ships, fly airplanes, or analyze signals intelligence. Secretary of Defense Bob Gates appears to be spot on the money. In the War on Islamic Fascism, as with the Gulf War, in fact going back to at least 15.September.1950 – the Inchon Landings – Marines have functioned as conventional light divisions of a land army. However, as naval infantry, the history of Marines goes back to 28.October.1664, and the employment of soldiers aboard Royal Navy warships during the 2nd Anglo-Dutch War. My point is, the only reason for a Marine Corps distinct from the Army is tradition – history. We can examine what makes Marines different from soldiers, but that would ultimately boil down to a subjective judgment. Do We, the People, see any benefit to the ethos that is the Marine Corps? Army regiments and divisions have conducted numerous amphibious landings and expeditionary operations. The simple reality and fundamental answer to the question is, no, the Marine Corps is NOT just another army – it is history, tradition, literally an image in the mind of our society that conjures up images of Belleau Wood, Tarawa, Chosin Reservoir, Khe Sanh, and all the other events that are manifest in Joseph John Rosenthal’s single, iconic, 23.February.1945 photographic image. That is the answer to the question. I do not get a vote in this question. I am dreadfully biased, compromised and otherwise contaminated. All of our citizens, who have not worn the Globe & Anchor symbol of the American naval infantry service, must decide . . . not some passing president or secretary of defense. You decide!

In the shadow of the President’s latest Supreme Court nomination, the perpetual question, ignited at such times, returns to the forefront of public debate.
“Americans look for Supreme Court to restrain federal power, not expand it”
by Jeff Sessions
Washington Post
Published: Friday, May 7, 2010
http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/X109GB/1H7QM/IYEU66/4DEA4E/NT2KX/28/h
Senator Sessions observed, “This [judicial] activist philosophy conclude[s] that . . . the Constitution provides a right to government health care and welfare -- a remarkable view of a document designed to curb the excess of federal power.” He went on to conclude, “[T]he president is playing a rhetorical game, accusing the court's conservative, or traditional, justices of being the real activists: harboring a secret bias for big businesses. It is an absurd suggestion.” At this juncture, I will not regurgitate my opinion of activist or traditionalist judges. Let it suffice to say, in my humble opinion, the Constitution must be interpreted as the Founders & Framers intended, as ensuing common law has defined, and in the context of contemporary society. None of that permits judges to define the law as they think or want it to work. The Roberts Court continues to reinforce Federalism in opposition to the Constitution, and the Court’s Citizens United [424] ruling vastly expanded the power and influence of corporations and special interest groups . . . all over the individual citizen. None of that sounds consistent with my understanding of the Founders / Framers view of limited Federal government and individual rights. The debate begins anew.

Another perspective on the traditionalist’s interpretation of the Constitution:
“Immaculate misconception and the Supreme Court”
by Joseph J. Ellis
Washington Post
Published: Friday, May 7, 2010
http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/X109GB/1H7QM/IYEU66/4DEA4E/6KFB8/28/h
Ellis noted, “Woe to the nominee who has left a paper trail that deviates from the original intentions of the Founders, or what a hostile Senate interrogator defines those intentions to be.” Unfortunately, as with all endeavors human, the last phrase will be key to the looming confirmation hearings. I am certain we will have ample opportunity to debate the issue of constitutional law, and the proper interpretation of the Constitution and the law.

On an ecclesiastical visit to Portugal, Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged the clerical abuse scandal represents the greatest threat to the Roman Catholic Church and the crisis was “born from sins within the church” not outside. He called for profound purification and penance within the church as well as pardon and justice. The simple statement by Il Papa marked a huge shift -- the men who run the church are not infallible. He said the Catholic Church had always suffered from internal problems but that “today we see it in a truly terrifying way,” and that he has not done enough to repair the damage. The first step in fixing a problem is admitting you have a problem. It seems the Pope has finally done that. Perhaps the healing can begin.

In 1934, the Veterans of Foreign Wars Death Valley Post 2884 erected a Latin cross on a small, rocky outcropping known as Sunrise Rock in the Mojave Desert Preserve in California, along with a small plaque to commemorate the American soldiers who served during the Great War, later known as World War I. The memorial has stood uncontested since it was erected and has been maintained by private citizens. The Federal government’s National Park Service administers the Preserve on behalf of We, the People. Frank Buono retired after 33 years of service with the National Park Service, culminating his career as Assistant Superintendent of the Mojave National Preserve and Joshua Tree National Park. Apparently, Frank found his conscience after all those years. He filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, claiming to be offended by the presence of a religious symbol on federal land. Buono alleged a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and sought an injunction requiring the Government to remove the cross. His case made it through the district and appeals courts to the Supreme Court – Salazar v. Buono [558 U.S. ___ (2010); no. 08–472]. The decision is a simple ruling of law with complex implications to one of our most fundamental rights. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority of an oddly divided Court, noted, “The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm. . . . The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion's role in society.” Yet, he went on to conclude, “[A] Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. It is a symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions, and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this Nation and its people. Here, one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.” The result: the Court reversed the Appeals Court and remanded the case for further court consideration. The Supremes avoided the central Establishment Clause issue as a consequence of the legal principle of res judicata – decided law. U.S. District Judge Robert J. Timlin of the Eastern Division, Central District of California, granted plaintiff’s petition for an injunction against the Federal government’s implicit sanction of the memorial cross. The government chose not to contest the injunction, which in turn yielded the injunction as decided law, and thus not reviewable under appeal. Subsequently, Congress made multiple attempts to reconcile the challenge issue over the next few years culminating in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2004 [PL 108-87], which authorized the transfer of the cross and one acre of surrounding land to private hands in exchange for a comparable piece of land, which in turn, according to the Supremes, only added weight to Buono’s contention that the Federal government favored the Christian symbol. The subject of the appeal was not the allegation the Federal government transgressed on the Establishment Clause, but rather whether Congress had the authority to transfer the Federal land (and cross) in the light of the district court’s unchallenged injunction. Justice Kennedy tiptoed as close as he could under the law, without raising the root issue. The Court barely mentioned a key intervening related case – Van Orden v. Perry [545 U.S. 677 (2005)] [169] – in which the Court allowed the display of a marble monument of the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. What is markedly different in the Buono case is, there are no government buildings or other artifacts of ownership even remotely close to Sunrise Rock . . . only the paper ownership in legal documents in county/state/federal records. Nonetheless, the Supremes remanded the case over the objections of the dissent. This case is not done.

On Tuesday, ABC News reported the Sunrise Rock cross (see Buono above) had been stolen. The mounting bolts had been cut cleanly and the cross was trucked away. An anonymous caller to a local newspaper claimed to know who stole the cross and added that the dastardly deed was done to “protect” the cross. This is truly a sorry state of affairs as I believe the Supreme Court was attempting to coax the district and appeals courts to rescind the injunction and reject Frank Buono’s claim of offense. The theft is an unfortunate distraction but otherwise inconsequential toward settlement of the case.

News from the economic front:
-- Federal prosecutors and regulators as well as the New York state attorney general have active investigations of a group of banks and securities rating agencies for their contributions to the mortgage and banking crisis of 2008. Among those under the microscope are banks: UBS, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Crédit Agricole, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch, which is now owned by Bank of America; and ratings companies: Standard & Poor's, Fitch Ratings, and Moody's Investors Service. An investigation of this magnitude may well take many years to unravel. We must have confidence justice will prevail.

Comments and contributions from Update no.438:
Comment from the Blog:
“I don't have a deep understanding of the UK's election procedures, but I know that they have had stable government overall for centuries, so I trust that the outcome will not be the disaster that elections in other parts of the world have been.
“Tar balls and dead wildlife are washing up on the beaches of the Gulf of Mexico, and vultures and lawyers circle above. The US has a law, which limits BP's liability to $75 million, which will be a drop in the bucket. I have seen an online petition and related web site seeking the seizure of BP's assets to pay for the current disaster. Somewhere between lies sanity and, I hope, the eventual resolution of the enormous damages.”
My response to the Blog:
The British haven’t experienced a Hung Parliament in several decades, but it is a “normal” process . . . when no party obtained a clear majority of seats. Yes, the British Parliament has been a stable institution since 1688 that has endured war, controversy, trauma and monumental threats. This too shall pass.
I am not aware of the liability limitations of which you speak. Regardless, BP continues to act as if they will do what needs to be done despite any legal limitations. It sounds like this tragedy will play out over many months and probably years. I would not advocate for or encourage the seizure of assets until conditions warrant.

Another contribution:
“Unless I am wrong, the USA will be putting some $$$ into the Greek bailout.”
My reply:
Not directly . . . that I’m aware of.
There was talk as the Greeks & EU explored options about IMF involvement, and we are of course a major contributor to the IMF. However, I believe the current deal involves only the EU, their central bank and its affiliates. I am not aware of any direct U.S. involvement.
The crisis and bailout certainly affect the U.S., so there be inevitable indirect involvement.
. . . then, I had to follow-up:
I’m catching up on my reading after a rough week. I came across this [from the Wall Street Journal]:
“The International Monetary Fund Sunday approved a three-year, €30 billion (US$38 billion) loan to help pull Greece out of an economic quagmire.
“The IMF loan, the largest financial commitment the institution has ever made to a single country, is part of a €110 billion package that includes conditions requiring Athens to tighten their fiscal belt and raise taxes.”
So, I was premature. It seems we are going to be contributing after all. Sorry for the short shot.

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