Update no.440

Update from the Heartland

No.440

17.5.10 – 23.5.10

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

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The Islamic Republic of Iran made a deal to swap its enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for help from Brazil and Turkey in mediating the nuclear crisis. I am a little surprised the IRI did not turn to their good buddy Hugo. Nonetheless, the IRI is undoubtedly trying to thwart the UN sanctions being sought by the Europeans and the United States in response to their nuclear weapons ambitions [419/20].
As the World turns . . .
-- We have a couple of additional opinions regarding the root question: “who needs a Marine Corps?” question [439]:
“Gates Anti-Ship Barrage Likely To Land First On Marine Corps”
by Loren B. Thompson
Lexington Institute
Published: Thursday, May 6, 2010
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/gates-anti-ship-barrage-likely-to-land-first-on-marine-corps?a=1&c=1171
and
“Marinestan”
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review
Published: May 20, 2010; 12:00 A.M.
http://article.nationalreview.com/434537/marinestan/victor-davis-hanson
This debate shall continue for a long time, even if Bob Gates is successful.
-- The Republic of Korea (ROK) formally accused the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) of sinking their navy’s Pohang-class corvette, ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772) two months ago [432, 436]. The ROK disclosed a DPRK torpedo sank the warship, and they displayed several recovered components. The attack killed 46 ROK sailors and heightened tensions in one of the world’s most perilous regions. Numerous debate fora offered up a panoply of speculation about what the ROK might do with their conclusive evidence of an act of war.
-- President Obama asked for and received the resignation of the Director of National Intelligence Admiral Dennis Cutler Blair, USN (Ret.) {USNA’68} [366], ostensibly for intelligence failures like the public Christmas Day and Times Square bombers. There were also rumors of continued friction between DNI and White House Staff. For whatever reason(s), the Nation is losing the service of an honorable and good man. Such is the world of power politics.

With SecDef ruminating in public about the viability of the Marine Corps, it seems only appropriate that a persistent and perennial critic of the service academies should reiterate his irritation with the traditional institutions.
“The Academies' March Toward Mediocrity”
by Bruce Fleming
New York Times
Published: May 20, 2010; pg. 27
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/opinion/21fleming.html?th&emc=th
Here we have another example of a professed intellectual – a professor at the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland, presumably tenured – who claims to have such a profound and deep understanding of the place service academies hold within the professional military officer corps. Ah, yes, the price of freedom!

Doctor John Craig Venter, PhD – founder of the private J. Craig Venter Institute and co-founder of Synthetic Genomics – announced the creation of a synthetic cell, completely controlled by man-made genetic instructions, which has survived and reproduced. At a cost of US$30M, Venter’s companies bio-engineered an experimental one-cell organism that opens the way to the manipulation of life on a previously unattainable scale, and more significantly, they own the intellectual property rights to the cell-creation techniques. Prima facie, the experiment is a monumental biological achievement in our quest to understand the molecular processes of life. Yet, as much as I have advocated for embryonic stem cell, and comparable genetic and bio-molecular research, this announcement scares the bloody hell out of me. The thought of this technology in the hands of a private company without regulation or even peer review, and driven solely by the profit motive, conjures up a myriad of images at the extreme of science fiction imagination. This technology is comparable to the science and engineering of nuclear fission and fusion. Imagine how history might have played out if a private company developed the Trinity device – a dreadfully sobering thought.

Fortunately, for freedom-loving people everywhere, there are courageous citizens who are able to raise sensitive, volatile topics for public debate . . . to move humanity along the inexorable path of advancement.
“Fury as TV advert for abortion advice gets go-ahead”
by Rosemary Bennett
The Times [of London]
Published: May 20, 2010
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7131254.ece
In a free society, public debate is the only acceptable means of progression. Unfortunately, we seem to have lost, or at least diluted, the art of compromise and mutual solution.

In the wake of the Times Square bomber, as occurred after the Christmas Day airliner attempt, the validity of the Miranda warning has returned to the arena for public debate.
“How to modernize Miranda for the Age of Terror”
by Charles Krauthammer
Washington Post
Published: Friday, May 7, 2010
http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/X109GB/1H7QM/IYEU66/4DEA4E/R8MED/28/h
Charlie wants to expand the “public safety” exception for use in the War on Islamic Fascism and other such future episodes. He points to one particular Supreme Court case – New York v. Quarles [467 U.S. 649 (1984); no. 82-1213]. The case established what has become known as the “public safety” exception to the Miranda warning. Miranda v. Arizona [384 U.S. 436 (1966)] On 11.September.1980, two NYPD officers responded to an assault and rape call. From the victim’s description, the officers spotted a man matching the description, going into a supermarket. They cornered Benjamin Quarles in the back storeroom. Subdued and handcuffed, Officer Frank Craft searched Quarles and discovered an empty shoulder holster. Before any of the four officers surrounding Quarles read him his Miranda rights, Officer Kraft asked him where the gun was. Quarles pointed to a stack of empty boxes. The officers found the gun. The State did not prosecute Quarles for the rape or assault, rather for the gun possession, to which the prosecution used the evidence solely from the “public safety” interrogation as a direct, factual demonstration of guilt. The Supremes overruled the trial and appeals courts, and allowed the submission of the gun and Quarles’ confession as “public safety” exceptions to the long-standing Miranda warning. Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote for the dissent. “The majority should not be permitted to elude the [Fifth] Amendment's absolute prohibition simply by calculating special costs that arise when the public safety is at issue. Indeed, were constitutional adjudication always conducted in such an ad hoc manner, the Bill of Rights would be a most unreliable protector of individual liberties.” On a side note before I get to my opinion(s), I have long admired the judicial writing of Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor; Quarles is the most disappointing of her opinions that I have read to date – sad actually. Nonetheless, the Quarles case represents a regression of our civil rights and an enhancement of the power of the State over the individual citizen. The topic of Miranda’s applicability continues to be a recurring topic of discussion with our Son – Deputy Taylor. He contends that Miranda is outdated; a citizen should know his rights; criminals often know the law better than the police. The exigencies of the War on Islamic Fascism compounded the social and legal consequences of the “public safety” exception. Krauthammer advocates for expansion of the “public safety” exception to Miranda, which would in turn expand the power of the State over the individual. Is such expansion warranted? Yes! Is such an expansion fraught with risk of abuse and overzealousness? Yes, absolutely . . . as we have born witness in the abuses of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 [PL 107-056], the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 [PL 91-513], the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 [PL 91-452], among so many others. The Miranda warning was intended to inform citizens of their constitutional rights as a counter-balance against the State’s awesome and intimidating power. The Quarles ruling opened up an even greater ambiguity. What defines a “public safety” exigency? Under current law, the interpretation leans toward law enforcement, i.e., if a police officer feels threatened, that is sufficient, and the evidence derived from his pre-Miranda, custodial interrogation of an individual person. If the Supremes can see an interrogation like Benjamin Quarles experienced that day in 1980 as a “public safety” situation, then virtually any arrest circumstance can be established as such an event. Lastly, since the ancillary issue cannot be avoided in discussions of this nature . . . in the continuing debate surrounding liberal & conservative judges, activist versus traditionalist justices, an image emerges from the morass of politically charged words in the public debate. The judiciary appears to be the mirror image of the political branches with so-called liberal, activist judges siding more often with individual rights over the State, while the so-called conservative, self-anointed traditionalist judges have taken the Constitution as a Federalist manifesto. Let it suffice to say, I am an odd combination, but I ultimately want balance between the individual citizen’s, personal choices regarding “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness” with the true needs of the common, public good. Quarles went too far in the wrong direction, just as so many of the other Federalist cases have gone. We need to backtrack on the path we have been on for several decades now.

News from the economic front:
-- Germany's financial regulation agency announced it is banning naked short-selling of certain euro-zone debt offerings and credit default swaps as well as some financial stocks. Naked short selling is the trading of shares that are not borrowed in advance, i.e., selling air. The practice has been identified as a major contributor to the Greek credit crisis.
-- The Senate passed HR 4173 – The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act – with amendments, which means the bill must go to a conference committee. Both chambers must pass the reconciled bill. Like health reform, the financial reform bill fails to deal with the elephants in the room, namely “too big to fail” or FannieMae & FreddieMac . . . at least not yet, but also not likely at this stage. It would appear the bill in a similar form will pass into law in a month or so.
-- The Securities and Exchange Commission acknowledged the existing market trading circuit breakers did not work on 6.May [438], when the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped nearly 1,000 points in minutes, and recognized the circuit breakers were outdated. The SEC also announced new measures will be deployed to avoid a repeat of the dramatic market decline. The agency said trading should be halted in any stock if its value dives more than 10% in 5 minutes.
-- The Labor Department reported U.S. consumer prices edged 0.1% lower in April from March, the first decline in more than a year, which means inflation remains low after exclusion of food and energy segments. The latest information should allow the Federal Reserve to leave short-term interest rates at record low levels to stimulate the recovery.

Comments and contributions from Update no.439:
Comment to the Blog:
“Congratulations in escaping the tornado risk. I trust that you have thanked anything your worship and studied the incident for lessons to be applied in future events. After all, your work uses that method, and it works.
“I did not understand the conclusion of the item concerning the Marines. Does he or does he not want the Marines to continue as a semi-separate service?
“I agree with your point about "activist" justices called conservatives who make changes favoring corporations. I will add that, as we no longer have the Founding Fathers to consult in these matters, a certain level of interpretation has become necessary. The arguments, veiled in smokescreens, always concern which interpretation more closely matches the intent of those who argue a given position. Personally, I see the Constitution as designed to protect the people (individuals, not governments or corporations) from all other interests.
“The change of attitude by the Pope could foretell important progress in society as a whole. While it's too soon to say so with certainty, the Church (inseparable from the Pope) might finally be ready to lead a positive transformation.
“About the cross in Death Valley: I will happily believe that the Death Valley VFW did its best back in 1934. I would take a different tack in bringing about change. Rather than honor only those whose symbol is the cross, why not honor all the belief systems claimed by those soldiers? Surely there's room somewhere near the cross for a Star of David and other appropriate symbols. I will stipulate here that I would not expect anyone in World War I to have claimed my religion, as it was illegal at that time. Therefore, I would not expect our symbol to be displayed there.
“I hope to see the big banks finally atone for some measure of their vicious and fraudulent behavior, but I will note here that the current banking bill does little to prevent future crashes. "Too big to fail" is still too big. The bill does include a potential amendment requiring the spinning off of derivative businesses, so it may be of some use.
“The crisis in the Gulf of Mexico continues to grow. Even if the new solution stopped all new pollution (which is not claimed), we would still be suffering the consequences for years into the future. All the same, the Obama administration has not seen fit to suspend new offshore drilling, much less prohibit it. Nor has that liability cap amount of $75 million been raised.
“This has grown very long, so I'll give up here.”
My reply to the Blog:
Lesson learned . . . indeed . . . avoid being caught in the open (on the road) when tornadic thunderstorms are close on.
SecDef Bob Gates has been making statements that imply the Marine Corps may have outlived its relevance. Regardless of what he thinks or says, an act of Congress formed the Continental Marines on 10.November.1775. Only an act of Congress can disband the naval infantry service.
Spot on the money . . . that is precisely what the Constitution was created for . . . protect individual liberty from the oppression of government, and further to limit the power of the Federal government to avoid concentrating power.
We shall see if the Pope follows through with his expressed reform. Better late than never.
A worthy and reasonable suggestion regarding the Mojave Memorial Cross. However, my point was that cross was beyond reproach; it stood for 70+ years without offense or contest. We simply cannot expunge such symbols from our heritage – the fabric of our society and culture. The connection between the USG and that cross was so tenuous as to be invisible. The original suit should have been dismissed at the outset.
It was not just big banks that pushed us to the edge of the abyss. It was also a big insurance company that insured risk far beyond rational or reasonable. It was mortgage companies that had no scruples. It was greed . . . getting something for nothing. I agree . . . the current legislation barely puts a nick in rescinding the deregulation of a decade ago, let alone three decades back, or taking us to a proper new level. I’m all for using the Sherman Antitrust Act [PL 51-190] – still valid 120 years later – to break up any institution that is too big to fail. Capitalism depends upon the threat of failure. Hopefully, Congress will find some modicum of courage to do what must be done.
I am willing to take BP at their word to make good on the clean up . . . until we have reason to see they won’t. I am not in favor of suspending offshore drilling because of one bad accident. If we want to stop drilling, we should focus on an alternative energy revolution, not putting band-aids on a gaping wound.

Another observation:
“So still no car wreck to add to your resume. You get so F-ing lucky!”
My response:
As we say in the flying biz . . . better lucky than good. Lucky indeed! Any one of a number of factors might have produced a dramatically different outcome. Nonetheless, I freely admit my error in judgment. Like I said, no harm, no foul.

Another contribution:
“Fascinated by your and Jeanne's storm experience last week. Storms of that nature do not occur at this lat and long, thank God, although have experienced some wild moments abroad. But not a Tornado. Having written about storms in Kansas perhaps I should! (Still not finished my latest, still have my crew bobbing about in the western approaches about to be rescued by one of your destroyers) A bit on the slack side this end but family matters are paramount, where they belong.”
My reply:
Family first, indeed
Tornados are generally spot storms as compared to hurricanes or blizzards, so they can be avoided . . . if you know where they are. The lesson learned from that episode of luck . . . best not be on the roadway when tornados are about.

Another observation:
“Glad you're OK after that close call on a rain-slicked road.”
My response:
Thx. A little too close of a call . . . not interested in doing that again.

A different contribution:
“Glad to hear you and Jeanne are all right. Man, that had to be some scary ordeal there.
“This Buono guy makes me laugh. How overly sensitive must this guy be to be offended by a cross? And a cross and plaque that simply honors the brave men who died in WWI. Just another example of someone who thinks his feelings are more important than everyone else's and wants to pee on everyone's parade. We're not talking about a swastika, which clearly represented something evil. Buono needs to get himself a life.”
My response:
Scary is an understatement, but I was far more scared for what position I had put Jeanne in than I ever was about myself. The crosswise on the highway was just stupid; no big deal. But, I had visions of Jeanne getting caught in the open . . . that scared the hell out of me.
You got that right on Buono. I was disappointed the Supremes did not smack him up’side the head, but they went as far as they could go under the law. We’ll see how the remand goes.

One last contribution:
“In my quick skim of this week's update the following caught my eye:
“Is the Marine Corps just another army?” I believe my blood pressure took a rise and I think I felt my skin crawl a bit, but it definitely made me wonder who would ask such a question. Without going down that road, let me just reiterate that which Cap has already stated for I too am "dreadfully biased." Anyone who has worn the Globe & Anchor knows full well that the Marine Corps is not just another army. It is well more than that, but it is something that cannot remotely be understood by those who have not served in the Marine Corps, let alone served at all. I am fortunate to be in a position that puts me in constant contact with members of our armed services; many of the customers I deal with obviously still serving. Many know that I am a Marine and accord me a certain level of respect for having served in the Marine Corps. I am grateful for their service and I am honored at the respect for which they exhibit toward the Marine Corps. This in and of itself tells me other services think of the Marine Corps as something other than just another army.
“Go and spend a few hours at the National Museum of the Marine Corps in Quantico. Pay a visit to Arlington and walk around the base of the Iwo Jima Memorial. Read the inscriptions.
“Semper Fi, my brothers and sisters.”
My reply:
I cannot and need not add more to your spirited words. We share the same views of our history as Soldiers of the Sea.
Semper Fidelis, my Brother.

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